IMO | Maritime Safety Committee re "Arms Aboard Ships"

IMO | Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), 90th session, 16 to 25 May 2012 (High-level segment on arms on board):

Opening address by IMO Secretary-General Koji Sekimizu
May 16, 2012
MSC 90
Secretary-General Koji Sekimizu's opening address to the High-level segment on arms on board
16 May 2012

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Excellencies, distinguished delegates,

As I mentioned in my opening remarks to the meeting, this is the first ever high-level segment of the Committee and its importance is underscored by the presence here today of the President of the Assembly and the Council Chairman. I am particularly pleased to welcome and receive the support of the host Government through the participation of the Secretary of State for Transport – the Right Honourable Justine Greening MP – and of many Ambassadors, High Commissioners, Vice Minsters and others who have indicated their wish to participate in this very important debate – I wish to express my sincere appreciation to you all.

Reports received by the Organization indicate that, although the number of attacks by pirates continues to increase, the proportion of attacks that are successful has decreased. This may be due to a number of factors, including naval protection and better implementation of IMO guidance and Best Management Practices, including the use of Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP). There is anecdotal evidence that the number of ships carrying firearms has increased. On the basis of declarations of weapons carried and on their observations, naval forces estimate that around 25% of ships in the High Risk Area are carrying firearms, however it is also believed that a number of ships are not declaring the presence of private armed security for various reasons, including the lack of flag State approval.

The carriage of firearms on board merchant ships is a complex legal issue with Member States taking diverse positions. The Committee has determined that the carriage of armed personnel is a matter for flag States to authorize, however it has also accepted that their carriage has legal implications for coastal and port States, particularly with respect to the carriage, embarkation and disembarkation of firearms and security equipment in areas under the jurisdiction of such port or coastal States.

Resolution A.1044(27) on piracy and armed robbery against ships in waters off the coast of Somalia endorses the position of this Committee that seafarers should not carry firearms and that the carriage of armed personnel on board ships for enhancing their protection should be left to flag States to decide, once a thorough risk assessment exercise has been carried out and following consultations with the shipowners concerned.

Amongst other things, the resolution strongly urges Governments which have not already done so:

.1 to decide as a matter of national policy, whether ships entitled to fly their flag should be authorized to carry privately contracted armed security personnel and, if so, under what conditions; and

.2 in their capacity as port or coastal States, to decide on their policy on the embarkation, disembarkation and carriage of privately contracted armed security personnel and of the firearms, ammunition and security-related equipment, and to promulgate it widely to other Member Governments, to industry, and to the Organization.

As a truly global industry with many stakeholders, shipping benefits from harmonization of procedures, adoption of common minimum standards and clarity with respect to national legal regimes. However, while progress has been made on developing general guidance, policy on the use of Private Security Guards is not common among Member Governments and, across the shipping industry. There are no agreed minimum performance standards for Private Security Guards and ships using them are subject to many, diverse legal regimes at present.

In order to stimulate debate on this important subject, we have issued MSC 90/20/5, which describes the current situation and outlines a number of related policy issues requiring further deliberation by this Committee. While recognizing the reality of the situation in which Private Security Guards are employed and the diverse positions of Governments, there is a need to consider how the international community should deal with the issue of Private Security Guards and, in particular, the need to arrive at practical solutions to the issue.

Since the issue of Private Security Guards on board ships is of utmost sensitivity and requires detailed consideration of the policy issues involved, I considered it particularly helpful and appropriate, under this agenda item, for the Committee to engage in a high-level policy debate on this topic.

I invite all Member Governments representing flag, port and coastal States and States of seafarers, and shipowners to share their views on this issue of arms on board which is now critical for the international maritime community.

The outcome of your discussions today will provide the clear policy direction required for subsequent discussions on related, technical documents that the Committee and its Maritime Security and Piracy Working Group will be considering under this agenda item.

***

We have been dealing with piracy problems off the coast of Somalia for 5 years now.

