developing an integrated approach to maritime … · framework against maritime terrorism in the...

S. Rajaratnam School Of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Block S4, Level B4, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798

TEL 65-6790-6982 FAX 65-6793-2991 EMAIL [email protected] WEBSITE www.rsis.edu.sgDes

ign

by O

xyge

n St

udio

Des

igns

WORKSHOP FOR ASEAN MEMBER STATES ON

DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED APPROACHTO MARITIME SECURITY THROUGH THE

COUNTER-TERRORISM CONVENTION,CRIMINAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW:

LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, CAPACITY BUILDING

09–10 JUNE 2009SINGAPORE

CONFERENCE REPORT

9 – 10 JUNE 2009SINGAPORE

S. RAJARATNAM SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (RSIS)NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, SINGAPOREANDTHE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME (UNODC)2009


DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO MARITIME SECURITY THROUGH THE COUNTER-TERRORISM CONVENTION, CRIMINAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW:


Contents Page

1. Executive Summary

2. Welcome Remarks

3. How can the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Support the Suppression of Crimes Committed at Sea?

4. The Global Framework Against Maritime Terrorism in the International Legal Context

5. The 2005 SUA Protocol: New Offences and Boarding Provisions

6. The Role of the ASEAN Convention on Counter-Terrorism in the Context of Maritime Security

7. Prevention and Suppression of Crime at Sea: Lessons and Experience from the Littoral States in the Malacca Straits

8. The Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships in Asia

9. International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of Terrorist Crimes: Legal Framework and Practical Tips

10. Countering Offences Committed at Sea through Criminal Justice Mechanisms: Interplay between Existing International Instruments

11. Nuclear Proliferation and Sea Transport: The Role of the NPT and Comprehensive Safeguard Agreements (CSA) within the 2005 SUA Protocol

12. Case Study on Maritime Legal Issues and Open Discussion

3

4

6

8

9

10

12

15

17

18

19

21

This report summarizes the proceedings of the conference as interpreted by the assigned rapporteurs and editors of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. Participants neither reviewed nor approved this report.

This conference adheres to a variation of the Chatham House Rule. Accordingly, beyond the speakers and paper presenters cited, no other attributions have been included in this report.

Rapporteur: Dr. R. Bhanu Krishna Kiran

3WORKSHOP FOR ASEAN MEMBER STATES ON DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO MARITIME SECURITY

THROUGH THE COUNTER-TERRORISM CONVENTION, CRIMINAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, CAPACITY BUILDING

From 9 – 10 June 2009, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) organized a regional workshop for ASEAN member states on maritime security at Meritus Mandarin Hotel, Singapore. The workshop examined how an integrated approach to maritime security could be developed through the adoption of relevant counterterrorism conventions, criminal and international law instruments. The workshop was attended by a combination of international legal experts from the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), UNODC, practising lawyers, academicians and representatives of ASEAN states.

Threats to maritime security include maritime terrorism, piracy and armed robbery against ships, illicit trafficking in drugs and arms, human trafficking, damage to the marine environment and illegal fishing. It is critical that a comprehensive approach to enhance cooperation within the countries in the region and coordination with the international community is adopted to counter these threats. Meanwhile, all ASEAN countries should ratify the relevant international conventions related to the prevention and suppression of crimes committed at sea. However, simply ratifying the conventions is not the only solution to tackle the threats as the provisions relevant to prevent and suppress the crimes committed at sea must also be adopted into national legislation. To clarify the various legal perspectives and build up the capacity of ASEAN states to deal with maritime security threats, the speakers gave exhaustive presentations on how the maritime agreements and 16 counterterrorism conventions interplay to counter the offences committed at sea. The importance of regional cooperation and coordination with the international stake holders was also highlighted by some presenters.

Law of the Sea and Ocean Affairs Officer Mr. Michele Ameri gave a comprehensive review of the the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provisions pertaining to specific crimes committed at sea. Senior Terrorism Prevention Officer of the UNODC Terrorism

Prevention Branch Mr. Walter Gehr examined the global framework against maritime terrorism in the context of international law and highlighted the significance of ratifying the 2005 Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA) Protocol. Senior Legal Officer and Head of International Maritime Law and Technical Co-operation section (International Maritime Organisation) Mr. Christopher Young discussed the implications of the introduction of new offences and boarding provisions under the 2005 SUA Protocol. Dr. Mary Anna Palma presented on the role of the ASEAN Convention on Counterterrorism in the context of maritime security.

The safety of navigation and maritime security in the Straits of Malacca is a pertinent issue to Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Mr. Adam Mulawarman of Indonesia, Mrs. Norhasliza Mat Salleh of Malaysia and Lieutenant Colonel David Foo of Singapore shared their experiences of bilateral and regional efforts to prevent and suppress crimes at sea. Complementing these presentations on regional cooperation, Senior Manager of Operations and Programmes Toong Ka Leong spoke on the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP).

An appropriate criminal justice mechanism is indispensable to counter the offences committed at sea. Often, states face many challenges in obtaining legal assistance in maritime related criminal cases. The issue of criminal justice mechanisms was discussed by Professor Keisuke Senta from the viewpoint of a domestic criminal lawyer and by Mr. Stefano Betti from that of an international lawyer. The final presentation by Mr Ionut Suseanu drew attention to the issue of nuclear proliferation and sea transport.

At the end of the two-day workshop, a case study was designed to highlight the issues which were discussed. The intention of the case study was to examine the practical aspects of the subject matters debated during the two-day workshop.

Executive Summary



Ms. Lim Kheng Hua, Director (International Organisations), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore

Ms. Lim extended a warm welcome to the participants of the workshop and thanked UNODC and RSIS for putting together a comprehensive programme and an impressive panel of speakers.

In her address, Ms. Lim raised the unprecedented nature of threats which were crucial to maritime safety and security. These are acts of terrorism and piracy, and the illicit trafficking of drugs, firearms, and people by sea. She pointed out that any disruption to the trade flows due to these threats would lead to a serious impact on the economy at the global level. This could also debilitate the social situations of states because 95 per cent of trade volume is moved by the sea.

The highly complex nature of the problem is a challenge to the adequacy of established practices of applicable norms and international law. Ms. Lim emphasized the significance of adopting a multinational approach to mitigate the current and future challenges to maritime security by quoting the international cooperation exercise in the Gulf of Aden as an example.

Ms. Lim stated that Singapore always took a serious view of any threats to the freedom of navigation as well as to port security. This is because the Straits of Malacca and Singapore are among the world’s busiest waterways connecting Asia to the Middle East and Europe, with one quarter of the world’s trade passing through the Straits annually. Any disruption in the freedom of navigation in the Straits would therefore lead to serious repercussions not only at the regional level but also at the global level.

Singapore has therefore been supportive of international legal instruments that help to enhance maritime safety and security. Such international legal instruments are useful in helping guide and coordinate our practice in combating crime at sea. Notably, Singapore played an active role in framing the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and was one of the first countries to implement the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code.

Singapore is also sharing its experience of implementing the ISPS Code with other countries through capacity-building programmes. Singapore is also a party to the Safety of Life At Sea (SOLAS) Convention and the Suppression of Unlawful Activities against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA) Convention. In addition to implementing international legal instruments, Singapore works closely with neighbouring states and other Asian countries through various regional initiatives to improve maritime security in our region. For instance, it is taking part in joint patrols with Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand along the Straits of Malacca. Singapore also works with neighbouring nations to combat armed robbery and piracy through the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP). In 2007, Singapore also established a cooperative mechanism together with Malaysia and Indonesia to enhance the safety of navigation and environmental protection in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore.

Ms. Lim noted that the decline in trade volumes as a result of the global downturn did not mean that we should delay implementing measures to reinforce maritime safety and security since the impact of the downturn on employment and livelihoods would likely result in an increase in acts of piracy and the smuggling of contraband items. Hence, it was precisely because of the downturn that countries have to step up their efforts to combat crimes at sea.

Ms. Lim expressed the hope that the process of reviewing the international legal instruments and the interaction at the workshop would set the basis for further cooperation between countries to enhance maritime safety and security in our region.

Ms. Lim Kheng Hua

Welcome Remarks



Mr. Walter Gehr Mr. Christopher Young

Mr. Walter Gehr, Chief, Counter- Terrorism Legal Services Section I, UNODC

Walter Gehr gave his opening remarks by expressing his gratitude at participating in the workshop with the other distinguished delegates from the IMO, IAEA, and Office of the Legal Affairs of the United Nations. He underscored the importance of working closely with these organizations in lieu of technical assistance in relation to implementation of SUA Protocol, non-proliferation of nuclear material and law of the sea issues. He hoped that the present workshop would catalyse the ratification of the abovementioned instruments among the ASEAN states.

Gehr gave a brief introduction of the two-day workshop by introducing each presenter and highlighting the importance of their topics in relation to the challenge of terrorism and maritime security. More importantly, Gehr commented that the workshop provided a good opportunity to interact and learn from each other’s experiences. Delegates could also understand the importance of issues such as a universal legal regime against terrorism, contributions to maritime security, the preservation of the marine environment and the non-proliferation of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Lastly, Gehr expressed his appreciation and thanked the contribution of countries, namely, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States to the global project against terrorism, which constituted the umbrella under which the present workshop was organized. In addition, he particularly highlighted the contribution of New Zealand through the provision of financial support for the organisation of the workshop.

Mr. Christopher Young, Deputy Director / Head, International Maritime Law and Technical, International Maritime Organization (IMO)

Christopher Young expressed his pleasure at participating in the workshop and conveyed the warm greetings of the Secretary General of IMO to the participants of the workshop. The Secretary General of IMO also assured participants that it would provide technical assistance to promote the implementation of the 2005 SUA Protocol and capacity building in this specialized area of law.

IMO and the UNODC had launched a new effort to cooperate more closely on a wider range of activities that provided practical assistance and made the most effective use of technical cooperation resources, particularly since the components and expertise regarding the issues of terrorism, piracy, armed robbery, and other international crimes at sea were inter-related.

The Secretary General of IMO expressed his readiness to further invest in joint IMO and UNODC activities, bearing in mind the increasing need for ongoing and concerted cooperation not only in connection with piracy and armed robbery against ships, but also the wider scope of action to fight crimes at sea.

Young concluded by declaring that the workshop was a demonstration of shared commitment.



