India Finally Acquits Private Security Contractors

Indian court acquits 35 from anti-piracy ship of weapons charges reports The Japan Times

Thirty-five men being held in India were on Monday acquitted of illegal possession of arms while they were on a U.S.-operated anti-piracy ship in 2013.

The six Britons, three Ukrainians, 14 Estonians and 12 Indians were

given five-year jail sentences by a lower court in southern India’s Tamil Nadu state in January last year.

The Indian coast guard intercepted the privately run MV Seaman Guard Ohio off the coast of Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu in October 2013.

Semi-automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition were found.

The crew members were charged with not having proper paperwork to carry weapons in Indian waters, but India has faced intense diplomatic pressure over the case ever since.

R. Subramaniya Adityan, a lawyer for 19 of the crew, said after Monday’s hearing at the Madras High Court that the men “will be released after the court order reaches the prison officials on Tuesday.”

One of the risks of private security company (PSC) anti-piracy units is having to deal with the laws of the various states through whose waters ships carrying the PSC must transit. Especially those states very sensitive about threats posed by units of armed, well-trained men.

That being said, four years is a long time to deal with what should have been a matter easily disposed of.

Background here

Gulf of Guinea Pirates: Use of Private Armed Guards Restricted in Nigerian Waters

With a hat tip to Tanker Master, this report from the Gulf of Guinea - "Nigeria bans armed guards on merchant vessels" as reported by maritime security company Gulf of Aden Group Transits:

The latest security advisory for Nigeria issued by the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) effectively renders the use of armed guards commercially placed on merchant vessels illegal and is highly likely to have major repercussions for the ship owner and the charterer should they be caught with un-authorized armed police or marine police on board says leading maritime security company GoAGT.

According to BIMCO there have been a number of ‘blue on blue’ incidents in the last six months and the industry as a whole is concerned about the safety of crew transiting the region. The warning comes exactly a month after a merchant vessel was boarded near Port Harcourt, which had its cargo stolen whilst the crew were held hostage, despite a Nigerian Naval vessel being in the vicinity.

Nick Davis, CEO of GoAGT, said: "BIMCO have taken a strong, proactive stance on this issue. The incident a month ago was entirely preventable with the use of an unarmed advisor and a good radar lookout. The crew were very lucky not to have suffered injury, had they been able to react quicker and retreated to the citadel the situation would have diffused quickly. The primary concern should be the safety of the personnel, theft in the Gulf of Guinea is unfortunately something ship owners and managers have to deal with, with an advisor on board vessels can avoid a hostage situation during a boarding."

He went on to say: "Merchant vessels approaching Nigeria from within the Gulf of Guinea must understand that the Nigerian Navy are the only authorized body to offer protection via escort vessels only, and not with armed guards on client vessels. The option for Joint Task Force or Police protection is only available within the riverine deltas and not on the high seas. There is a clear and present danger to the safety of the crew with the only effective solution being to employ an advisor who can safely get the crew to the citadel, which must be well-equipped with communications equipment.

"Currently the use of armed guards in the region falls into a legal grey area. Ship owners and managers being offered so-called 'authorised' armed protection within the Gulf of Guinea by Private Maritime Security Companies are well advised to seek advice from BIMCO, their flag state and the local Nigerian embassy or consulate for the latest advice and protocol prior to parting with money for a service that could have severe operational interruption to normal trading."

Nick Davis said: "There is no satisfactory way for managers and owners to perform due diligence on locally sourced guards. It has been reported in the past that incidents of product theft or kidnap have been targeted against vessels carrying guards. Due to the high risk of operating in this area, ship owners and managers must do all that is in their power to ensure the crew remain safe with thorough training, enhanced watch keeping and a well prepared plan of action in case of an incident."

Sure, Mr. Davis is looking for work for his company's advisers, but he makes excellent points about the "grayness" of the situation and the need for great care in planning port calls in Nigerian waters.

An alternative solution to the ban, is some sort of "non-corrupt" licensing program for local armed guards that might reduce the risk of the identified problems. On the other hand, we are talking Nigeria here.

Be very, very cautious. These are not issues of international waters but of Nigerian law.

I assume more ships will be loitering off the coast out beyond Nigerian territorial waters (and thus beyond the reach of Nigerian law) and making a dash for port when necessary. Armed guard teams in "barracks" vessels who can board and guard ships at sea and then be dropped off before the run in may be the ticket.