Despite serious efforts by Governments, navies and the industry, the international community has not been able to stop Somali piracy.

We have seen significant developments over the last 4 years:

Armed Guards on Merchant Ships: The "Flag-State Endorsement"

Who will be responsible for Barney?

Interesting update to the Italian armed guard mess off India at The Hindu "Business Line" Ships with armed guards: Govt may fix responsibility on flag-state:

India's maritime administration may make ‘flag-state endorsement' mandatory for foreign merchant ships entering Indian waters with armed security guards on board. The idea is to make the Government of the country in which the ship is registered (flag-state) also responsible for any action on the part of the armed guards deployed on the vessel.
***
Currently, flag-states give a general approval for shipping companies to engage private security guards. The contract is between the ship owners and the security agency which provides the armed men. With rising incidents of attacks on cargo ships by Somali pirates, many countries, including India and Italy, have allowed their merchant ships to have armed guards on board. Ships have to follow the policy (on deployment of guards) of the country in which they are registered. The policy is based on the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) guidelines.

Problems can arise when the ship is owned, managed and operated by people of different nationalities. Typically, a ship may be registered in one country and its owner based in another. Further, the private security agency that provides the guards could be operating from a third country. Adding to this, there is every possibility of the security men belonging to different nationalities. Given such complexities, Government officials here said it needs to be made mandatory that flag states should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that any liability arising out of reckless acts by armed men on board are honoured.

Of course, there are problems with such an "endorsement," too. What if the foreign merchant ship is not in "Indian waters?" In fact, what if the entire act complained of occurs on the "high seas?" How do you hold the government of some "flag of convenience" state like Tuvalu responsible? Somewhere I once dug up the info that about 35% of shipping sails under a "flag of convenience." Is India going to forbid entry to its waters for such ships - not that it may matter all that much because many of those ships can't afford or won't hire armed security guards.
UPDATE 22 Feb 12: "It was an accident, not manslaughter" - an opinion piece.

Indian Ocean Mistake: Armed Guards on Italian Cargo Ship Shoot at Fishermen, Kill 2

Worst case scenario for armed guards on merchant ship, reported as Italian ship fires on fishing boat mistaking it for pirate vessel, killing 2 Indian fishermen:

An Italian cargo ship fired at an Indian fishing boat that it mistook for a pirate vessel, killing two fishermen, India’s navy said Thursday.

The ship identified as the Enrica Lexie fired at the fishermen in waters off India’s southern Kerala state on Wednesday, a navy statement said.

The Indian coast guard and navy vessels escorted the Italian ship to the nearby port city of Kochi and were questioning the captain and crew.

The owner of the fishing vessel, who goes by the single name Freddy, said Thursday the firing was unprovoked. The boat was fishing when the ship opened fire, killing the two fishermen instantly, he said.

The incident reportedly occurred 40 miles off the Indian coast.

More from here:

India on Thursday summoned the Italian envoy and voiced concern over the killing of two fishermen by security officials of the Italian cargo vessel and underlined that the captain of the ship should cooperate with local authorities.

M Ganapathi, secretary (west) in the external affairs ministry, met Italian ambassador Giacomo Sanfelice di Montefort and told him that the captain has to cooperate with Indian officials probing the incident.

The captain of Enrica Lexie, who has been ordered to anchor near a local port, told officials the fishermen were mistaken for pirates after they sailed close to the tanker in a motorised boat, navy spokesman Roy Francis said.

"The security wing fired at the fishermen and the captain has alerted the coast guard about the firing. We are making a detailed investigation," the naval spokesman said.
***
Freddie Louis, who owns the Indian fishing vessel, said gunmen on board the tanker fired at the boat "without provocation," killing the two unarmed men aged 50 and 21.

The boat with 11 men had sailed out to trawl for tuna fish on February 7.

"We were returning after the fishing and all of us were were sleeping except Valentine and Pinki," Louis told AFP, identifying the victims by their first names.

One report has the armed guards as being "Italian navy personnel."