Mr. Michele Ameri, UN DOA LOS

Michele Ameri began his presentation with a general introduction of UNCLOS, followed by specific provisions for combating crimes in various maritime zones and finally a discussion on the provisions of the Convention, which related to specific crimes such as piracy, illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, wilful and unlawful damage to the marine environment, and illegal fishing.

UNCLOS was opened for signature on 10 December 1982 and came into force in 1994. It contains a comprehensive set of rules and regulations for the use of ocean spaces and their resources. Two Implementing Agreements on Part IX and Management of Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks were also negotiated. 158 States are now parties to the Convention. The provisions of the Convention are now considered part of customary international law. Hence, even non-States Parties in many cases adhere to UNCLOS.

With regard to combating of crimes at sea, it is vital to know the rights and limits in various maritime zones. Ameri outlined the rights and obligations of states in different zones. UNCLOS defines the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and high seas, and provides for some special zones like internal waters, archipelagic waters and straits used for international navigation. Generally, in internal waters and territorial seas, the coastal state has sovereignty. In contiguous zones, the coastal state may prevent and punish the infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations. In EEZs, coastal states have sovereign rights subject to exploit the living and non-living resources. High seas are explicitly reserved for peaceful purposes. All states enjoy the freedom of navigation and exploitation of resources on the high seas. In each zone, the Convention balances the rights and obligations of coastal states and other flag states. The Convention also establishes the jurisdiction of flag states, which continues to apply regardless of the location of the vessel. This entails both rights and obligations. In this

context, the flag state bears the principal responsibility of ensuring that ships bearing their flags respect and implement the applicable provisions of international law, including UNCLOS and other conventions.

Ameri subsequently discussed crimes at sea. Acts of piracy and armed robbery were of particular concern to the international community as these acts against ships represent a serious threat to the lives of seafarers, the safety of navigation, the marine environment and the security of the coastal states. Articles 100 to 107 of UNCLOS provide the international legal framework for the suppression of piracy. Notably, these provisions have also become part of customary international law. Ameri emphasised the importance of distinguishing between acts of “piracy” and “armed robbery against ships”. Ameri advised the participants to refer to the relevant IMO documents for the revised definition of “armed robbery against ships” and to compare it to Article 101 of UNCLOS which defines an act of piracy.

UNCLOS contains three major provisions relating to the suppression of piracy. First, article 100 establishes a broad duty for all states to cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the suppression of piracy on the high seas. This duty is the cornerstone of the UNCLOS regime for the suppression of piracy and is also the basis for numerous international efforts to cooperate in the suppression of piracy. Second,

How can the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Support the Suppression of Crimes Committed at Sea?

Mr. Michele Ameri



universal jurisdiction as contained in Article 105 of the Convention states that any State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, arrest the persons and seize the property on board, on the high seas. Universal jurisdiction is particularly important to the suppression of piracy because it enables States to take effective action without requiring any connection between the seizing State and the pirates, the victims or the ship involved. The third is the right of visit as set out in Article 110. If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel is engaged in, inter alia, acts of piracy, the ship may be boarded and documents inspected. If suspicion remains after the initial inspection, further examination on board the ship may be conducted.

Ameri noted that the right of visit is also valid in cases of illicit trafficking of narcotic and psychotropic substances if the ship under suspicion is without nationality, or if it is of the same nationality as the enforcing vessel. However, the right of visit should be exercised carefully because if suspicions prove to be unfounded and the ship in question has not committed any act justifying the suspicions, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained. Other safeguards (Articles 106 and 107) are available with regard to the actions taken to suppress piracy on high seas. Moreover, other provisions of international law, including UNCLOS, continue to apply at all times. This includes international human rights norms and restrictions on the use of force at sea.

The acts of armed robbery against ships are normally within the exclusive jurisdiction of the coastal state in the territorial sea. The coastal state may also exercise the right of hot pursuit to continue an enforcement action commenced within the territorial sea onto the EEZ or high seas. Such acts are also addressed under the SUA Convention. In addition to the UNCLOS regime on piracy and armed robbery, Ameri mentioned other relevant instruments such as Security Council Resolutions on Somalia, General Assembly Resolutions, IMO’s non-binding instruments and regional initiatives such as the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP).

Illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is one of the crimes specifically mentioned in UNCLOS. Article 108 addresses the duty of all states to cooperate in the suppression of illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances on high seas and in the EEZs by virtue of article 58(2). Its provisions are supplemented by Article 17 of the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Other relevant provisions in combating the illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are the right of visit, the right of hot pursuit and the provisions relating to contiguous zones.

Another pertinent issue UNCLOS deals with is the intentional and unlawful damage to the marine environment. The Convention establishes a detailed regime for addressing this. The Convention specifies the types of legislation that can be adopted to control the pollution from vessels, land based sources, dumping, atmospheric sources as well as other sources in various maritime zones. It sets out the enforcement rights of flag, port and coastal states, which are subject to a series of safeguards.

Illegal fishing is also extensively covered under UNCLOS, particularly because illegal fishing activity is incompatible with the right of innocent passage in the territorial sea. In EEZs, the coastal state has sovereign rights over its living resources and can enforce laws and regulations under Article 73. The Convention is very specific with regard to the conservation and management of living resources in the high seas. Articles 117 and 118 provide for such measures, which are complemented by the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Transporting of slaves, unauthorized broadcasting from the high seas, and breaking or damaging a submarine cable or pipeline are other illegal activities covered under UNCLOS.

In conclusion, Ameri accentuated that UNCLOS establishes the basic framework for cooperation within which all measures to suppress crimes at sea can be taken. Therefore, it is important to perceive UNCLOS as a key maritime security instrument.



The Global Framework Against Maritime Terrorism in the International Legal Context

Mr. Walter Gehr, UNODC

In his presentation, Walter Gehr spelled out that the subtitle of his presentation is the importance of ratifying the 2005 Protocol of the SUA Convention. He highlighted that these maritime instruments should not be isolated from the international law context, as there are many terrorism conventions dealing with specific issues. Gehr applied these counterterrorism conventions in two different maritime contexts: first, the SUA Convention and its Protocols in the context of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) efforts, and; second, the SUA Convention and its Protocols in the context of the International Convention on Transnational Organized Crime.

The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy is a wider political strategy which endorses and confirms all universal legal instruments on terrorism. Its legal framework consists of four major pillars. The first is the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 1373, which directs States to address terrorism in an abstract manner. The second is UNSC Resolution 1540, which deals with threats posed by non-state actors with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Next, UNSC Resolution 1822 focuses on sanction regimes against Al Qaida and Taliban. The fourth pillar is made up of instruments including the 1988 Convention on the Safety of Maritime Navigation, the 1988 Fixed Platforms Protocol and the 2005 IMO Protocols on safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed Platforms.

There are 16 international legal instruments that address terrorism, and four sets of universal counterterrorism treaties, instruments related to civil aviation, maritime agreements, and IAEA Conventions. These conventions share common elements such as criminalizing specific offences, establishing the principle of aut dedere aut judicare (to extradite or prosecute), and providing for extradition and mutual legal assistance mechanisms. Moreover, these conventions are compatible with existing instruments dealing with the proliferation of WMD. The SUA treaties of 1988 and 2005 constitute an international response against terrorism aboard ships and fixed platforms, armed robbery at sea, and the proliferation

of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The treaties also constitute a response in support of environmental protection. SUA 1988 criminalizes offences directed towards vessels and platforms, which include seizing or exercising control over the vessel or fixed platform by force, threat or any other form of intimidation, violence that endangers the safety of the vessel or fixed platform, or any sabotage of the ship. Such elements are similar to those of piracy. The SUA treaties contribute to the implementation of Article 101 of UNCLOS, and the thwarting of armed robbery. Gehr advocated that the maritime conventions should be looked at not only from the point of terrorism but also from the point of combating piracy.

Maritime agreements not only contribute to tackling maritime offences, but also to offences involving illicit use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, nuclear material, explosives, radioactive material, oil, liquefied gas, and other hazardous or noxious substances. WMD-related offences are criminalized by virtue of the 2005 SUA treaty. In this instrument, the definition of chemical and biological weapons is in line with the existing biological and chemical weapons conventions. The 2005 SUA Protocol includes new offences like using a WMD against a ship or fixed platform, discharging a WMD from a ship or fixed platform, and transporting nuclear weapons on board ships.

Gehr believed that the issue of environmental protection was overlooked in the earlier treaties unlike the 2005 Protocol, which criminalizes the use or discharge of explosives, radioactive material, nuclear, biological, chemical weapons or oil, liquefied natural gas or other hazardous and noxious substances, and the intention of using them to intimidate a population or to compel a government or international organization. The Protocol is applicable to acts involving the use of these materials in a manner that causes death, serious injury or damage, including environmental damage to air, soil, water, fauna or flora.

The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime is another legal instrument which can be used against maritime offences. In the absence of a required treaty basis, this convention can be used as a subsidiary application. Provisions such as confiscation



and seizure (Article 13.6), mutual legal assistance (Article 18.7), extradition (Articles 16.4 and 5) and mutual law enforcement cooperation (Article 27.2) are applicable in the context of maritime offences.

In conclusion, Gehr explicated on the role of UNODC in implementing the 16 instruments dealing with counterterrorism, and outlined the usefulness of UNODC’s legislative guides, legislative databases and manuals

on international cooperation in the implementation of measures. The agency offered technical assistance via online training to persons involved in legal areas of international cooperation in criminal matters. In implementing the global norms against terrorism, the agency partnered the UN counterterrorism committee (CTC) and its executive directorate and other related international and regional organizations.

The 2005 SUA Protocol: New Offences and Boarding Provisions

Mr. Christopher Young, IMO

Christopher Young gave an in-depth presentation of the 2005 SUA Protocol, providing details of new offences, boarding provisions and their relationship with the NPT and international humanitarian law. He also underscored the settlement of disputes clause of the protocol.

Young began with the 1988 SUA Convention. The Achille Lauro incident in 1985 revealed the legal uncertainties concerning the fundamental issues of the law of the sea. To address the gaps, the 1988 SUA Convention came into existence. However, this maritime legal instrument did not address the shortcomings of the law of the sea and international criminal law. It had no law enforcement provisions to address an impending offence. After substantial reviews and discussions, the 2005 Protocol to the SUA Convention was introduced. It contained new provisions that addressed new offences, such as boarding a ship beyond the territorial sea on reasonable grounds of suspicion towards a ship or person on board.

