Maritime piracy was a problem from the 15th century until the 16th century, nicknamed the Golden Age piracy. This is due to the absence of a unified body to develop an acceptable law of the sea to combat maritime piracy. It was not until the 20th century, when the United Nations was established and with the inclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, that we were finally able to have an organized set of rules in matters of the sea. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayThe justification for the law of maritime piracy in international law is strong because this problem is growing due to the fact that it occurs far from the land and away from the rest of the world. An assessment of this problem in Southeast Asia shows that the region's waters are hotspots for maritime piracy. This is because 45% of the world's commercial shipping uses routes through this region and attacks on commercial stores have been reported, resulting in damaging international economic and trade losses.[1]Furthermore, in the southern Philippines, pirates frequently kidnap Malaysians. nationals for ransom and these kidnapping activities have the sole aim of financing terrorist activities. These kidnappings are usually carried out by the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf, linked to the global terrorist group ISIS. With the help of stricter and stricter maritime piracy laws, it would be possible to curb the problem of maritime piracy which some take advantage of to finance terrorist organizations.[2] More importantly, maritime piracy posed a great threat to those who sailed the high seas. Sailors are the primary victims of maritime piracy, being exposed to the danger of being killed, kidnapped and tortured by pirates. Maritime piracy continually makes the high seas a dangerous place for travelers and those working on the high seas, thereby harming the shipping industry, as the scope of work of seafarers would involve the risk of being put at risk. in danger from pirates. Without a codified maritime piracy law providing tough penalties to deter others from engaging in maritime piracy, the high seas are an open playground for those who want to profit. In conclusion, maritime piracy is an international problem that requires cooperation from around the world. Since it happens all over the world, and not just an isolated case in a certain part of the world, maritime piracy is thriving and strong. With the help of proper enforcement of maritime piracy laws, the high seas would be a safer place for seafarers and the international trade industry would be safe from the threats of maritime piracy. The question before us is whether the captain and entire crew of the Bootstrap can be prosecuted under international law? The most appropriate authority on the matter is Article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)[4]. In this provision, it is specified that piracy or maritime piracy means “… any unlawful act of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private purposes by the crew or passengers of a private vessel… and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such a ship…” To briefly explain this provision, this means that piracy is an act of aggression from another party to another party whooccurs on the high seas through the use of force or unlawful detention of another party. Furthermore, Article 103 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea[5] defines that a pirate ship is a ship “…intended by persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing a acts referred to in Article 10…” As the reported facts show, the Bootstrap was in fact used by Captain Barbossa and his crew to commit acts described in Article 101 of UNCLOS. This definitely suggests that the Bootstrap is, by definition, a pirate ship. Then, Article 105 of UNCLOS[6], in this provision, in this original version its wording clearly states that “…On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, any State may seize a vessel or a pirate aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide on the sanctions to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with respect to the vessels, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties in good faith… "This means that once a crime of piracy has been committed with the use of a pirate ship, said ship will be seized by any state and will be brought to justice and punished by all courts of the state that seized the pirate ship In short, a pirate ship must be captured and can be brought to justice, even if the offense occurred in international waters or on the high seas. An example of this is the case of Re Piracy Jure. Gentium [1926-1941] HKC 153[7] . The facts in this case are that a number of armed Chinese nationals sailing on board two Chinese junks pursued a junk on the high seas for more than half an hour. during which shots were fired Two merchant ships intervened and the pursuers were eventually taken in by a British naval vessel. They were taken as prisoners to Hong Kong and charged with piracy. One of the issues in this case was whether this case could be tried in municipal court. The judgment delivered by Viscount Sankey LC, in his own words, stated that "...under international law, the criminal jurisdiction of domestic law is usually limited to crimes committed on its mainland or...by its own nationals, whatever the place where they are committed, it is also recognized. as extending to piracy committed on the high seas by any national on board any vessel, because a person guilty of such piracy has placed himself beyond the protection of any State. He is no longer a national, but a hostis humani generis and, as such, he is justiciable before any State, wherever he is…” This means that once a person is found guilty of the offense of piracy, the said person cannot hide behind the laws of any State. State to escape persecution. But in fact, he will be tried and convicted by any state for the crime of piracy. This shows that a person accused of piracy can be persecuted or, in this case, prosecuted under international law for their participation in piracy. The next case is United States v. Suarez (2017) No. 16-cr. -453 (RJS)[8], where in this case the defendants were intercepted by the United States Coast Guard. However, the accused maintained that they were not seized on the high seas for the offense of piracy. However, the court found them guilty of piracy jure gentium since they were seized on the high seas by the US Coast Guard. These cases show that for the offense of piracy, any State, wherever it is, has jurisdiction to punish the offender for his offense ofpiracy. Based on the above authorities, it is clear that based on the facts presented, it clearly shows that Captain Barbossa and the entire crew of the Bootstrap had attacked another ship called the Black