The Decline of Somali Pirates and the Rise of Private Security

As is now well-documented, Somali pirates had an awful 2013 - recording no hijackings. Perhaps they are "lying doggo" waiting for all the naval patrols and armed security teams to go away when the providing states and shipowners decide the cost of maintaining them is too high.

In any event, there is this:

Undoubtedly shipping industry adherence to industry Best Management Practices (BMP) has been vitally important, so too has been the reassurance of patrolling navies. However, the single most effective protection and deterrent against pirates has been the widespread deployment of privately contracted armed security personnel (PCASP) onboard vulnerable vessels.

Enhanced professionalism within the private maritime security industry has acted as a catalyst for the protection of vessels, and it still remains that no armed merchant vessel has yet been hijacked. Despite successes, piracy clearly remains a danger with pirates still operating, and all stakeholders are urged to avoid complacency.

Of course, if you are Iranian, this "war on piracy" has been a singular victory, as set out here, dated 8 Jan:

An attempt by pirates to hijack an Iranian oil tanker in international waters was foiled by the timely action of the Iranian warships present in the region.

Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Navy for Operations Admiral Siyavash Jarreh announced on Wednesday that the Navy's 28th fleet of warship saved the Iranian tanker from pirate attacks in the Gulf of Aden.

"The Iranian oil tanker was attacked by 12 pirate boats this morning but they failed due to the timely action of the 28th flotilla of warships and the pirates fled the scene," he added.

The admiral underlined that the Iranian oil tanker was escorted by the Navy flotilla through the waterway and continued its path towards its destination fully safely.

In relevant remarks last month, a senior Iranian commander praised the exceptionally good performance of the country's naval forces for maintaining security to the international waters by escorting thousands of vessels in the high seas.

“In the last three years, around 3,000 cargo ships and oil tankers have been escorted by the Navy’s commandos and vessels,” Commander of the Iranian Navy’s Missile Program Admiral Ali Vafadar told FNA in December.

He also said that pirates' attempts to hijack 147 cargo ships and oil tankers in international waters have been aborted due to the timely action of the Iranian warships deployed in the region.

Vafadar said that the Iranian naval forces have also managed to seize control of a number of pirate boats and vessels, arrest their crews and transferred them to Iran to stand trial for their crimes.

From THE NAVAL INSTITUTE GUIDE TO COMBAT FLEETS OF THE WORLD, 16th Edition Their Ships, Aircraft, and Systems by Eric Wertheim

It appears the Somali pirates have not disappeared from the seas, instead, they are focusing on Iranian ships in great numbers.

I wonder how those "trials" are going . . .

Odd, though, the last time (20 Dec 2013) we heard of the "28th Flotilla," it in Sri Lanka, as set out here:

“The 28th Flotilla of this force comprising Alborz warship, Bandar Abbas warship and semi-heavy Younus submarine as well as a 212 combat helicopter berthed at Colombo port, Sri Lanka, after departing from India’s Mumbai port and travelling thousands of kilometers,” Lieutenant Navy Commander for Operations Siyavash Jarreh said on Friday.

The pictures show the ships of the "Mighty 28th."

They made pretty good time from Colombo to the "Gulf of Aden" traveling all those "thousands of kilometers."

A veritable fast task force.

Fighting Pirates: A Lawerly Debate

From MaritimeTV, a couple of maritime legal thinkers discuss Armed Guards on Vessels. From May, 2012, and it seems a little OBE but still worth watching.

Hat tip to: The Marine Advocate Online.

You can order Defending Against Pirates here for $75 (downloadable pdf) or as a more expensive hard copy.

You might also be interested in a book to which I contributed, 
Maritime Private Security
Market Responses to Piracy, Terrorism and Waterborne Security Risks in the 21st Century
Edited by Patrick Cullen and Claude Berube, available here or from Amazon here.

Somali Pirates: Countries that say "No" to private armed security guards

Countries that are saying "No" to private armed security teams on their flag merchant ships: Netherlands:

The Dutch government does not allow ship owners to have armed guards on board, but it does provide marines as protection. However, ship owners and insurers say there are not enough of them.

Hillen says he thinks the ship owners are protesting at the cost of the marines, who cost twice as much as private security guards, say press reports. He will see if the cost can be reduced but can give no guarantee.

Indonesia:

Transportation Minister E.E. Mangindaan said the hiring of private armed security guards on ships had been a pretty hot issue at the recent meeting of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) maritime safety committee in London; it had also been the subject of prolonged debate among stakeholders at home.

