Textbook of Maritime Medicine

16.7.1   Measures to the self-defence of ships

Given the apparent failure of the littoral states to guarantee security in this important international waterway, shipowners have increasingly been looking elsewhere for ways to enhance their security. Ship’s crews have developed standardized countermeasures[1] and better practices in their attempts to avoid and resist pirate attacks. The use of water cannons and fire hoses has spread out a lot. The industry has also introduced a certain number of sophisticated technical solutions in recent years such as SHIPLOC[2], SECURE-SHIP[3], the identity card[4] of the ILO (International Labour Organization), the alarm system demanded by the ISPS Code[5], the LRAD[6] noise generator system, which are achieving more relevance nowadays. 

The carrying and use of firearms for personal protection or protection of a ship is strongly discouraged by the IMO and it is not authorised by some coastal states because it may increase a dangerous situation on board. The use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board is great. In some jurisdictions killing a national person may have unforeseen consequences even for people who believe that they have acted in self-defence. Since merchant ship crews are not often trained in the use of weapons, they might not be able to use them very effectively in the fight against pirates. If ship crews try to defend themselves with firearms and fail, the pirates might probably kill some of the crew members.

Another way of arming a merchant ship is hiring armed security teams to ride on the ships, known as Private Security Companies (PSC´s)[7]. Despite those PSC´s merely act as deterrence to potential attackers, they have provoked a strong response from the littoral states. One problem with the rising numbers of PSC´s providing their services in the region’s waterways is that they are currently unregulated. While there is some effort among the best established companies to self-regulate, this is only in its early stages. This lack of regulation could have serious implications for the safety of shipping in the region.

Financial concerns may also discourage against arming merchant ships because hiring armed security teams might be more expensive than paying occasional ransoms. Liability for fatal shootings aboard can be a complex legal matter that can lead to expensive lawsuits. Since many ports restrict vessels from having weapons on board, commercial ships that often make calls at multiple ports along their operating routes could find it difficult to operate along certain routes.

16.7.2      Convoys

There have also been proposals to convoying as more and more warships patrol the region. Certainly, convoys escorted by warships is an option, though merchant ship operators may be reluctant to use them because it may require merchant ships to wait in a certain location for the next scheduled convoy to begin, which can imply costs on ship operators. Furthermore, this security tactic may be adapted by the pirates who can attack different parts of the convoy at the same time to break it or to separate weaker, slower, or less manoeuvrable vessels from the formation.

16.7.3     Maritime Security Patrol Areas

As seen in paragraph 5.1, in August 2008, CTF 150 established a Maritime Security Patrol Area (MSPA) in the Gulf of Aden to serve as a dedicated, more secure transit zone for merchant vessels and EU NAVFOR has also established an online centre known as Maritime Security Centre-Horn of Africa (MSC-HOA). Certainly, following a standard route should make it easier for international forces in the area to monitor shipping and respond to distress calls, but the naval units are not probably enough at this moment and therefore they would potentially offer an easier target for pirates. Another risk is that pirates change their modus operandi from ransoms to for example the use of phantom ships. These problems arise if there is not enough international presence.

[1] The IMO and other bodies such as the IMB have developed detailed guidance and recommendations for governments and commercial vessels seeking to prevent, deter, and respond to pirate attacks.

[2] The IMB has been working together with an operator, leader in satellite tracking systems in order to design a satellite tracking system called SHIPLOC with the aim to locate the ships at sea or port, having already been installed in some of them. It is a small transmitter relatively cheap (it can be monthly hired for about 250 $, depending on the kind of device) and it may be hidden in the ship. For their own safety the crewmembers need not be informed of the existence or place of the transmitter. The only necessary additional equipment is a PC with Internet access. IMB earnestly recommend shipowners the installation of this device on board of their ships.

[3] The system consists of a folding electrified defence which causes non-lethal high voltage shocks at the slightest contact and it is set at both sides of the ship. When the ship enters port or when another ship or barge needs come alongside, the electrified defence bends easily to make the manoeuvre. As the defence is divided into Br and Er areas, it is possible to activate only one side of the ship while the other is deactivated, which is very useful when the ship is docked at port and there is the need to deactivate the side of the dock while the side to the sea is kept activated. Besides, the defences have got “doors” that allow a temporal opening as in the case of the area at the side at the height of the pilot ladder, the accommodation ladder or the lifeboats. A sophisticated control system detects any attempt to enter and it generates the starting of several devices (lights, alarms, sirens). This very strong noise generator system and the high intensity projectors assure that any attempt of the pirates´ approach to get on board is aborted. This detection system is designed in such a way that it resists any weather condition and the sea water entrance because of the waves, without reducing its effectiveness (for further information, see web page: http://www.secure-marine.com).

[4] In June 2003, the International Labour Organization (ILO) implemented the issuing of a new internationally recognised identity card to the world’s 1.2 million seamen containing their photograph and biometric data which identifies fingerprints in order to prevent the disguised boarding of pirate and terrorist crews.

[5] This Code, incorporated in Chapter XI-2 of the SOLAS Convention, demands the installation of a new Ship Security Alert System – SSAS on board the ships which have to obey such Code. The purpose of this system is to provide a cover resource which makes a means of alert to the company and to the flag nation of the ship possible, meaning that there has been a serious incident on board which affects their security.

[6] Long Range Acoustic Device. We could consider this device as a non-lethal acoustic weapon developed by US Navy. Of a similar size as a satellite receiver, this device not only broadcasts warnings by means of a powerful loudspeaker, but also it is able to send acoustic signs of very low frequency (the acoustic level is  150 decibels while the one of a fire alarm for example is about 80) within reach of several hundreds of metres. This noise generates significant earache making communication impossible and consequently it makes pirates desist from their attempt. This system has already been installed in passenger ships and warships since 2003.

[7] A company in the United Kingdom, the Anglo Marine Overseas Services, is offering the services of a private force of ex- soldiers of that country, known as Gurkhas, with the purpose of protecting the ships sailing in waters where there is a risk of pirates´ attacks. Formed in groups of 4, 6 or 8 men, their main work is to dissuade pirates from their criminal acts (these ex-soldiers have worked as soldiers for an average of 16 years). The company has sent letters to different ship operators offering their services where they do not specifically inform that these men are armed, but they state that a secondary work is “to solve the case”, so they probably use their weapons if the dissuasive actions do not have any effects. Removing the cost this service implies, this measure seems to be effective, not in vain it  is extra-officially known that pirates avoid attacking the Russian or North American ships deliberately as it is said that lots of them have weapons for their security and, on the other hand, neither of these maritime nations has expressed anything publicly which denies it.