ShipSpotting.com

Enrica Lexie

© Nathan

This type of event has been much discussed in concerns over placing armed security teams on merchant ships, with liability and control over the guards being major issues.

UPDATE: An interesting legal question arises about what law will apply to this shooting and that may turn on the location ship when the shooting occurred. Did this incident occur in Indian waters or on the "high seas?"

UPDATE2 (19 Feb 12): Italian guards now in Indian custody as reported here. India has has custody of the guards, the Italian government asserts that a trial, if any, should occur in Italy:

The Italian government maintains the case should be handled by its own judicial authorities “since the deeds happened in international waters on an Italian-flagged ship,” the statement said. The Italians contend that the presence of military personnel aboard the cargo ship is governed by an Italian law conforming to U.N. anti-piracy resolutions, and that such personnel are part of the Italian state and thus immune to the jurisdiction of foreign states.

The law on this is unclear - and this aspect of the matter properly is now less a legal issue than a diplomatic one.

Somali Pirates: Rejected by Dutch Marines

Somali pirates do not press encounter as Dutch marines ward off pirate attack:

Dutch marines guarding a merchant ship have warded off an attack by pirates after it was accosted in the Arabian Sea south of Yemen, the Dutch defence ministry said Tuesday.

"Dutch marines warded off the attack when pirates approached the Flintstone", a ship that dumps rocks to protect oil and gas pipelines, at around 6:00 am (0500 GMT), it said in a statement.
***
"The marines tried in vain to stop the fast-moving skiff, occupied by six men armed with an assortment of weapons including a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), by firing tracers as a warning," the ministry said.

After one of the men aimed the RPG at the ship, the marines fired on the skiff, which turned around and joined the larger fishing vessel.

"It's not excluded that there may have been casualties among the attackers," the ministry said.

Putting armed guards on merchants has slowed the pirates down.

South Korea wants its "Mystery Missiles"

Patriot Missile

Following up on an earlier post, Waiting for the "good" explanation, concerning a whole bunch of Patriot missiles found adrift on a the Thorco Shipping vessel MS Thor Liberty, it now seems that the South Koreans (a) have claimed the missile cargo and (b) want delivery.

As reported here, there will new protections provided for the vessel and its cargo as the way is went to the ROK:

South Korea is seeking U.S. cooperation to ensure safe shipment of missiles that were detained in Finland, government sources said Thursday.

One source said a British-registered ship, named Thor Liberty, has been authorized to leave the port in Kotka, southern Finland.

The ship, carrying 69 surface-to-air missiles from Germany to South Korea, was impounded there last month.

It sought safe harbor in Finland to avoid a typhoon. Local authorities, however, discovered that the vessel did not have proper transit documents for its shipment of missiles and other explosives, since it was not initially scheduled to make a stop there.

With the ship about to depart for South Korea after clearing administrative issues, safety concerns have emerged, the source said.

"Foreign news wires have reported that the ship has Patriot missiles, and it is possible that pirates and international terrorists could try to seize the ship," the source said. "The government has asked the U.S. to use their intelligence assets to help ensure safe travel of this ship."

The source said the U.S. is operating satellites monitoring situations in the Pacific Ocean and has installed long-range sea surveillance radars in Hawaii and other places.

Another source said the United States will begin real-time monitoring of suspected pirate ships around the planned route for Thor Liberty once the ship leaves Finland.

"I understand the U.S. also plans to dispatch their naval destroyer from nearby once a pirate ship or a suspected one moves closer to the cargo ship," the second source said.

Well, at least there is a plan.

Maybe.


I'm sure that if there are armed security guards on board the UK-flagged vessel as it transits pirate infested waters or other dangerous areas, those guards will be in full compliance with whatever guidelines Parliament may come up with in its efforts to clarify the use of deadly force on UK-flagged ships transiting with armed security guards (see here).

I hope the crew of MS Thor Liberty has a quiet passage for the remainder of this trip. It surely hasn't started out that way.