Young demonstrated that four sub-groups of new offences were introduced by Article 3bis of the 2005 SUA Protocol, namely, offences with motives of terror, transport offences, NPT and its exceptions, and other offences. Using or discharging explosives, radioactive material or biological, chemical and nuclear weapons against a ship or from ship, discharging oil, LNG and hazardous and noxious substances, using the ship in a manner causing death or serious injury or damage, and threatening to commit the above said three offences were introduced in the 2005 SUA Protocol. The transport of explosives, radioactive materials, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, fissionable material or equipment designed to use, process or produce special fissionable material, equipment or software technology

contributing to BCN weapons are covered under transport offences. The transport of fissionable material or related equipment and technology is not an offence if such transportation is controlled by a State Party to the NPT, and is subjected to the conditions of the treaty.

The other offence category includes assisting fugitives. This category applies to any person unlawfully and intentionally transporting another person on board a ship, knowing that the person has committed an act that constitutes an offence according to the Protocol, or an offence set forth in any treaty listed in the Annex of anti-terrorism instruments, and intending to assist that person to evade criminal prosecution.

With reference to the application of jurisdiction provisions, there are two categories — mandatory and optional. The mandatory jurisdiction is applicable when the offence is committed against or on board a ship flying the flag of the state at the time of the offence, within the territory of that state (including its territorial sea) by a national of that state who is present in the state and is not extradited to any of the state parties. The optional jurisdiction can be invoked when the offence is committed by a stateless person who resides in that state, and a national of that state is seized, threatened, injured or killed and committed an attempt to compel that state to do or abstain from doing an act.

Young termed the principle of extradition or prosecution, endowed by Article 10, as the heart of the SUA Convention. In addition, Article 8 permits the master of the ship belonging to the flag state to deliver to the authorities of any other receiving state any person whom the master has reason to believe has committed an offence set forth in the Article 3, 3bis, 3ter, or 3 quater.



In addition to the inclusion of new offences, the major contribution of the SUA Protocol was the act of boarding at sea. Article 8bis permits the requesting party to approach a ship of the flag state located seaward of any state’s territorial sea if it has reason to suspect that the ship or person on board the ship has been, is or is about to be involved in the commission of an offence set forth in the convention, and the requesting party desiring to board has to request the flag state confirm the claim of nationality. If nationality is confirmed, the requesting party can solicit the flag state for authorization to board. The requesting party shall not stop, board or search the ship without the express authorization of the flag state. It is possible under Article 8bis that a state party notify the Secretary General if there is no response to confirm the nationality within four hours. Another notification is also likely when the state party is authorized to board and search the ship. These two notifications are at the absolute responsibility of the state party.

Article 8bis introduced safeguards in the case of boarding and searching a ship. To avoid endangering life at sea, all

persons on board are to be treated in a manner which preserves their basic human dignity, in compliance with international law, including international human rights law. The SUA treaty must also be implemented with due regard to the other rights and responsibilities of the states and individuals under international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United National and International human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.

Any dispute between two or more states parties concerning the interpretation or application of the convention can be settled first through negotiations, then by arbitration. If arbitration fails, any of the parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice.

Lastly, Young manifested the importance of the Annex to SUA because of fugitive offences. The Annex contains conventions which are of non-maritime nature, but these still come under the purview of SUA if individuals committed offences under these conventions, which is useful in prosecuting such individuals.

The Role of the ASEAN Convention on Counter-Terrorism in the Context of Maritime Security

Dr. Mary Anna Palma, RSIS

Apart from the global dimension, there is also a regional dimension on maritime security and counterterrorism. Mary Anna Palma examined the role of the ASEAN Convention on counterterrorism and its approach to look at the provisions related to the maritime security.

The ASEAN Convention on Counter-Terrorism was opened for signature on 13 January 2007 and has yet to come into force, as it has been ratified by fewer than 6 ASEAN members. This convention aims to provide a framework for regional cooperation to counter, prevent and suppress terrorism in all forms and manifestations, and to deepen cooperation among law enforcement agencies and relevant authorities of state parties in countering terrorism. The basic principle of the convention is that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group. The convention also addresses

principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of states, and non-interference in the internal affairs of the state parties. It marks a key point that terrorism is a profound threat to international peace, progress and security, and a direct challenge to the attainment of peace, progress and prosperity for ASEAN as well as the realization of ASEAN vision 2020.

The ASEAN Convention basically relates to the international conventions on terrorism. Article II of the ASEAN Convention enumerates a number of relevant international conventions. Any offence relating to these conventions (e.g. the SUA Convention) is also an offence under the ASEAN Convention. For example, a seizure or exercise of control over a ship by force, threat or any other intimidation and a performance of an act of violence against a person aboard that is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship is considered an offence.



Palma explained that the jurisdictional aspects of the ASEAN Convention related to offences covered in Article II. First, a party to the convention can establish jurisdiction over an offence when it is committed in the territory of the party. This also applies when the offence is committed on board a vessel flying the flag of the party or a registered aircraft under the laws of the party at the time of the offence committed, and when the offence is committed by a national of that party. Second, a party may establish jurisdiction when the offence is committed against a national of that party, or when the offence is committed against the state or governmental facility of the party abroad, including its embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises. Third, jurisdiction may be established when the offence is committed in an attempt to compel a party to do or to abstain from any act, or when the offence is committed by a stateless person with habitual residence in the territory of that party. The ASEAN Convention also includes other provisions on fair treatment of persons, status of refugees, mutual legal assistance, rehabilitative programmes, extradition, confidentiality of documents, and institutional framework.

In summary, the duties of the states under the ASEAN Convention are divided into two — to establish jurisdiction, and to establish appropriate measures in the areas of cooperation. The areas of cooperation include exchange of information prevention and suppression of financing terrorist acts, capacity building, public awareness, cross-border cooperation, development of regional databases, and research and development of measures to counter terrorism. States must establish such cooperation at regional, sub-regional levels and national levels.

Palma pointed out that it is difficult to harmonize the legislations of ASEAN countries and discussed the utility of and compliance to the ASEAN Convention. The purpose of

the convention would be justified if regional cooperation is fostered operationally, tactically and strategically to counter the terrorism. With respect to the compliance of ASEAN convention with other conventions, Palma believed that wording of the provisions did not encourage compliance even though the preamble encourages the states to be parties of other international conventions. She mentioned the provision of withdrawal (Article XX II), which permits the state to withdraw from the convention at any time. Palma believed that the areas of cooperation were broad enough to encourage bilateral, regional, and sub-regional counter-terrorism activities, but questioned whether they were too broad to ensure effective implementation.

Palma concluded that the ASEAN Convention does not directly address issues on maritime security. Consequently, there is a need to go beyond the ASEAN Convention on Counter Terrorism to tackle maritime issues. There is also a necessity for closer examination of the SUA convention and its protocols. Furthermore, other maritime security related instruments like UNCLOS, ISPS Code, Seafarers ID Convention, Long-range Information and Tracking of Vessels under SOLAS Regulations and other IMO guidance and circulars have to be considered.

Dr. Mary Anna Palma



Prevention and Suppression of Crime at Sea:Lessons and Experience from the Littoral States in the Malacca Straits

Mr. Adam Mulawarman Tugio, Indonesia

Adam Mulawarman began with a brief introduction on the importance of the Straits of Malacca. Over 60,000 vessels pass through this strategic waterway per year, making the straits one of the busiest straits in the world and a global Sea Lane of Communication. Therefore, it is paramount to ensure safety of navigation and maritime security. Indonesian maritime policy also prioritizes protection of the surrounding marine environment.

Mulawarman discussed the necessity to deal with the issue of safety of navigation and protection of the marine environment system comprehensively. He noted from Articles 19(2), 25(3) and 52(3) that UNCLOS makes no reference to the issue of maritime security other than from the perspective of coastal states. There is no single agreed definition of threats to maritime security. The differences between piracy and maritime terrorism result in further complexities. Piracy and maritime terrorism have different objectives (private versus political). Additionally, both operate with dissimilar modus operandi. While pirates work to preserve the cargo and get ransom, terrorists operate in a destructive manner to spread terror.

Mulawarman believed that maritime security needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner by avoiding a selective and partial approach. For Indonesia, an archipelagic state and its location which lies across two oceans, such threats pose challenges for the Indonesian law enforcement unit, particularly in the area of controlling Indonesia’s abundant marine resources. In order to have a better understanding of the situation in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, Indonesia must adhere to UNCLOS.

To shed further light on the perspective of Indonesia, Mulawarman examined the basic principles and institutional framework of Indonesia — that of respecting the sovereignty of littoral states, and ensuring the safety of navigation and maritime security. International consensus on the new regime of transit passage as reflected in Article 34(1) of UNCLOS mirrors this understanding. To ensure the

safety of navigation and environmental protection, the Tripartite Technical Group was established in 1977. Since then, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have established bilateral and trilateral maritime actions in the region, such as coordinated sea patrol and exercises among all three littoral states. These patrols are further strengthened by coordinated air patrol known as “eyes in the sky”. Such joint measures have proven to be effective in reducing armed robbery incidents at sea. In addition, Indonesia has also established a response centre in Batam, which is close to the straits and ensures immediate and prompt action.

Indonesia is revitalizing the trilateral cooperation of the littoral states by adopting a comprehensive framework for cooperation with user states and other stakeholders based on Article 43 of UNCLOS. Since 2005, four meetings were held with the IMO to meet this objective. The main objective of these meetings was to enhance the safety of navigation, environmental protection and maritime security in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, and building up partnership with the user states and other stakeholders. Indonesia, together with Malaysia and Singapore, initiated the Trilateral Agreement on Information Exchange and Establishment of Communication Procedures in 2005. This agreement deals with cooperation among the countries in preventing the utilization of any one of their respective land-air-sea territories for the purposes of committing or furthering any activities of transnational organized crime. Mechanisms for immediate response and assistance among the parties were also established.

Mr. Adam Mulawarman Tugio



Mrs. Norhasliza Mat Salleh

To conclude the presentation, Mulawarman put forward two Indonesian viewpoints with regard to the safety of navigation in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore - the need to develop the Malacca Straits Transit Corridor (MSTC), and to look at security issues from the land perspective. The MSTC should be divided into separate corridors for dedicated surveillance and coordinated patrol, thus allowing prompt response from the affected littoral states. Another ingredient for security is sustained territorial intelligence. Indonesia believes it is important to maintain stability in the terrestrial part along the coastline of these straits, because operational aspects of any criminal acts at sea are designed on the land.