“But the government will consistently oppose the proposal due to the absence of national and international legal instruments,” Mangindaan said during the opening of the International Transport Workers’ Federation’s Asia-Pacific regional conference in Jakarta on Tuesday.

"Interim" Guidance for private maritime security companies agreed by IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee

Reported by the IMO as "Guidance for private maritime security companies agreed by IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee":

Following further debate during a working group, the MSC agreed Interim Guidance to private maritime security companies (PMSC) providing contracted armed security personnel on board ships in the High Risk Area.

The guidance covers:

• PMSC Professional Certification, including the recommendation that PMSC should seek certification with relevant national and international private maritime security service standards when these are established;

• PMSC Company requirements, including the recommendation that PMSC should establish procedures to provide maritime security services to ship owners and ship operators and comply with all relevant legal requirements;

• Management, including recommendations on selection, vetting and training of personnel for a PCASP team;

• Deployment considerations, addressing the specific aspects of PCASP deployment and the role of the PMSC in ensuring efficient and successful deployments, including communications with the ship owner or operator, and including recommendations relating to management of firearms and ammunition from embarkation to disembarkation and use of force. (The PMSC should recognize that laws governing the use of force may differ over time and according to location. The applicable national law, including any criminal laws, for an incident on a ship from which PCASP will be operating will be principally that of the flag State. It may also include the laws and regulations of coastal, port and other States.)

Somali Pirates: Maersk vessel fights off pirates in Gulf of Oman

Reported as "Maersk vessel attacked by pirates in Gulf of Oman" by Reuters:

The Maersk Texas, a multi-purpose dry cargo ship, was attacked by pirates in the Gulf of Oman but guards repelled the attack, Maersk Line Ltd, a unit of Danish shipping and oil group A.P. Moller-Maersk , said on Wednesday.

Private armed security guards win again.

 Photo of Maersk Texas (click on it to enlarge) from

ShipSpotting.com

© Rogério Cordeiro

UPDATE: Location should not be all that surprising - as you can see from the nearby weather maps (thanks, Weatheronline!), the winds off Oman are not so helpful for small boat ops, but inside the Gulf of Oman, the conditions are better. This situation was predicted by ONI in its Piracy Analysis and Warning Weekly issued 17 May 2012 from which the following weather guesser map of areas of likely pirate operations was obtained:

The white arrow is my attempt to point to the area of the Gulf of Oman that ONI pointed out as high risk.

Here is the WeatherOnline map of the Gulf of Oman from today:

 As you can see, it's pretty brisk out there except fairly well up into the Gulf of Oman.

UPDATE2: gCaptain has some more which may correct part of this interesting (but perhaps misleading) Bloomberg article identifying the area of the attack as being in the Gulf of Oman north of the port of Fujairah - roughly the area I pointed that white arrow to.

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:

Somali Pirates: "Private" Counter-Pirate Navy?

The East African reports: "Privately armed ‘navies’ to protect ships off Somalia coast":

Privately armed patrol boats aimed at deterring Somali pirates could be up and running by as early as next month, after a prominent insurance firm agreed to provide financial support.

Following the successful introduction of armed guards aboard several merchant ships plying the waters of the Gulf of Eden and the East African coast, Martin Reith, the founder and former chief executive of the Lloyd’s of London insurer Ascot Underwriting, has taken the protection business one stage further with his plans for a Convoy Escort Programme, which will complement the overstretched naval forces in the region.

***

The investors are hoping that once the funding is in place, they will buy around seven secondhand naval patrol vessels; the money will also help to finance the armed security guards that will be on board.

Not a new idea and even the first effort of implementing the idea (remember Blackwater's anti-pirate escort? - well, there are several agencies offering private escort vessels already).

What law will rule the surrender of pirates to private companies?

There are a lot of questions floating about -exactly where these forces will operate? Under what laws? To whom will their "force" be accountable? Some of these issues are touched on in the book Maritime Private Security: Market responses to piracy, terrorism and waterborne security risks in the 21st century", edited by Patrick Cullen and Claude Berube and in a whole bunch of posts on this blog.

More from the article:

“This is not a navy,” he said. “What we’re trying to be is a deterrent force. Prevention is within our reach.”

The backers of the idea have stressed that it complies with maritime law. They say it will observe the International Maritime Organisation conventions, such as the Safety of Life at Sea treaty.

The Royal Navy fades away

The more the merrier and it is timely, I suppose, now that the Royal Navy has announced it is now too small to be able to play in the Somali anti-piracy business on a full time basis - see Cuts force Royal Navy to drop Somalia piracy patrol:

The UK has had to scale back its commitment to counter-piracy because the Royal Navy no longer has enough warships to dedicate one to Somalia all year round.