Armed Security Guards at Sea: Greek Sailor Unions Say "No!"

Reported here and as news at Safety at Sea Weekly:

The Panhellenic Seamen’s Federation announced yesterday that the bill “does not tackle piracy, nor protect seafarers, but instead raises the chances of mishaps and puts seafarers under psychological pressure”.

In a separate announcement, the Masters & Mates’ Union of the Greek Merchant Marine (PEPEN) said: “The content of the bill is unacceptable and leaves a ship’s master and crew exposed to danger.”
***
Under the proposal, up to six armed guards per ship, acting under the authority of the master, would be allowed on Greek-flagged ships serving routes outside its territorial waters.

There's just no pleasing some people.

Why would there be danger to the sailors? Well, consider this:

Somali pirates released a hijacked palm oil tanker and 21 crew members, but kept four South Koreans as hostages, the ship’s Singapore-based operator said Thursday.
***
In January, the South Korean military killed eight Somali pirates and captured five others in a raid on a hijacked South Korean-operated cargo ship in the Arabian Sea.

The five captured pirates were taken to South Korea and received long prison terms.

And this:

A self-described pirate in Somalia who gave his name as Bile Hussein said the arrests will lead to "trouble" for Indian sailors and ships.

"They better release them, considering their people traveling in the waters, or we shall jail their people like that," he said. "We are first sending a message to the Indian government of releasing our friends in their hands or else they have to be ready for their citizens to be mistreated in the near future."

Now, extrapolate from those threats to what the pirates are doing.

They have always known that the hostages they hold are one of the few reasons that the pirates have been allowed to survive - fear of them killing the hostage sailors they hold has stayed the armed fist of naval forces (including Marines). So, they reason, if we want to influence the policy makers of the countries who pose a threat to us, we should grab and hold their sailors to provide ourselves with leverage against the delivery of force against us.

The hostages become life insurance and political pawns.

It's a war. A nasty brutish sort of war as run by criminal gangs.

Perhaps the Greek sailors feel they don't want to run any additional risks of being long-term hostages.

Dutch Government Minister Warns Private Armed Guards On Dutch Ships Could Be Legal Violation

Reported as Armed guards on ships could be an offence, says minister:

Shipping firms which place private armed security guards on ships passing areas where pirates operate risk criminal prosecution, justice minister Ivo Opstelten said on Thursday evening.

Jumbo Shipping from Rotterdam and Vroon Shipping based in Breskens have both said they will carry armed guards while sailing under the Dutch flag.

Just one more complication in the battle against Somali pirates.

No wonder the Jolly Roger has a smile on his face. 

Overall, Piracy Rises, But Fewer Successful Somali Pirate Hijackings (Compared to Last Year)

From Platt's Piracy rises yet more ships escape Somali pirates: IMB:

Piracy has risen to record levels in the first nine months of the year with Somali pirates behind 56% of the 352 attacks, the International Maritime Bureau said Tuesday.

"Figures for piracy and armed robbery at sea in the past nine months are higher than we have ever recorded in the same period of any past year," said Pottengal Mukundan, Director of IMB. The IMB's Piracy Reporting Center has monitored piracy worldwide since 1991.

More ships, however, are escaping Somali pirates with hijack attempts "being thwarted by strengthened anti-piracy measures," the report said.

Despite the Somali pirates initiating more attacks, which amounted to 199 through September, up from 126 last year, and going further out in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, they "are managing to hijack fewer vessels," the report said.

"Only 24 vessels were hijacked this year compared with 35 for the same period in 2010," the IMB said.

"Policing and interventions by international naval forces," as well as "careful consideration of the crews' retreat to a 'citadel' and other onboard security measures" were credited for the reduction in hijackings off Somalia.

What the IMB did not say, or what was not report in the piece if it was said, is that a large number of attempted attacks have been turned away by shipboard armed security teams.

As of today, no ship with an armed security force on it has been hijacked. What is also unreported is that the pirates continue to expand into new areas, apparently in an effort to find ships with lowered security levels because they are out of the recognized piracy danger areas. Thus, the expansion into the lower Red Sea (weather also being a factor), along the coast of Pakistan and India and offshore Tanzania and Kenya.

With an adequate mothership, a pirate team can cover a lot of the Indian Ocean. Of course, as as been discussed before, they really need to stick to known sea lanes to find the most targets.

Somali Pirates: Armed Guards Worried Over

That's not an AK-47 that pirate has

For people who have been living under rocks someplace, The Economist offers up Piracy: Prepare to repel boarders dealing with the use of armed guards on ships plying pirate infested waters:

Until February the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), which represents the world’s merchant shipowners, opposed the use of armed guards—even as some members were discreetly hiring them. Since the chamber changed its line, the number of owners tooling up has accelerated. Now, says Simon Bennett, its spokesman, perhaps 20% of all ships passing through the risky parts of the Indian Ocean have armed guards aboard—typically retired marines or the like.

In recruiting armed security men, some shipowners have defied the laws of the countries where their vessels are registered. But governments, unable to provide the naval cover the shipowners want, are one by one legalising the practice. Spain, one of the earliest to let its fishing-boats carry armed guards, said on September 27th that they would now be allowed to use machineguns and other heavy weapons against the pirates’ AK-47s.
***
The UN’s International Maritime Organisation (IMO), while still not endorsing the practice, last month asked Somalia’s neighbours to let armed merchant ships call at their ports. The ICS says it understands Egypt is to lift its ban on armed merchant ships’ passage through the Suez canal. But the Indian government is still said to disapprove of armed merchant ships calling at its ports: their guards either have to go elsewhere or dump their weapons overboard.

An official inquiry in the Netherlands last month recommended that the government itself do the hiring of armed guards, enlisting them as temporary members of the armed forces. This is one potential way to ease worries about the spread of what would in effect be private navies on the high seas—something not seen since government-sponsored “privateers” were banned in the 19th century.
***
Shipowners’ insurers are worried that ill-trained guards without insurance of their own might shoot someone and land them with huge claims. . . .
***
There do not yet seem to have been any claims, or lawsuits, over the use of armed ship guards, says Tom Heinan of International Registries (which runs the Marshall Islands’ shipping register). But shipowners using them could face legal action in various places: their own country, the flag state of their ship, the home countries of injured crewmen, and so on. All the more reason to ensure that the guards are competent and well-insured.

Meanwhile, the UK government seems to have decided armed guards aren't all that bad, as reported here:

As reported in Lloyd’s List, any formal opposition to the use of private armed guards on board UK flagged vessels will now be dropped.

UK Foreign Office minister Sir Henry Bellingham confirmed a reversal on the previous strong discouragement of armed vessel protection.

The Dutch are going to provide an armed force for ship riding, as set out here, as will Italy.

Welcome to 19th century, sorta. Sometimes you just have to shoot back.

Somali Pirates: Insurance Executive Suggests, "Shoot the pirates"

TradeWinds.com reports on a speech given by an insurance executive that contains some blunt advice, at Shipping news - www.tradewindsnews.com:

Ready? Aim?  . . .

Aon K&R chief electrifies India Shipping Summit piracy session with ‘Don’t fire above their heads, put a bullet in their body’ call.

I'll bet there were a lot of panties in a twist after that advice was proffered at the India Shipping Summit.

Of course, it's all in the context. He also suggests armed guards on ships (well, of course, otherwise, how could pirate fire be returned!). He did couch the advice with a "if necessary," which will probably go unreported and unexamined, but which is really the key qualifier in his advice. Sort of when you are under pirate attack and "when all else fails," don't you know.

There is a video at the TradeWinds site.