Mrs. Norhasliza Mat Salleh, Malaysia

Salleh gave a Malaysian perspective by beginning her presentation with the four pillars of Malaysia’s maritime security policy and a profile of the Malacca Straits. The maritime security policy of Malaysia includes sovereignty and territorial integrity, transit passage regime, the Malacca Straits being used for international navigations and not as an international strait, and a comprehensive security environment (safety, security and environmental protection).

The Malacca Straits, a main seaway connecting the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, is a crucial link for international trade and transportation. 80 per cent of Malaysia’s trade and more than 30 per cent of world shipment passes through the Malacca Straits. In addition, 70 per cent of Japan’s energy transportation and 80 per cent of China’s oil import passes through these straits. Post 9/11, sea borne terrorism in the straits has become a potential threat.

Until recently, the Straits of Malacca, located between Malaysia and the Indonesian island of Sumatra, has been a hotspot for piracy. The situation was improved considerably due to efforts undertaken by the littoral states. Endeavours like coast guards, collaboration, and cooperation among stakeholders have enhanced the situation. Since 1997, the littoral states of the Straits of Malacca (Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore) have come up with joint strategies. The Establishment of the Tripartite Technical Expert Group (TTEG) on Safety of Navigation, ASEAN Declaration

on Joint Action to Counter Terrorism, Special ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crime, Coordinated Patrols (MALSINDO), Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP), ASEAN Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, and ASEAN Convention on Counter Terrorism are the crucial tools offered to protect the interests of countries that use the Straits of Malacca for transportation and navigation.

Salleh emphasized two important joint strategies of the littoral states of the Straits of Malacca. In September 2005, the Maritime Surveillance (Eyes in the Sky) plan was launched. In April 2006, the Malacca Straits Patrol Joint Coordinating Committee (MSP JCC) was formed to facilitate the cooperation between the armed forces of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. MSP involves naval units patrolling within the territorial waters of the respective countries. Radar stations were also launched along the Straits of Malacca. The Malaysia Maritime Enforcement Coordination Centre (MECC) based in Lumut acts as the Marine Monitoring and Action Agency (MAA) in Malaysia.

Salleh elaborated on the initiatives of the Malaysian Government. The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) was established on 15 February 2005 to enforce laws governing the sea including piracy, sea robbery, marine pollution, illegal migration and search and rescue operations. MMEA is placed under the Prime Minister’s department. It has five regional commands and contains 100 ships and boats, including helicopters and Bombardier Amphibious Aircrafts that employ new technology.



Salleh concluded by suggesting the following recommendations for consideration:

1. Maritime security threats in Southeast Asia require a comprehensive approach that will enhance cooperation within countries in the region, and promote coordination with the international community.

2. The involvement of the IMO as stipulated under Article 43 of UNCLOS must be pursued vigorously.

3. Any involvement of outside powers should be under international law, and with respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states concerned.

4. Industries and user states need to work closely with the states.

5. Study the root cause of piracy.

LTC David Foo, Singapore

David Foo began by providing an operational perspective of Singapore in suppressing crimes at sea. As a maritime nation, protection of sea lanes in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore are critical. Singapore has shown significant progress in the suppression of crimes at sea. In 2004, there were 24 incidents of sea robbery and piracy incidents. The situation then was such that the Lloyds Market Association (LMA) claimed it was a “war risk zone” in June 2005. However, this term was removed by LMA in August 2006. By the collective efforts of Singapore and other littoral states, sea robbery and piracy incidents declined to six in 2008.

Foo outlined the three principles that are critical in regional cooperation. First, the prime responsibility of maritime security in the Straits of Malacca lies with the littoral state. Second, the the international community (e.g. IMO) and user states have to actively take part in efforts to tackle the crimes at sea. Finally, the measures taken should be according to the norms of international law and show due respect to the sovereignty of the littoral states.

Foo went on to elaborate that such principles offer a useful framework to transnational maritime threats. These threats cannot be tackled by a single state because traditional state boundaries are not respected; hence, all states are affected. For this reason, international cooperation at bilateral and multilateral levels is imperative. Such international

cooperation is key in Singapore’s initiative to suppress crimes at sea. Singapore was joined by Indonesia, Malaysia and more recently Thailand to initiate the Malacca Straits Sea Patrol (MSSP). These maritime patrols operate along the entire length of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. This significant measure has contributed greatly to the littoral states’ collective ability to respond to threats at sea. Another initiative, “Eyes in the Sky”, was arranged between Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia for maritime air surveillance coordination. Collectively, these two initiatives form the broader network of the Malacca Straits Patrol (MSP). The regular sea and air patrols are complemented by the MSP information sharing system.

The MSP is an excellent example of how states can work together to enhance security in manner that is respectful to sovereignty and consistent with international law. Foo also noted that the success of the cooperative arrangements is complemented by the effective exchange of information. The timely exchange of information ensures that no suspicious vessel would be missed from the radar screens.

The Singapore Navy and the Indonesian Navy launched Project SURPIC, a sea surveillance system, in May 2005 to allow both navies to share common real time sea situations in the Singapore Strait. Both navies can now exchange information and coordinate deployment of patrol vessels in the area more effectively. At the regional level, ReCAAP was commenced to tackle maritime threats at sea. The ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre (ISC) helps to provide accurate information regarding incidents of piracy and armed robbery in the region. For navies to achieve complete maritime domain awareness in tackling maritime threats, an Information Fusion Centre (IFC) was set up in Changi Command and Control Centre. The IFC serves as a platform for fostering regional cooperation in information sharing among navies and security agencies. The IFC also houses the Western Pacific Naval Symposium, the Regional Maritime Information Exchange, and the MSP information system to analyse information. IFC also works closely with the ISC for a more comprehensive coverage of the maritime domain. International Liaison Officers (ILO) from the Western Pacific Naval Symposium and MSP are attached to IFC to play an important role in information sharing and to coordinate



LTC David Foo

a timely and effective response to maritime threats when required. In addition to these efforts, Singapore has created a Maritime Security Task Force (MSTF) to integrate and foster a stronger national maritime security system. The formation of MSTF allows Singapore to have a holistic view of the entire spectrum of maritime security, and to respond effectively to potential maritime threats.

Foo concluded his presentation by remarking that positive steps on multiple fronts have been taken to enhance cooperation against the various stakeholders to ensure the security of Singapore waters. He accentuated, however, the importance of the Singapore Navy and security forces to stay continuously vigilant to respond effectively to any maritime threat situation. The piracy and crimes at sea are mostly dealt with by long-term measures taken collectively by the littoral states and user states. Close cooperation of

joint patrols, joint operations and training, and exchange of the information are important to tackle the increase in piracy incidents and other crimes due to the current financial crisis.

The Regional Cooperation Agreement onCombating Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships in Asia

LTC Toong Ka Leong, ReCAAP

Toong Ka Leong presented on the roles and functions of ReCAAP. The concerns about piracy and armed robbery against ships began as threats to life, cargo transport and sea lines of communication. Economic disruption and the threat of death affected many seafarers. As a quick response to combat piracy and armed robbery against ships, Asian countries came together to take initiative in 1983. IMO raised the concern that a regional mechanism was needed to address piracy in the South China Sea. Response from ASEAN against piracy and armed robbery increased in 1997 and 2000. The concept of a regional cooperation agreement was first mooted by the former Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi at the ASEAN+1 Summit meeting in Manila in November 1999. Two documents, the “Tokyo Appeal” and “The Model Action Plan” were promulgated in the Asia Anti-Piracy Challenge 2000 Conference. The agreement was finalized on 11 November 2004 by 16 countries and came into force on 4 September 2006. The ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre (ISC) was officially launched on 29 November 2006. It is the first multinational government-

to-government anti-piracy effort in the region. ISC was established in Singapore as an international organisation with staff from Singapore and overseas.

Toong laid emphasis on the key features of the agreement, which adhere to the definition of piracy and armed robbery law of UNCLOS and the IMO Code of Practice when conducting investigations of piracy and armed robbery against ships. The Secretariat, which is located in Singapore, consists of a Governing Council that includes a representative from each contracting party. Decisions of the Council are made by consensus, and the source of funding is from voluntary contributions by contracting parties. The foundation elements of the agreement are information sharing, capacity building and cooperative arrangement, and they operate based on respect for countries’ sovereignty, effectiveness and transparency. The accession is open to any state; interested countries have to notify the Singapore government, and if there is no objection within 90 days, the state has to move the instrument of accession and can become a member in 2 months.



LTC Toong Ka Leong

Each ReCAAP signatory designates a Focal Point. This Focal Point is key to managing piracy and armed robber incidents within its territorial waters and acts a point of information exchange with ISC. It facilitates its country’s law enforcement investigations and coordinates surveillance of piracy and armed robbery with neighbouring Focal Points.

ISC designed a security system server located in Singapore and this information is shared between the states. Every Focal Point is a hub in the respective country that manages and cooperates with maritime law enforcement agencies like the navy, coast guard, marine police, port authorities and customs authorities. Moreover, it offers close cooperation to the ship industry akin to ship registry, ship owners, ship agencies and fishery agencies.

The ISC Focal Points network includes the navy in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand, coastguards in India, Japan and the Philippines, the marine police in Brunei, Vietnam, and the Maritime and Port Authority in Singapore. Similarly, other departments such as the shipping and marine departments of other contracting parties, are integrated in the network.

Toong affirmed that one of the key roles of the ISC is capacity building. Annually, an event on capacity building event is conducted during each quarter. Information sharing exercises are conducted using the information network system developed for Focal Points. A Focal Point senior officers meeting, a capacity building workshop and study trips are organized annually.

Research methodology adopts a matrix-based assessment of incidents, and evaluates their level of significance. The definitions of UNCLOS and IMO’s code of Practice for investigation of Crime of Piracy and Armed Robber against ships are used. Incident assessment includes violence and economic factor analysis. The types of weapons, treatment

of crew, number of pirates involved and the cost of damaged property were recorded. The ReCAAP ISC evaluates the significance of each incident under three categories: very significant (CAT1), moderately significant (CAT2) and less significant (CAT3).