While the US, France, Italy, Denmark and other nations still send frigates to thwart criminals who cause havoc with international trade, the Guardian has learned that Britain has quietly withdrawn its ships from these patrols, even though David Cameron has made Somalia's piracy problem a foreign policy priority.

Maybe the Brits can still afford to rent a maritime patrol aircraft to send, like Luxembourg and lend "top cover" to the private forces in the Gulf of Aden.

Counter-Pirate Private Armed Security Teams: The Economist Take

That the world of armed private security teams on ships is complicated will not be a surprise for those who have taken a look at Maritime Private Security: Market responses to piracy, terrorism and waterborne security risks in the 21st century, edited by Patrick Cullen and Claude Berube, but The Economist tries its hand at pointing out some of the legal ramifications of the those armed private security teams in its piece, "Piracy and private security: Laws and guns":

The idea may seem simple but its legal framework is not. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea a ship’s crew, including guards, must abide by the home laws of a vessel’s flag state. But these vessels ply international waters, meaning that regulation is scant. An array of standards created since 2009 suggests good practice for private security teams, but none is legally binding.

Yes, the world can be confusing place, what with all those different countries and their conflicting laws . . .

Somali Pirates: Piracy Leads to Standard Contract for Private Armed Counter-Pirate Guards

Unknown to much of the general public, the ships that travel the great sea lanes usually operate under contracts to carry goods and oil and other things from point A to Poiint B.
After years and years, these contracts (known as "charter parties") have become standardized in format - so that they are often a matter of "fill in the blank." In many instances, a contract for engaging a ship to carry something may consist of an email which reads, in part, something like "standard BIMCO terms," BIMCO (Baltic and International Maritime Council) being a trade organization the members of which have agreed on the terms of certain charter parties that form the standard contracts. The variations in the terms are covered in the emails by writing out the exceptions rather than the entire agreement. So, the terms may read, "standard BIMCO terms, except . . ." and the exception is set out. Using standard contracts saves a great deal of time and keeps lawyer fees down, a very important thing indeed.

Well, now, it is reported, as expected, that BIMCO publishes much anticipated GUARDCON Contract:

Soon to be under contract?

BIMCO is pleased to announce the publication of the GUARDCON standard contract for the employment of security guards on vessels. This brand new contract has been developed to provide ship owners and private maritime security companies (PMSC) with a clearly worded and comprehensive standard contract to govern the employment and use of security guards, with or without firearms, on board merchant vessels. While BIMCO would not like to see the use of armed security guards on ships becoming institutionalised, it recognises that while the industry awaits a more permanent long term solution, armed guards currently provide an effective deterrent to piracy attacks.

BIMCO’s Chief Officer Legal and Contractual Affairs, Grant Hunter said “In response to ship owners’ increasing demand for security services, an ever growing number of private maritime security companies have entered the market to meet that demand. In the absence of a standard contract for these services, ship owners and their P&I Clubs are currently faced with the difficult and time consuming task of assessing large numbers of contracts from these security companies, all with varying terms and conditions. GUARDCON’s objective is to create a contractual benchmark for the employment of security services so that minimum levels of insurance cover for PMSCs are established and that adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure that liabilities and responsibilities are properly addressed and that all necessary permits and licenses are obtained.”

So, using GUARDCON should help answer questions relating to the duties of an embarked security team and of the master of the vessel with respect to that team. You can view GUARDCON at the BIMCO site, along with an explanation and "Guidance on Rules for the Use of Force (RUF) by Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP) in Defence of a Merchant Vessel (MV)."

Thus, the "wild west" aspect of private security teams is tempered by lawyers and liability is accounted for. The cats have been herded.

 Well, except for the inevitable things that aren't clear in the contract . . . UPDATE: The security firm Sea Marshals, LTD announces it's one of the first to qualify for insurance under the BIMCO rules:

SeaMarshals Ltd is one of the first security companies to fully comply with the new BIMCO Guardcon contract released on 28th March 2012.

Among the many things we fulfill to comply you will find;
General liability insurance, 3rd party - USD 5 million
Professional indemnity insurance, USD 5 Million
Maritime employers insurance, USD 5 Million
Personal accident and illness, USD 250 000 per person
Valid licences for embarking and disembarking armed teams
Legal weapons, European origin, government EUC's
All men with STCW95, ENG1, SSO, CRB check, Weapons training, Military/Navy background and more..
100s of references from satisfied ship owners and masters from past transits.