Somali Pirates: Some Collected Reports

First, the saga of the Captain of a ship being held by pirates and the treatment of crews at pirate hands in this piece from Expressindia.comCaptain tied up in dark cabin for 21 days, engineer dipped in water till he fainted:

Waiting for death, Makane had begun to hallucinate when, he said, he drew inspiration from Papillon by Henri Charrière, a convicted felon who later crafted a legendary escape. “Papillon never lost hope. I had to keep the faith,” Makane, 53, says of the 21 days of “pure torture” at the hands of Somalian pirates.

Second. a report from Italy on a plan to put armed guards on Italian merchant ships from here:

Italy is to station military forces on its merchant vessels to guard against attacks by Somali pirates, shipping sources said on Tuesday, the day after another of its ships was attacked off the anarchic east African country.

Many ships already carry private security contractors to try to prevent hijacks, but deployment of military forces on merchant vessels would mark a clear escalation in measures to combat piracy, which costs the world economy billions of dollars each year.

The sources said Defence Minister Ignazio La Russa would sign an agreement later on Tuesday with the confederation of Italian ship owners to put military guards on board vessels in the huge area of the Indian Ocean at risk from Somali pirates, who have hijacked several Italian ships.

Third, a suggestion that the current ant-piracy strategies are not working and a proposed shore based solution from here:

The question is: Are we getting it right in the way we are trying to solve the problem? Am afraid, the answer is No. The approximate annual cost of the international naval flotilla is said to be $2 billion; six times bigger than the cost of African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) since 2007. AMISOM seeks to restore the state of Somalia and subsequently a state of law and order. Without fear, pirates live on land and launch sea attacks from there. Why then shouldn’t we spend on land based measures, like supporting AMISOM than sea operations?

Ports and Armed Guard Guidelines

Another nice article from Tanker Operator: "Ports should issue armed guard guidelines":

The IMO recently set out guidelines for shipowners and operators to deal with the use of armed guards, but no reference, or guidance was given to the provision of armed guards while in waters under port state control, or while ‘landed’.

Mee told the conference: “The recent hijacking in port waters in Oman and other similar attacks serves to remind us of the increasing threat posed to shipowners and operators when they are effectively under the jurisdiction of port state control. If clear guidelines for ports aren’t established either by the ports themselves, or the IMO, then the most vulnerable ports may see port calls fall.

“This threat highlights the need for greater involvement of the ports in developing clear guidelines on how security can be provided and provisioned when a vessel is in port waters,” he said.
***
“Ports, ideally under the auspices of the IMO, should move swiftly to issue guidelines illustrating how they handle armed security when they are entering or disembarking ports, as well as guidance for the storage of weaponry,” he warned.

Armed guards are not permitted to operate in territorial waters and it is down to the sovereign state to provide security while vessels wait in the anchorage area.

Nice to see people worrying about some of the stumbling blocks to providing ships with security while in port or operating in the territorial waters of sovereign states that cannot or will not provide secure anchorages or transit routes.

Shipping Entities Want UN Armed Guards on Merchant Ships in Pirate Zones

According to a report in Tanker Operator:

The Round Table of international shipping associations has called for the establishment of a United Nations force of armed military guards to tackle the current piracy crisis.

In a hard hitting letter to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), BIMCO, INTERTANKO and INTERCARGO demanded a "bold new strategy" to curb rising levels of piracy, which have resulted in the Indian Ocean resembling "the wild west".

The letter stated: "It is now abundantly clear to shipping companies that the current situation, whereby control of the Indian Ocean has been ceded to pirates, requires a bold new strategy. To be candid, the current approach is not working."

Regretting the increasing necessity for shipping companies to employ private armed guards to protect crew and ships, the letter continued: "It seems inevitable that lawlessness ashore in Somalia will continue to breed lawlessness at sea."

The shipping industry organisations - which represent more than 90% of the world’s merchant fleet – said that they fully support the UN's long-term measures on shore aimed at helping the Somali people but were concerned that these "may take years, if not decades, to have a meaningful impact on piracy."