The research department gathers information and verifies the incident with ReCAAP Focal Points to portray a correct picture. After methodically categorizing the incidents, relevant information is gathered (including investigation outcome by ReCAAP Focal Points). Follow up action then takes place by law enforcement agencies and other reliable sources. The effectiveness of such methods is evident from the significant decline of criminal incidents in the first quarter of 2009. The decrease was most apparent in Bangladesh, India and Indonesia. However, although there was a decrease in the number of CAT 3 incidents, CAT 1 incidents and CAT 2 incidents involving ships have increased.

Toong concluded by pronouncing that ReCAAP is enhancing regional cooperation through sharing information in three ways. First, information is shared through the ISC-Focal Point Network. Second, the Contracting Parties network is strengthened through capacity building programmes. Third, cooperative arrangements are engaged to strengthen the Focal Points’ ability to manage incidents at sea.



International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of Terrorist Crimes: Legal Framework and Practical Tips

Professor Keisuke Senta, University of Tokyo

In his presentation, Keisuke Senta highlighted the challenges in obtaining legal assistance in maritime crime, and listed some practical advice as well. He consolidated various elements of domestic law in application to maritime cases and focused on practical issues of terrorism crimes. He pointed out three important issues relating to international cooperation in terrorism crimes — law enforcement cooperation, mutual legal assistance (MLA), and extradition of the criminal. Law enforcement cooperation leads to an exchange of important information and mutual legal assistance leads to a collection of evidence that can be used in court.

There are many international conventions (e.g. UNCLOS, ASEAN Convention on Terrorism, and United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime) that constituted the legal framework against terrorism. Similarly, many bilateral treaties and domestic legislations address terrorist offences, UNCLOS offences, law enforcement cooperation, mutual legal assistance and extradition. Senta noted that offence and jurisdiction must be defined by domestic law.

The organizational framework for dealing with maritime crimes includes law enforcement (police, coast guard, immigration, customs, port authorities, navy, air force etc.), central authority for mutual legal assistance and extradition, and courts. The cooperation between different enforcement agencies is very important in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist crimes. Involvement of courts is especially imperative to collect evidence against alleged criminals.

Senta stressed the spirit of cooperation and practicality in investigating transnational terrorist crimes. He opined that building up personal relationships is very important to the ease of the case. Though friendly relations are useful, the law still requires a solid and tangible legal basis to deal with the case. The law is independent of political will. At

times, investigators might not be able to access classified information; in this case, investigators and prosecutors might need legal basis to ensure confidentiality.

Senta also discussed Japan’s system and experience. Japan is not a party to the Convention on Transnational Crime as it adopts a flexible approach. Japan has laws on mutual legal assistance and extradition. The practical approach of Japanese investigators is to contact the legal attaches of other nations.

Senta raised the special issue of jurisdiction of maritime offences. Authority to prosecute and conduct trial is an important question because many ships are registered in a state other than those who possess or operate them. Ship owners of any country can register in states like Panama and Liberia, after which the laws of Panama and Liberia, respectively, will apply. Multiple jurisdictions causes investigative authority to be an issue for contention. The definition of offence according to international law provisions is also important. Senta gave an example, as shown below:

“A ship, registered in Pinklandia, owned by a company registered in Bluelandia, and operated by a captain from Bluelandia and crew members from Grayland, is cruising near Purplandia. The ship was attacked by a group of criminals from Yellowia; it was damaged and one of the crew members was killed.”

What provisions would apply to this crime which involves multiple nationalities? By the definition of piracy (Article 101), UNCLOS offence could be established. Similarly, SUA offences and 2005 SUA offences are established. As the attack took place in the high seas, Pinklandia, as a flag state, has jurisdiction. Yellowia should have jurisdiction for SUA offences as its nationals are involved in the crime (Article 6-1-c). Grayland may have jurisdiction because its nationals (crew members) killed (Article 6-2-b). By virtue of Article 105, any state may establish jurisdiction for UNCLOS offences i.e. any state can seize a defined pirate ship.



Senta went on to discuss the important elements of investigation (e.g. nature of the offence, intention to exercise jurisdiction, proximity, capability and skills), and the various options of investigators like the police, including coastguard, ship master, soldiers and consul. In the Japanese judicial system, the ship’s master is the judicial officer of the ship. He has authority on his ship for criminal proceedings. According to Senta, the coastguard is most effective in achieving criminal justice.

In conclusion, Senta advised that diplomatic consultations are useful in case of multiple jurisdictions. Even though other countries may have jurisdiction, the country where the offender is found is in a good position to provide

Professor Keisuke Senta

Countering Offences Committed at Sea through Criminal Justice Mechanisms: Interplay between Existing International Instruments

Mr. Stefano Betti, UNODC

Stefano Betti tried to put together various parts of international law to successfully bring about a maritime case. He began his presentation with a question: can the existing international legal framework improve states’ criminal justice response to certain serious offences committed at sea? To answer this question, he referred to the case of The Ponant.

On 4 April 2008, the French cruise ship Ponant was sailing from Seychelles back to the Mediterranean Sea. The ship was boarded by pirates in the Gulf of Aden. At that time, no passengers were on board except for 30 crew members of various nationalities. Eventually, the hostages were liberated and the pirates were charged in Paris. The key was, then, to determine whether it was an act of piracy, and whether or not to bring in provisions of international law.

Article 101 of UNCLOS and Article 3 of Convention on Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention) provide some insight to this question. Article 101 of UNCLOS defines the act of piracy as an act of violence, detention, depredation, etc. committed on the high seas, by the crew or passengers of a private ship for private ends, against another ship. It is apparent from the definition that there should involvement of two ships in the act of piracy. According to Article 3 of the SUA Convention,

the act would be an offence if any person unlawfully and intentionally seizes or exercises control over a ship by force, threat or any other form of intimidation. It is noticeable that the SUA Convention does not pronounce on the requirement of private ends. In the SUA Convention where the act has been committed is important, what matters is where the ship is coming from, or is directed to, a point outside the territorial sea of a single state. Sabotage is not covered by the SUA Convention.

Betti discussed the complexities of boarding in international law conventions. Under UNCLOS, there is a possibility for any state to board foreign vessel on the high sea, seize the ship and prosecute its crew. The SUA Convention is also becoming closer to UNCLOS by the new boarding provisions of 2005. After the Ponant incident, there were proposals for the right of hot pursuit into territorial waters.

In the Ponant incident, France, Somalia, Ukraine, the Philippines and Cameroon were directly affected as crew members were nationals of those countries. But the remaining states parties to the SUA Convention have also a role to play in the criminal proceedings. French authorities gained access to a few alleged offenders, while remaining offenders remained under the aut dedere aut judicare (the duty to extradite or prosecute in international law) obligation. States parties have to provide all possible legal assistance and help in extraditing suspects.

domestic legislation. For instance, hijack provisions are present in international conventions like UNCLOS, but for punishment, domestic legislation is necessary.



Qualifying the offence is thus very important. Qualifying offences at sea as “piracy” may still give advantage in relation to boarding.

Betti concluded that multiple international legal frameworks are potentially relevant for international cooperation because the objective is to bring serious offenders to justice, However, they may also be identified through the flexible use of available legal mechanisms. The key is to check applicability in each concrete case. When two or three conventions are applicable, a country has to decide which will result in a more desirable result.

Mr. Stefano Betti

In dealing with the Ponant incident, Betti brought into consideration applicable conventions beyond the SUA Convention, such as the Hostage Convention and Transnational Organized Crime Convention.

Betti went on to consider the types of maritime offences and possible applicable legal frameworks. UNCLOS, SUA Convention, 2005 Amendments to the SUA Convention, Hostage Convention, Diplomatic Agents Convention, Terrorist Bombings Convention and Nuclear Terrorism Convention are all applicable against ships, their passengers and crew. As ships are included in “public transportation systems” in the Terrorists Bombing Convention, involvement of explosives can give scope to the applicability of the Convention. Similarly, the Terrorist Financing Convention and the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material Convention are applicable to ships.

On 26 March 2003, a chemical tanker Dewi Madrim was attacked in the Malacca Straits. According to the crew, the attacker’s goal was to learn how to steer the ship and take hostages. Is this terrorism, piracy, or something else?

Nuclear Proliferation and Sea Transport:The Role of the NPT and Comprehensive Safeguard Agreements (CSA)

within the 2005 SUA Protocol

Mr. Ionut Suseanu, IAEA

Ionut Suseanu shared the contributions and experiences of the IAEA in implementing safeguards for the use of nuclear material. These security measures of IAEA, including the NPT, Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement (CSA), Small Quantities Protocol (SQP) and the Model Additional Protocol (AP), can enhance maritime security by preventing illicit trafficking of nuclear material at sea.

The risk of terrorists seeking nuclear weapons or material and committing malicious acts involving nuclear or radioactive material is a global one. This risk must be addressed in a comprehensive manner that includes safety, security and safeguards. No single international instrument deals with nuclear security and safeguards in a complete manner. A

combination of different instruments tackles the regime for safety, security and safeguards. Therefore, Suseanu made it clear that IAEA is the focal point for cooperation on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, promoting nuclear safety and security and providing guarantees on the use of nuclear material and facilities for peaceful purposes.

The IAEA Statute came into force in 1957. It administers and provides safeguards that verify compliance of states by legally binding them not to use nuclear material or facilities to develop nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Safeguards are activities by which the IAEA can verify that a state is living up to its international commitments not to use nuclear technology for nuclear-weapons purposes. The NPT and other multilateral and bilateral treaties against the spread of nuclear weapons



entrust the IAEA as the nuclear inspectorate. Today, the IAEA safeguards nuclear material and activities through agreements with 146 States.

The NPT came into force on 5 March 1970. Under the NPT, non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) are required not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. States have to accept safeguards on all nuclear material in the state, as set forth in an agreement with the IAEA in accordance with the Statute and its safeguards system. Such agreements must be concluded within 18 months. With regard to export controls, all states have to ensure that IAEA safeguards are applied to any nuclear material and “especially designed or prepared” (EDP) equipment or material exported to a NNWS. After India’s nuclear test in 1974, a Nuclear Suppliers Group (London Club) was formed. It issued guidelines for nuclear and nuclear related dual-use equipment transfer, materials, software and related technology. The United Nations Security Council also passed a resolution in 2004 regarding the non-proliferation of WMD.

CSA is an international treaty concluded between a state or states and the IAEA. It is based on the Structure and Content of Agreements between the Agency and States required in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons INFCIRC/153 (Corr.). After the approval of the Board, it will come into force by the signature or written notification by the state. All ASEAN states have CSA arrangements. Under the CSA, states have to accept safeguards on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory or jurisdiction of the state.

Suseanu remarked that by the CSA and the IAEA has the right and obligation to ensure that safeguards will be applied, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities of the state. CSA also outlines the basic obligations of the state. It provides information to the IAEA concerning nuclear material, facilities and activities. In addition, the state has to grant IAEA access for purposes of inspection and design information verification. The state must cooperate with the IAEA in the implementation of the safeguards agreement. The most important duty is to establish a State System of Accounting For and Control of Nuclear Material (SSAC).

In 1970, the Board accepted SQP to the safeguards agreement. States with little or no nuclear material and no nuclear material in a nuclear facility are eligible for SQP. It temporarily suspends most of a state’s reporting and access requirements. However, the state is still required not to divert nuclear material to proscribed areas, and to establish SSAC and report annual imports and exports of nuclear material. To strengthen the SQP, the Board modified it in September 2005. States with SQP were asked to modify the text such that, if a state has existing or planned nuclear facilities, it is no longer eligible. Under the modified SQP, the state is required to give an initial report on nuclear material, and to give an early notification of decisions to authorize construction or to construct a facility. IAEA has power to conduct ad hoc and routine inspections to verify the state’s declarations.

Suseanu believes that CSAs play a key role in controlling the illicit trafficking of nuclear material. CSAs contribute to the enhancement of nuclear security by requiring a state party to establish and maintain a SSAC. It takes part in effective accounting for and control of nuclear material essential for fulfilling the state’s international non-proliferation obligation (among others), maintains the security of nuclear material and combats illicit trafficking. SSAC ensures that nuclear material is accounted for at all times and that any changes in national inventory of nuclear material are recorded and reported to the IAEA. By having an effective SSAC, the state can deter terrorism and malicious acts, and provide for their early detection. In order to build an effective SSAC, the state needs to induct a sound legislative and regulatory system

In 1991, IAEA detected clandestine programmes in Iraq and later found some undeclared activities in North Korea. In this context, the agency recognized that it needed more authority as it was not covering the full nuclear cycle i.e. from uranium mining to waste management. By adopting the Model Additional Protocol (AP) in 1997, the agency ensured that there could be no undeclared activities of state.

A Model Protocol Additional to the Agreement(s) between State(s) and the IAEA for the Application of Safeguards INFCIRC/540 (Corr.) was approved by the Board in May 1997. The AP aims to strengthen the effectiveness and improve the efficiency of the safeguards system as a contribution to



Mr. Ionut Suseanu

global nuclear non-proliferation objectives. Ninety states with CSAs adopted APs and all Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) are required to have an AP in force. Two ASEAN states have APs in force; four states have only signed APs, while the other four have not concluded APs.

Suseanu elaborated that APs provide the Agency complete information about a state’s nuclear fuel cycle including research and development activities. From the information, the agency has a clear picture regarding nuclear activities. The agency has a right to broader (but not unlimited) access to locations within a state, from uranium mining spots to storage facilities. The AP allows new administrative measures to the IAEA regarding the designation of inspectors and the issue of visas. Moreover, the access to and the use of state of the art communications systems enable the agency to transfer the collected information to the regional offices located at Toronto and Tokyo, and to the headquarters in Vienna.

In accordance with APs, nuclear activities have to be entirely transparent to make the state and its neighbours more secure. It permits the state to have increased access to nuclear technology and also allows the IAEA to provide increased assurance of the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in the state. The successful implementation of an AP in a state endows IAEA with competence to conclude that all nuclear material are used for peaceful activities in the state. Nevertheless, in order to

implement safeguards, a state needs a sound legislation and regulation system. The legal framework of the state must be consistent with international obligations. The national legislation must include the provisions of SSAC, licensing, inspection, enforcement, criminalization and import and export controls. The SSAC should have adequate authority in order to verify any information provided by the nuclear operator. It needs an independent authority i.e. its decisions cannot be cancelled by any other government authority except the court. Moreover, in order to be more effective, it needs sufficient human and financial resources.

Suseanu concluded by highlighting the IAEA’s legislative assistance programmes regarding the implementation of the safeguards. Available to all member states, these programmes cover areas such as nuclear safety, security and safeguards. The Office of Legal Affairs has provided legislative assistance to more than 100 member states.

Case Study on Maritime Legal Issues and Open Discussion

Case

The Seagull, a cruise ship flying the flag of Mirabilia, is undertaking its regular high-season service of carrying tourists of various nationalities from Mirabilia to the beautiful sandy beaches of Tropicalia. While navigating in the high seas, five heavily armed individuals, all citizens of Batalia, approach the Seagull with a 200 hp speed boat and seize the ship. The commando diffused communication via radio, demanding that the ship owners pay a $500,000 ransom as conditions for the release of the ship with all its passengers and crew members.

Question 1

Has any offence been committed by the commandos under relevant international conventions?

Ameri initiated the discussion by pointing out that the basis of jurisdiction should be looked at because of the involvement of various nationalities and the place of attack, whether it occurred in territorial sea or at high seas.

Senta from Japan opined that the involvement of five offenders taking hostages for the purpose of benefit should be seen as a serious offence of hijacking.



The representative of Vietnam advocated that the act with private ends could be qualified as piracy under the scope of UNCLOS.

Ameri raised a question of whether the offenders are terrorists. As there is no definition of terrorism, the offenders may not qualify as terrorists.

Betti claimed the possibility of the Hostage Convention with regard to the conduct of the offenders.

Another respondent believed that the elements of organized crime (group of five offenders) and profit-making could be looked at from the angle of the Transnational Organized Crime Convention.

Interestingly, a discussion took place among the participants regarding the issue of jurisdiction. A question was posed: If none of the nationals of a country are affected, can that country prosecute the perpetrators? The representative of Malaysia and the representative of Indonesia tried to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 6 of the SUA Convention, which addresses mandatory and optional jurisdiction. An important point highlighted during the discussion on jurisdiction was whether to prosecute or extradite the offenders, as the whole system works only if the national system assimilates it.

The moderator of the discussion Gehr, pointed out that the purpose of the first question is to qualify the act in different angles. Undoubtedly, offence has been committed by the perpetrators under relevant international conventions, such as the Hostage Convention. Armed robbery in accordance with the SUA seems to be apparent to the current scenario if the offence is incorporated in national legislation. Asking for ransom for the release of the ship with all its passengers and crew members is typically via hostage-taking. This is considered an act of robbery at sea, and is an act of offence under the SUA Protocol.

Question 2

Considering that a business company operating in Mirabilia had provided the perpetrators with updated nautical maps and petrol for the speedboat, identify possible offences committed on land under relevant international conventions.

This question takes into account the activities undertaken on land to formulate maritime offences.

Sento from Japan declared that domestic law provisions afford for aiding, abetting and accomplice offences.

Young marked that Article 5bis of the 2005 SUA Protocol will fit into such a situation of aiding and abetting. If the business company knowingly offered support to maritime crime, then Article 5bis of the 2005 SUA Protocol would apply.

At this juncture, moderator Gehr called for the review of domestic legislation on the subject of criminal responsibility provisions to punish such offenders. He also mentioned the tangible and intangible goods covered under the International Financing Convention. If the Business Company knew that they were offenders about to commit the crime, providing them with maps and other relevant information comes under the purview of the International Financing Convention.

The representative of Japan then asked if the act is not committed, what then, would be the position of the Business Company? Is it liable? The answer derived was that even if the act is not committed, the International Financing Convention is relevant.

The Indonesian representative spoke on the issue of “terrorism”. Since there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, application of the international legal instruments according to the apparent outlook would be relevant. He claimed that Article 3 of the SUA Convention



would be applicable to the current state of affairs. He pointed out there is requirement of two ships for there to be a crime of piracy under UNCLOS whereas SUA has no such requirement.

One important point in the discussion was that if a state applies SUA to the situation, the business company could then be charged under the International Financing Convention.

Question 3

Assuming that the offenders had not demanded any ransom, but rather the release of potential prisoners held in Tropicalia, would this make them terrorists? Would the absence of a profit making goal imply the commission of different offences?

Moderator claimed that Article 3 of the SUA Convention applies if the offence is for political ends. Piracy under UNCLOS would not be applicable as it is for private ends. Transnational organized crime is also not applicable because it talks about the involvement of financial or other material benefits. However, one respondent interpreted Article 2(a) of the convention in such a way that it contemplates non-material benefits with respect to essential conditions, such as the crime being an organized or transnational one.

Question 4

Assuming that the offenders had seized the ship within 12 nautical miles off the coast of Mirabilia, and not on the high seas, would this change the nature of the offence?

As the ship was seized in territorial sea and not on the high seas, under Article 101 of UNCLOS, the offenders cannot be termed pirates. The state can apprehend and prosecute the offenders but the scenario will be of a transnational nature. SUA is not applicable in the case of sabotage, but it is pertinent when the ship is to leave its territorial sea.

Conclusion

At the workshop, maritime security issues were discussed in connection with the different counterterrorism conventions, criminal and international law instruments. The suppression of crimes committed at sea were addressed not only from the angle of counterterrorism, but also in relation to other crimes committed at sea. A comprehensive view of the UNCLOS and SUA provisions and issues like the NPT, which are intimately related to the subject of maritime security, were highlighted as well. The challenges faced by criminal justice mechanisms in countering offences at sea were presented with new insights. The presentations on the lessons and experiences of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore in prevention and suppression of crimes at sea further articulated the comprehensive approach that would enhance cooperation among the countries in region and promote coordination with the international community.

It was concluded that cooperation at international and national levels, and ratification of the relevant international and regional conventions, are the most pressing issues. Another central task is to complement the provisions of ratified conventions by incorporating them into national law (along with the penalty for commission of each crime), and to designate the court with jurisdiction to try and convict the criminal. Defining the technical elements of an offence are important too. Diplomatic consultations are useful in case of multiple jurisdictions. Finally, when two or more conventions are involved, the state has to decide as to which will bring about a more desirable result.



Programme

8 June 2009 18:00 – 20:00 Welcome Reception (by invitation only) 9 June 2009 09:00 – 09:30 Registration

09:30 – 10:00 Opening session Welcoming Remarks

Mr. Lee Chiong Giam Deputy Secretary (International Cooperation), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore Mr. Walter Gehr, UNODC Mr. Christopher Young, IMO

10:00 – 11:00 How can the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Support the Suppression of Crimes Committed at Sea?

Mr. Michele Ameri Ocean Affairs/Law of the Sea Officer Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs

11:00 – 11:30 Coffee-break 11:30 - 12:30 The Global Framework Against Maritime Terrorism in the International Legal Context

Mr. Walter Gehr Chief Counter-Terrorism Legal Services Section I Terrorism Prevention Branch — UNODC

12:30 – 14:00 Lunch

14:00 – 15:00 The 2005 SUA Protocol: New Offences and Boarding Provisions

Mr. Christopher Young Sub-division for Legal Affairs Legal Affairs and External Relations Division International Maritime Organisation

15:00 – 15:30 Coffee-break

15:30 – 16:30 The Role of the ASEAN Convention on Counter-Terrorism in the Context of Maritime Security

Dr. Mary Ann Palma Visiting Fellow S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore

16:30 – 17.30 Experience from the Littoral States in the Malacca and Singapore Straits (Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore)

Mr. Adam Mulawarman Senior Staff, Directorate for Political, Security and Treaties Affairs Government of Indonesia

Mrs. Norhasliza Mat Salleh Principal Assistant Secretary, Maritime Security and Sovereignty Division, Prime Minister’s Department, Malaysia



10 June 2009 9:00 – 10:00 The Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP)

Mr. Pornchai Danvivathana Deputy Director Genera Department of Justice Office of the Chief State Counsel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Government of Thailand

LTC(NS) Toong Ka Leong ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre 10:00 – 11:00 Challenges and Practical Advice in Obtaining Legal Assistance in Maritime-Related Criminal Cases

Mr. Keisuke Senta Professor University of Tokyo Graduate Schools for Law and Politics

11:00 – 11:30 Coffee-break

11:30 – 12:30 Countering Offences Committed at Sea Through Criminal Justice Mechanisms: Interplay Between Existing International Instruments

Mr. Stefano Betti Terrorism Prevention Expert Terrorism Prevention Branch — UNODC

12:30 – 14:00 Lunch 14:00 – 15:00 Nuclear Proliferation and Sea Transport: the Role of the NPT and Comprehensive Safeguard Agreements (CSA) within the 2005 SUA Protocol

Mr. Ionut Suseanu Office of Legal Affairs International Atomic Energy Agency

15:00 – 15:30 Coffee-break 15:30 – 17:00 Case Study on Maritime Legal Issues and Open Discussion (UNODC)

17:00 – 17:30 Recommendations and Closing Session



List Of Presenters / Discussants / Participants

OFFICIAL DELEGATES

Brunei Darussalam

1. Mr. Nabil Daraina Badaruddin Deputy Senior Counsel Criminal Justice Division Attorney General’s Chambers Law Building Bandar Seri Begawan BA1910 Tel 67 38723967 Fax 67 32223100 Email [email protected]

2. Ms. Riana Dewi Binti Haji Aji Legal Counsel International Affairs Division Attorney General’s Chambers Law Building Bandar Seri Begawan BA1910 Tel 67 38661603 Fax 67 32223100 Email [email protected] [email protected]

Indonesia

3. Col. Desi Albert Mamahit Colonel Indonesian Navy, Operational Strategic Staf Operasi, Mabes TNIAL, Cilangkap, Jakarta, Indonesia 13870 Tel 62 21 872 3146 Fax 62 21 871 1766 Email [email protected]

4. Mr. Ferdinand Tandi Andi-Lolo Directorare of Investigation Office of Attorney General, Special Crime Division Kantor Jaksa Agung Muda Tindak Pidana Khusus, Direktorat Penyidikan, Gedung Bundar, Kejaksaan Agung RI, JI St. Hasanuddin No. 1, Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia Tel 62 21 725 0127 Fax 62 21 725 0127 Email [email protected] [email protected]

5. Ms. Laksmi Indriyah Rohmulyati Head of Person and Property Section, Region 2, Pre-Prosecution of General Crime Office of Attorney General Gedung Pidum, Jl. S. Hasanuddin No. 1, Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia Tel 62 812 884 3868 Fax 6221 726 2667 Email [email protected] [email protected]

6. Ms. Luna Amanda Fahmi Staff Directorate of International Security and Disarmament, Department of Foreign Affairs, 7th Fl., EX-BP7 Bldg., Jl Taman Pejambon No. 6, Jakarta, Indonesia 10110 Tel 62 21 381 2646 Fax 6221 385 8024 Email [email protected] [email protected]



Malaysia

12. Hajjah Roselaili Abd Rahman CDR Maritime Enforcement & Exercise Branch, Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency, Prime Minister Dept., Level 4-11, one 101 Square, 101 Resort 62502, Putraja, Malaysia Tel 601 2623 7197 Fax 603 8941 4527 Email [email protected] [email protected]

13. Mr. Mohd Nasir bin Mohd Noor Assistant Secretary National Security Council Prime Minister’s Department, LG & G Level, West wing, Perdana Putra Bldg., Federal Government Administrative Centre 63502 Putrajaya, Malaysia Tel 603 1965 51961 Fax 603 8888 3111 Email [email protected]

14. Mrs. Norliza Dolhan Assistant Secretary National Security Council Prime Minister’s Department Level 2, West wing, Perdana Putra Bldg., Federal Government Administrative Centre, 62502, Putrajaya, Malaysia Tel 603 8888 2093 Fax 603 8888 3091 Email [email protected]

15. Mrs. Suziana Masni Majid Senior Federal Counsel Attorney General’s Chambers Malaysia International Affiars Division, Level 6, Block C3, Federal Government Administrative Centre, 62512 Putrajaya, Malaysia Tel 603 8885 5000 Fax 603 888 3518/6368 Email [email protected]

Lao PDR

7. Mr. Nosavanh Sihalath Deputy Director General of Criminal Dept. Office of Supreme People’s Prosecutor of Lao PDR Tha Deua Rd., Bau Boungkhayong, Siothanak district, Vientiane, Laos Tel 856 21 353 682 Fax 856 21 353 863 Email [email protected]

8. Mr. Phoneseng Khounthaviduangchai Criminal Procedure Law National University Faculty of Law and Political Science Donnoukhai Village, Syshtanak district, Vientiane, Po Box 822, Lao PDR Tel 856 20 625 8103 Fax 856 21 314 967 Email [email protected]

9. Mr. Sornpheth Douangdy Deputy Head Law Research and International Cooperation Institute Ministry of Justice of Lao PDR PO Box 08, Lanexang Ave., Patousay Square, Vientiane City, Lao PDR. Tel 856 21 452 388 Fax 856 21 452 388 Email [email protected]

10. Pol. Lt. Vanhpadith Chanhthavong Law Official History and Scientific Research Department Ministry of Public Security Tel 856 21 951 086 Fax 856 21 970 151 Email [email protected]

11. Mr. Vassana Mounsaveng Department of Training and Law Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel 856 20 7855 866 Fax 856 21 414 009 Email [email protected]



Myanmar

16. Mr. Khin Maung Oo Director Office of the Attorney General Bldg. no. 25, Office of the Attorney General, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar Tel 95-67 404 051 Fax 95 67 404 146 Email [email protected]

17. Mr. Ko Ko Oo District Judge Supreme Court Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar Tel 95 67 404 083 Fax 95 67 404 057 Email [email protected]

18. Pol. Lt. Col. Soe Myaing Deputy Director Legal and Reseach Central Committee for Drugs Abuse Control Myanmar Police Force, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar Tel 95-67 412033 Fax 95-67 412 033 Email [email protected]

19. Dr. Thant Zin Myo Deputy Director Dept of Atomic Energy, Ministry of Science and Technology Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar Tel 95 67 404460 Fax: 95 67 4044461 Email [email protected]

20. Mr. Thwin Htet Lin Head of Branch-1 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Organizations and Economic Dept. Bldg. no. 9, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government Offices Zone, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar Tel 95 67 412 352 Fax 95 67 412 336 Email [email protected]

Philippines

21. Atty. Adonis Sulit State Counsel IV Department of Justice Office of the Chief State Counsel DOJ Bldg. Padre Favra, Manila, Philippines Tel 632 536 0458 Fax 632 536 0458 Email [email protected]

22. Ms. Maria Roseny B. Fangco Attorney/Acting Director Dept. of Foreign Affairs Office of Legal Affairs, Dept. of Foreign Affairs, Roxas Boulevard., Pasay City, Philippines Tel 63 2 834 4563 Fax 63 2 832 5339 Email [email protected]

23. Atty. Ricardo A Diaz Lawyer National Bureau of Investigation 9531 Akle St., San Antonio Village, Makati City, Philippines Tel 632 524 9602 6392 8505 9015 Fax 632 526 6210 Email [email protected]

Singapore

24. Amb. Mary Seet-Cheng Senior Specialist Advisor Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore Tanglin Singapore 248163

25. Mr. Mathew Joseph Deputy Principal Senior State Counsel Attorney-General’s Chambers 1 Coleman Street, #10-00 The Adelphi, Singapore 179803 Email [email protected]



26. Ms. Lim Kheng Hua Director Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tanglin Singapore 248163 Email [email protected]

27. Mr. Martin Marini Gen Counsel Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore 460 Alexandra Road PSA Building #18-00 Singapore 119963 Email [email protected]

28. Ms. Cheng Pei Feng Senior Assistant Director Ministry of Law 45 Maxwell Road #08-13 The URA Centre, East Wing Singapore 069118 Email [email protected]

29. Mr. Lionel Yee Principal Senior State Counsel Attorney-General’s Chambers 1 Coleman Street, #10-00 The Adelphi, Singapore 179803 Email [email protected]

Thailand

30. Mr. Adisorn Sittikarn Third Secretary Dept .of Treaties and Legal Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sri Ayudhaya Rd., Bangkok, 10400 Thailand Tel 66-2 643 5000 ext 1087 Fax 66-2 643 5032 Email [email protected]

31. Mr. Ponganun Karoonyavanich Expert Public Prosecutor Office of the Attorney General International Affairs Department 19 Ladprao Soi 82 Wangthonglang, Bangkok 10310, Thailand Tel 66-8 1804 7111 Fax 66-2 515 4657 Email [email protected]