Book Updates

First, the editors of Maritime Private Security: Responses to Piracy, Terrorism, and Waterborne Security Risks in the 21st Century face the -um- appear at the Heritage Foundation where they discuss the book and answer questions about - well - about piracy and, um, maritime private security. As I write this, the video is not up yet for viewing, but it should be there soon.
UPDATE: Video is up:

Second, James D. Hornfischer's excellent book Neptune's Inferno: The U.S. Navy at Guadalcanal is now out in paperback with a new cover design and a ranking as a “Best of 2011” by Military History Quarterly.

Night attacks at sea, failure and successes in command, death, destruction and great, great courage make for a compelling tale.

Somali Pirates: "Piracy fighters use floating armories"

As noted in my chapter, "Legal Considerations for Private Naval Company Armed Anti-Piracy Escorts," in the new book Maritime Private Security: Market responses to piracy, terrorism and waterborne security risks in the 21st century, one of many challenges facing maritime private security companies is the restrictions placed on weapon transportation and the dangers a variety of laws pose to the armed teams.

One way around these laws is to keep the weapons at sea. This logical step is now being taken - as the AP reports: "Piracy fighters use floating armories":

Private security firms are storing their guns aboard floating armories in international waters so ships that want armed anti-piracy guards for East Africa's pirate-infested waters can cut costs and circumvent laws limiting the import and export of weapons, industry officials say.

Companies and legal experts say the operation of the armories is a "legal gray area" because few, if any, governments have laws governing the practice. Some security companies have simply not informed the governments of the flag their ship is flying, industry officials said.
***
Storing guns on boats offshore really took off as a business last year. Britain — where many of the operators are from — is investigating the legality of the practice, which has received little publicity outside of shipping industry circles.

There has been a discussion of what to do with weapons here for some time.

Book Plug: "Maritime Private Security: Market responses to piracy, terrorism and waterborne security risks in the 21st century"

Off the presses of Taylor and Francis -Maritime Private Security: Market responses to piracy, terrorism and waterborne security risks in the 21st century", edited by Patrick Cullen and Claude Berube:

This book examines the evolution, function, problems and prospects of private security companies in the maritime sector.
***
Foreword Rear Admiral (Ret.) Terence McKnight
Part I: The Historical and Contemporary Market in Maritime Private Security Services

1. Introduction: The Post-Cold War Growth of Maritime Private Security Claude Berube and Patrick Cullen
2. The United States and Maritime Private Security from the War of Independence to the 21st Century James Carafano
3. Surveying the Market in Maritime Private Security Services Patrick Cullen
4. Private Gunboats on the Horizon? Private Security and Contemporary Naval Presence Christopher Spearin

Part II: The Emergence of Privatized Anti-Piracy Escorts in the Commercial Sector5. Commercial Anti-Piracy Escorts in the Malacca Straits Area Caroline Liss

6. Private Security at Sea: A Customer’s Perspective Gordan van Hook
7. Anti-Piracy Escorts in the Gulf of Aden: Problems and Prospects Claude Berube
8. Legal Considerations for Private Naval Company Armed Anti-Piracy Escorts Mark Tempest

Part III: The Privatization of Coast Guard Services
9. Privatizing the Coast Guard in War-Torn Sierra Leone Patrick Cullen
10. Private Security, Maritime Protection and Surveillance in Somaliland Stig Hansen
11. Private Security Fighting Pirates and Illegal Fishing in Puntland Christopher Kinsey
12. Securing the Off-Shore Oil Industry in the Gulf of Guinea Roger Hawkes Part IV: Private Security Responses to Maritime Terrorism
13. Maritime Terrorism: Scope, Potential Threat of Contingencies and the Role of Private Security Compnaies Peter Chalk
14. Commercial Risk Consulting and Management in the Maritime Sector Elke Krahmann
15. Integrating Private Security into Port Security in a Post-9/11 Environment Bill DeWitt
16. Maritime Eco-Extremism Reconsidered: Understanding Fourth Generation Eco-Warriors in the Modern Media Age Brendon J. Mills and Howard R. Ernst
Conclusion: The Future of Private Security at Sea Claude Berube and Patrick Cullen

It's a slim volume and is not a free read (a couple of tanks of gas at today's prices). There is a Kindle edition available.

A Navin R. Johnson moment, you know though -  without the sniper, please: