When does activism become piracy?

Why are environmental activists sometimes charged with piracy under international law?

This comes from how piracy is defined under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), established in 1982. At the time, piracy was largely considered a thing of the past – something out of history books – so the legal definition was broad and never updated for modern contexts. Over time, it became clear that this definition could be stretched in unexpected ways.

The turning point came in 1986, when Belgian authorities used the piracy charge against Greenpeace activists protesting the dumping of toxic waste. For them, labelling the activists as pirates was a convenient way to overcome jurisdictional challenges, particularly because there weren’t any clearer laws to address environmental protests at sea.

Since then, some states have continued to use the piracy charge as a strategic and powerful way to target environmental activism. It’s become an effective – and controversial – method to suppress dissent by framing activists as criminals under international law, even though their actions are aimed at protecting the planet

What makes the current definition of piracy problematic?

The current definition of piracy is problematic on several levels. First, it requires an act of violence – but it doesn’t clearly define what counts as violence. In cases involving so-called “environmental pirates”, courts have interpreted actions like throwing rotten butter or blocking a ship and painting on its windows as acts of violence. This interpretation is incredibly broad and open to abuse.

Second, piracy must be committed for “private ends”, yet the definition offers no clear explanation of what that means. Some legal experts argue this excludes political motives, but in the cases involving environmental activists, it was determined that “private ends” refers to actions not authorised by a state.

The result is a dangerously broad legal framework that can classify even minor protests on the high seas as piracy. What makes this especially concerning is that piracy is a crime of universal jurisdiction – meaning any country can arrest and prosecute individuals accused of piracy, no matter where the alleged act took place. Activists, in these cases, have no protection from their own flag states, leaving them vulnerable to prosecution anywhere in the world.

How does this misuse affect activists and environmental campaigns?

One of the clearest examples is the Arctic Sunrise case. Greenpeace activists had planned a peaceful protest against Arctic oil drilling by climbing the Prirazlomnaya platform to raise awareness. Russia opposed the operation. Initially, the activists were accused of terrorism and other offences under Russia’s standard jurisdictional regime – which did not permit Russia to board Greenpeace’s vessel in that part of the sea. But then, Russia escalated the charge to piracy.

This shift was strategic. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, piracy allows any state to intervene – so Russia used it to justify boarding Greenpeace’s vessel, arresting the activistsand detaining them in Russia.

Russia likely knew the charge wouldn’t hold in court, but it served its purpose. The piracy label gave Russia the legal cover to disrupt Greenpeace’s operations by force, and, more importantly, to intimidate activists.

This tactic isn’t unique to Russia. Across the globe, the misuse of legal labels like piracy can be used to disrupt activist operations and instil fear. Activists face the threat of criminalisation, prolonged detention, and in some jurisdictions, even the death penalty.

What would a better legal framework look like?

A better legal framework for piracy depends on the scope of reform – minimal, ambitious or radical. At a minimal level, clarifying what constitutes violence in piracy and removing the ambiguous “private ends” requirement would address many issues. I support replacing “private ends” with indiscriminate animus, which focuses on attacks carried out without discrimination against any and all targets. This shifts the focus from motive to the nature of the act itself, resolving debates on politically motivated violence at sea. Only attacks threatening the international community broadly would qualify as piracy; targeted political violence would fall under other laws. This approach aligns with piracy’s historical roots as indiscriminate violence. More radical reforms could involve redefining piracy as violence against the “Common Heritage of Mankind” or even abandoning the crime altogether in favour of better legal mechanisms. Overall, a clearer, more precise legal framework will improve enforcement and international cooperation.

Why is it important for the public to understand this issue?

It’s easy to forget what happens out of sight – like the old question, if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? At sea, it absolutely does. Activists risk their lives to expose abuses far beyond the horizon, but under current laws, their actions could be wrongly labelled as piracy. I’m not suggesting that violence beyond peaceful protest should go unpunished; rather, piracy is an excessive and inappropriate charge for activism or disruptive acts. The current broad definition of piracy leaves room for serious misuse, potentially criminalising efforts to hold others accountable. Given how broadly piracy is defined today, it’s almost a miracle we don’t see even more cases abusing this definition to target activists. The public needs to understand this issue so we can close these dangerous legal gaps and protect both freedom and justice at sea before wrongful prosecutions increase.