32. Mr. Sombat Peutthipongsapuc Judge Office of the Judiciary, Criminal Court, 5th Fl., Ratchadapisek Rd. Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900 Thailand Tel 66-2 541 2270 Fax 66-2 512 8468 Email [email protected]

33. Captain Somjade Kongrawd Legal Advisor (Judge Advocate General) Royal Thai Navy, Defense Deport Office of Naval Judge Advocate General, Royal Thai Navy, Bangkokyai, Bangkok 10600, Thailand Tel 66-8 4721 2111 Fax 66-24754581 Email [email protected]

34. Acting Sub Lt. Songsak Thongchai Director, Legal and Treaty Group The Office of Atoms for Peace, Ministry of Science and Technology 16 Vibhavadee-Rangsit Rd. Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900 Thailand Tel 66-2 597 7600 ext 2124 Fax 66-2 561 3013 Email [email protected]



35. Mr. Sopon Kasempiboonchai Public Prosecutor International Affair Department, Office of Attorney General, Ratchadapisek Rd. Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand Tel 66 2 515 4656 Fax 66 2 515 4657 Email [email protected]

Vietnam

36. Mr. Kieu Duc Tinh Official Ministry of Public Security, Dept. of Anti-terrorism 15 Tran Binh Trong St., Hanoi, Vietnam Tel 84 -9 7575 6668 Email [email protected]

37. Mr. Nguyen Manh Dong Deputy DG Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dept. of International Law & Treaties, MOFA, 1 Ton That Dam, Hanoi, Vietnam Tel 844 722 0099-116 Fax 844 722 0077 Email [email protected]

38. Ms. Nguyen Thi Tuong Van Ministry of Foreign Affairs Department of International Law & Treaties 298 Kim Ma, Ba Dinh, Hanoi, Vietnam Tel 849 1600 4376 Fax 844 3726 0077 Email [email protected]

39. Ms. Pham Ho Huong Legal Expert Ministry of Justice Tel 84-4 3733 4302 Email [email protected]

40. Col. Tran Duc Hung Deputy DG, Vietnamese Marine Police Ministry of National Defense 94 Le Loi, Ha Dong, Hanoi, Vietnam Tel 84-9 1324 5387

SPEAKERS

41. Mr. Adam Mulawarman Tugio Senior Staff Directorate for Political, Security and Treaties Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs Jl. MTN Pejambon 6, Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia Tel 62 856 9538 4919 Fax 62 21 352 4154 Email [email protected]

42. Mr. Ionut Suseanu Legal Officer Office of Legal Affairs International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Wagramerstrasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Tel 43 699 1156 4717 Fax 43 1 26002 9784 Email [email protected]

43. Mr. Keisuke Senta Professor University of Tokyo Graduate Schools for Law and Politics 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan Tel 81-3 5841 1325 Email [email protected]



44. Dr. Mary Ann Palma Visiting Fellow Maritime Security Programme S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Nanyang Technological University Block S4 Level B4, Nanyang Avenue Singapore 639798 Tel 65 6790 6982 Fax 65 6793 2991 Email [email protected] [email protected]

45. Mr. Michele Ameri Law of the Sea/Ocean Affairs Officer UN DO ALOS Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, 2 United Nations Plaza, Rm DC-2 404, New York, N.Y. 10017, USA Tel 1 917 367 3085 Fax 1 212 963 5487 Email [email protected]

46. Mrs. Norhasliza Mat Salleh Principal Assistant Secretary, Maritime Security and Sovereignty Division National Security Council, Prime Minister’s Department Level 2, West wing, Perdana Putra Bldg., Federal Government Administrative Centre, 62502, Putrajaya, Malaysia Tel 603 8888 8832 603 8888 3605 Fax 603 8888 3091 Email [email protected]

47. Mr. Stefano Betti Expert Terrorism Prevention Branch Division for Treaty Affairs United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Room: E-1209 P.O. Box 500, A-1400 Vienna Tel 43-1 26060-4497 Fax 43-1 26060-74497 Email [email protected]

48. LTC(NS) Toong Ka Leong Senior Manager (Ops/Prog) ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre 456 Alexandra Road, 11-02, NOL Building Singapore 119962 Tel 65 637 63081 Fax 65 637 63066 Email [email protected]

49. Mr. Walter Gehr Chief Counter-Terrorism Legal Services Section I Terrorism Prevention Branch Division for Treaty Affairs United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime P.O. Box 500, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Tel 43 1 26060 4512 Fax: 43 1 260607 4512 Email [email protected]

50. Mr. Vipon Kititasnasorchai Expert Terrorism Prevention Branch United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Regional Centre for East Asia and the Pacific Bangkok, Thailand Tel 662 288 2098 Fax 662 288 3040 Email [email protected]

LOCAL PARTICIPANTS

51. DSP Alfred Gareth Ho CO POLCOM Ministry of Home Affairs Singapore

52. DSP Baljeet Singh Dy. CO Costal Patrol Squadron Ministry of Home Affairs Singapore

53. Mr. Benjamin Wong Assistant Director (Maritime Security) The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA)



54. Ms. Brenda Chua Assistant Director Ministry of Law Singapore

55. Mr. Charles Chew Senior Assistant Director (Policy) The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA)

56. Dr. Eric Frecon Post Doctoral Fellow RSIS Email [email protected]

57. Ms. Fatima Astuti Research Analyst ICPVTR/RSIS Email [email protected]

58. LTC Ho How Hoang Joshua Senior Fellow and Coordinator Maritime Security Programme S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Tel 6790 6624 Email [email protected] 59. Hui Lin Yi Policy Analyst (Maritime Security) The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA)

60. Mr. Jacob Chew Desk Officer Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore

61. Ms. Jane Chan Associate Research Fellow S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Tel 6790 6484 Email [email protected] 62. ASP Jessie Tan Leng Hong Brani Regioanl Base Ops & Training Officer Ministry of Home Affairs

63. Mr. Jeremy Rabani Desk Officer Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore

64. Ms. Kristine Cecis Policy Officer Delegation of the European Commission 250 North Bridge Road #38-03/04 Raffles City Tower, Singapore 179101 Email [email protected]

65. Prof. Kumaralingam Amirthalingam Professor and Vice Dean (International Programmes), Director, Asian Law Institute Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore 469G Bukit Timah Road, Eu Tong Seng Building, Singapore 259776 Email [email protected]

66. Mr. Kwa Chong Guan Head of External Programmes S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Tel 6790 6975 Email [email protected]

67. Ms. Lee Seow Fong Assistant Director (Administration) ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre NOL Building, 456 Alexandra Road, #11-02 S119962 Email [email protected]

68. Ms. Lee Yin Mui Assistant Director (Research) ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre NOL Building 456 Alexandra Road #11-02 S 119962 69. ASP Lim Tswi-Tsen Gull Regional Base Ops & Training Officer Ministry of Home Affairs Singapore

70. Mr. Mohd. Noor Ilham Researcher Maritime Institute of Malaysia Unit B-06-08, Mega Avenue II, 12, Jalan Yap Kwan Seng, 5040, Kuala Lumpur Email [email protected]



71. Mrs. Nik Nor Suhaida Lecturer UUM COLGIS Universiti Utara Malaysia College of Law, Government and International Studies Section C, Universiti Utara Malaysia 06010 Sintok, Kedah Email [email protected]

72. ASP N. Shanmuganandam 2 Operations Officer, Ops Management Ministry of Home Affairs

73. Ng Ching Ching Senior Marine Officer (Port Security) The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA)

74. DSP Patricia Lui Poh Ling CO Loyang Regional Base Ministry of Home Affairs

75. Mr. Pim de Kuijer Political Affairs Officer European Commission Delegation in Malaysia Menara Tan & Tan, 207 Jalan Tun Razak, 53100, Kuala Lumpur Email [email protected]

76. Ms. Rachel Loh Country Officer Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore

77. Comdt Ranjan Bibhuti Manager (Research) ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre NOL Building, 456 Alexandra Road, #11-02 S119962 78. Assoc. Prof. Ralf Emmers Coordinator of the Multilateralism and Regionalism Programme S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Tel 6790 4340 Email [email protected]

79. Assoc. Prof. Robert Beckman Associate Professor National University of Singapore Faculty of Law 469G Bukit Timah Road Eu Tong Sen Building, Singapore 259776 Email [email protected]

80. CDR Shinichiro Matsuyoshi Assistant Director (Programmes) ReCAAP Information Sharing Centre 81. Ms. Ticy Thomas Doctoral candidate Center for Maritime Studies, NUS Email [email protected]

82. Ms. Valeriane Toon Managing Director The International Institute for Strategic Studies-Asia 9 Raffless Place, # 53-02 Republic Plaza Singapore 048614 Email [email protected]

83. Supt. Wendy Chio Head Training & Development Ministry of Home Affairs

84. ASP Yap Lee Jen Lim Chu Kang Regional Base Ops & Training Officer Ministry of Home Affairs

85. DSP Yeo Poh Yan Lim Chu Kang Regional Base Ops & Training Officer Ministry of Home Affairs



The S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) was inaugurated on 1 January 2007 as an autonomous School within the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), upgraded from its previous incarnation as the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), which was established in 1996.

The School exists to develop a community of scholars and policy analysts at the forefront of Asia-Pacific security studies and international affairs. Its three core functions are research, graduate teaching and networking activities

in the Asia-Pacific region. It produces cutting-edge security related research in Asia-Pacific Security, Conflict and Non-Traditional Security, International Political Economy, and Country and Area Studies.

The School‘s activities are aimed at assisting policymakers to develop comprehensive approaches to strategic thinking on issues related to security and stability in the Asia-Pacific and their implications for Singapore.

For more information about RSIS, please visit www.rsis.edu.sg

About the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS)

S. Rajaratnam School Of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Block S4, Level B4, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798

TEL 65-6790-6982 FAX 65-6793-2991 EMAIL [email protected] WEBSITE www.rsis.edu.sgDes

ign

by O

xyge

n St

udio

Des

igns


DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED APPROACHTO MARITIME SECURITY THROUGH THE

COUNTER-TERRORISM CONVENTION,CRIMINAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW:


09–10 JUNE 2009SINGAPORE

developing an integrated approach to maritime … · framework against maritime terrorism in the...

Documents