Pearl and used a unauthorized and unjustified force against the crew of the Black Pearl, resulting in the deaths of 19 crew members and the detention of passengers on board the Black Pearl. Therefore, under Article 1 of UNCLOS, Captain Barbossa and the entire crew of the Bootstrap committed acts of piracy. Furthermore, based on the eyewitness testimony of William Turner, it is clear that the Bootstrap, which is Captain Barbossa's ship was used for the crime of piracy, where the Bootstrap was allegedly involved in the capture of the Black Pearl. Thus, under Article 103 of UNCLOS, must be considered a pirate ship used by Captain Barbossa. Finally, under article 105 of the UNCLOS, it is specified that the offense of piracy exposes the offender to the death penalty. capture and trial in any state and anywhere. This is supported by the two cases Re Piracy Jure Gentium [1926-1941] HKC 153 and United States v Suarez (2017) No. 16-cr-453 (RJS), where the judges in that case held that in the event of piracy, any State will have jurisdiction to seize the pirate ship and judge those involved in piracy. Therefore, in conclusion, under Article 105 and the cases mentioned, Captain Barbossa and the entire crew of the Bootstrap can be prosecuted for their action against the victims of the Black Pearl. Based on the facts presented, the questions of the case are whether Albert Co. Ltd can be considered to be subject to international law? Can this case be heard before an international court or before a national court in Cuba? And what is the best decision regarding Albert Co. Ltd's actions for possession of the Black Pearl, hijacking of 20 Mexicans and breach of contract with the company? For the first issue, Albert Co. Ltd is a company incorporated under Mexican law and had a business agreement with Guinea Incorporation of Cuba. Thus, this subjects Albert Co. Ltd to international law, since the agreement between Albert Co. Ltd and Guinea Incorporation is international in nature without any similar internal legal relationship between them. For the second question, the most appropriate authority is the case of Compagnie Tunisienne De Navigation SA v Compagnie D'armement Maritime SA HL (1970), where in this case the parties involved are Tunisian and French companies, disputes arose in their transactions and the Tunisian company claimed damages for repudiation of the contract. The Tunisian company claimed that the appropriate law for the dispute is Tunisian law, but the French side claims that the appropriate law is French law. The court held that the applicable law was French law since the facts show that the express choice of law when making the agreement was French law.[9]Furthermore, in Iran Continental Shelf Oil Company et al. v IRI International Corporation [2002] EWCA Civ 1024, where in this case the plaintiffs are Iranian companies ultimately owned by the Iranian government and the defendant (“IRI”) is a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Houston , in Texas. The Court of Appeal held that because both parties had been found unable to choose the law to be used in the dispute, there was no choice of law to resolve the dispute.[10] means that a dispute between private parties can generally be resolved in municipal court if both parties had included a choice of law clause earlier in the contract. If the parties have included this clause, then the dispute will be resolved according to thedomestic law of the chosen law. Based on the above authorities, it is clear that if Albert Co. Ltd and Guines Incorporation had included a clause that designates Cuban law as the choice of law to resolve the dispute, then these disputes can be heard in Court nationality of Cuba as shown in the case of Compagnie Tunisienne De Navigation SA v Compagnie D'armes Maritime SA HL (1970). However, as per the case of Iran Continental Shelf Oil Company and others v IRI International Corporation [2002] EWCA Civ 1024 if there was no such clause in their business agreement then the best option for them is to choose that the case to be heard by an international tribunal or Tribunal. This means that this case can be heard either by an international court or by the National Court of Cuba, depending on the provisions. For the third question, the most appropriate authority is Article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Maritime Affairs (UNCLOS),[11] where it is clearly stated that acts of piracy include "...unlawful acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private purposes by the crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft. , and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board that ship..." and Article 105 of UNCLOS[12] also states that "...any State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure can decide on the sanctions to be imposed, but also determine the measures to be taken…” This means that anyone who has been caught committing an act of piracy is likely to be prosecuted for that. an offense against all States, everywhere in the world. Therefore, the best decision for the law to be enforced against Albert Co. Ltd for the illegal possession of the Black Pearl and the illegal diversion of 20 Mexican nationals would be to be tried and convicted of the crime of piracy under the principle of de jure piracy. gentium. As for the action for breach of contract, when a party breaches his part of the contract, the aggrieved party has the right, first, to demand specific performance, secondly, to cancel or completely void the contract, thirdly and finally, seek damages. The relevant cases are Oakacre Ltd v Claire Cleaners (Holdings) Ltd (Chancery Division) [1981] 3 Al ER 667[13], the court held that “…In an action for specific performance the court therefore had power to grant damages for delay in performance even if the action had been brought before the date of completion and therefore before the cause of action for damages arose…” This case shows that the injured party is entitled to the attribution of a specific execution. in the event of breach of contract and even if the breach has not occurred but is inevitable. Next comes the case of Forslind v Bechely-Crundall 1922 (Sessions Court) (HL) 173[14], where in this case the court held that "...in the circumstances the seller's conduct entitled the buyer to believe that the seller did not intend to fulfill his part of the contract on time, such conduct amounted to a repudiation of the contract; and that the buyer had the right to decree…” This shows that a breach of contract will certainly entitle the injured party to repudiation of the contract. The latest case is the case of Addis v Gramophone (House of Lords) [1909] AC 488[15], in its case the court held that in a contract law case the injured party should be compensated in cash for the damage she suffered if the circumstances deemed it.