Old School Armed Guards for Merchant Ships

Asking the UN to bring the concept of a UN force of armed military guards to the attention of its Security Council, the letter said: "The shipping industry believes that the situation can only be reversed with a bold approach that targets the problem in manageable pieces. We believe that an important element in this approach would be the establishment of a UN Force of Armed Military Guards that can be deployed in small numbers on board merchant ships.

“This would be an innovative force in terms of UN peacekeeping activity but it would do much to stabilise the situation, to restrict the growth of unregulated, privately contracted armed security personnel and to allow those UN member states lacking maritime forces - including those in the region most immediately affected - to make a meaningful contribution in the area of counter-piracy," the letter concluded.

If the UN funds armed guards then shipping companies won't have to, unless the UN charges them for the service, which it should.

Operating under a UN charter might make some of the legal aspects of armed ship guards easier.

Somali Pirates: Chemical Ship Defended by Armed Security Guards

Reported at IMB's Live Piracy Report

Gulf of Aden
Type of Attack :Attempted
Narrations: 29.08.2011: 0655 UTC: Posn: 12:30.25N – 043:52.37E, Gulf of Aden.
Five pirates armed with guns in two skiffs approached a chemical tanker underway. Master raised alarm, gave one long blast and crew mustered at a safe place. When the skiffs came close to 15 metres from the tanker, the onboard security team fired warning shots resulting in the pirates aborting the attack.

Piracy at Sea and Issues with Armed Guards on Merchant Ships

Reportedly this burning ship was attacked while waiting to embark private armed guards

Eric Kulisch writing at American Shipper on Hard target: Maersk Alabama incident highlights growing use of armed guards.:

Governments and the private sector are grappling with the fact that each ocean carrier and security team develops its own protocols. A major concern for maritime industry stakeholders is that there are no universal rules of engagement for private contractors on cargo ships.

What are his ROE?

The IMO on May 20 issued preliminary guidelines for vessel operators, owners and captains, as well as flag states, to consider as they develop corporate and national policies governing qualifications for security service providers and how they should conduct themselves. The effort is intended to prevent rogue outfits from shooting indiscriminately and potentially killing or injuring an innocent boater or suspected pirates that have not taken any threatening action. A tragic accident could create legal liability for the shipping company, either from civil suits seeking damages or even criminal prosecution by governments for violations of national or international laws. And some worry that escalating violence will force pirates, who often fire small arms and rocket-propelled grenades more to intimidate a captain into stopping rather than trying to kill, to react more aggressively if they believe they will be shot at for approaching a vessel without exhibiting hostile intent.
Lawyers note that authorizing the use of lethal force against a suspicious vessel that is approaching without first giving verbal notice, or a warning shot, could open an individual to assault charges by a coastal state.
“Even the police when they show up have to identify themselves before they shoot you,” said Michael Frodl, an attorney who advises insurance interests about piracy and provides analytical services for a broader maritime clientele.
And unlike in the military, there is no sovereign immunity for officers that authorize lethal force and wind up killing innocent civilians.
The legal boundaries regarding self-protection at sea are murky, especially when trying to determine whether the law of the flag state or the nearest coastal state applies.

The "rules of engagement" for private security forces should require lots of planning including a good understanding of the intended route and current location of the ship being guarded. Experience counts.

UPDATE: See also this:

. . . Further, in territorial waters, it will also be necessary to comply with the laws of a coastal or port state. The dangers of not doing so are obvious; in the event of unlawful death or injury, there is a risk that security personnel could be prosecuted for murder or serious injury by the flag state or any other state asserting legal jurisdiction for the crime. In regions such as the Straits of Malacca, unlawful use of force in response to a pirate attack in the region could potentially expose the security personnel to criminal sanctions in Singapore, Indonesia or Malaysia, depending on the location of the vessel at the time. Additionally, there is a risk that the master, the security company, or other parties could be prosecuted as accessories to any unlawful killing or injury caused by the security personnel.

Sometime soon a book about private security companies, to which I have contributed a chapter on some of the legal issues involved, will be available - it's at the publishers.