Journal of Social and Political


ISSN 2615-3718 (Online)

ISSN 2621-5675 (Print)

Published: 11 January 2019

Are Private Maritime Security Companies or Naval Assets the Preferred Means to Address Maritime Piracy?

Serafima Staritsyna

London School of Public Relations, Indonesia

pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf



The rapid rise of piracy in the first decade of the 21st century in certain areas of the world has led to the emergence of various private military stakeholders in the field of maritime security. Although Private Maritime Security companies’ services have been found effective at repulsing piratical attacks, their often dangerous performance has significantly increased the concern of States about the legitimacy and legal accountability of such maritime actors. The State’s Naval forces are considered safer and more legitimate means of controlling the endangered maritime areas, although the cost of their service and maintenance is another reason for the State’s concern. The States are yet to determine which party is responsible for carrying the burden of Naval forces’ services. This paper aims to determine the existing models of the contracted maritime security and discuss whether the State’s naval forces or private maritime security companies are the preferred means to address modern maritime piracy.


  1. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty Safety and Shipping Review. (2014).  Retrieved from 


  3. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty Safety and Shipping Review. (2017).  Retrieved from 


  5. Bensassi, S., & Martinez-Zarzoso, I. (2012). How costly is Modern Maritime Piracy to the International Community? Review of International Economics 869, 20(5).

  6. Carbone, A. (2016). The Use of Private Maritime Security Companies in a Highly Uncertain Regulatory Environment. ELSA Malta Law Review.

  7. Chang, D. (2010). Piracy Laws and the Effective Prosecution of Pirates. Boston College International & Comparative Law Review.

  8. International Maritime Bureau. (2017). 2017 Annual Report of the International Maritime Bureau. Retrieved from

  9. IMO. (2012). Interim Guidance to Private Maritime Security Companies Providing Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board Ships in the High Risk Area. Retrieved from


  11. IMO Doc. MSC-FAL/Circ. 2. (2011). Questionnaire On Customs Requirements Concerning The Control Of Firearms And Ammunition On Board Ships For Use By Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP). Retrieved from


  13. IMO Doc. MSC. 90. (2012). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its Ninetieth Session. Retrieved from


  15.        Kraska, J., & Wilson, B. (2011, February 23). Combatting Piracy in International Waters. [Web log post]. Retrieved from


  17. Kraska, J. (2013). International and comparative regulation of private maritime security companies employed in counter-piracy. In D. Guilfoyle (Ed.), Modern Piracy: Legal Challenges and Responses. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

  18. Kraska, J. (2015). Regulation of Private Maritime Security Companies in International Law. In M. Nordquist, J. Moore, & R. Beckman (Eds.), Freedom of Navigation and Globalization. Leiden: Brill.

  19. Marin, J., Mudric, M., & Mikac, R. (2017). Private Maritime Security Contractors and Use of Lethal Force in Maritime Domain. In G. Andreone (Ed.), The Future of the Law of the Sea: Bridging Gaps Between National, Individual and Common Interests. Springer.

  20. Mumo, M. (2017, October 24). Private maritime security firms spark concerns. Business Daily Africa. Retrieved from


  22. OBP Issue Paper: Defining Contracted Maritime Security. (2016, December 16). Retrieved January 19, 2018, from


  24. OBP Issue Paper: Privately Contracted Armed Maritime Security. (2017, August 8). Retrieved January 27, 2018, from


  26. OBP Issue Paper: State Affiliated Escorts. (2017, October 18). Retrieved January 27, 2018, from

  27. OBP Issue Paper: Vessel Protection Detachments. (2017, September 1). Retrieved January 27, 2018, from


  29. Park, K. S., & Kildow, J. T. (2014). Rebuilding the Classification System of the Ocean Economy. Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, vol. 2014 (1), article 4.

  30. Pitney, J.P., & Levin, J.C. (2013). Private Anti-Piracy Navies: How Warships for Hire Are Changing Maritime Security. Lexington Books.

  31. Tamsin, P. (2013). Piracy and Universal Jurisdiction. Macquarie Law Journal 131. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2018, from


  33. Tsiachris, C. (2017). Modern maritime piracy: The anti-piracy professionals’ consciousness of the hard and soft law regulating anti-piracy operations. (Master Thesis, Lund University). Retrieved from

  34. UK Department for Transport. (2011). Interim Guidance to UK Flagged Shipping on the Use of Armed Guards to Defend Against the Threat of Piracy in Exceptional Circumstances. London. Retrieved from


  36. UNCLOS - Article 101. (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2017, from

About Us

The Asian Institute of Research is an online and open-access platform to publish recent research and articles of scholars worldwide. Founded in 2018 and based in Indonesia, the Institute serves as a platform for academics, educators, scholars, and students from Asia and around the world, to connect with one another. The Institute disseminates research that is proven or predicted to be of significant influence for the general public.

Contact Us

Please send all inquiries to the email:

Business Address:

5th Floor, Kavling 507, Fajar Graha Pena Tower, Jl. Urip Sumohardjo No.20, Makassar, Indonesia 90234

Copyright © 2018 The Asian Institute of Research. All rights reserved

Stay Connected

  • Instagram - Black Circle
  • Facebook - Black Circle
  • LinkedIn - Black Circle