Open Access Research Article
UNRAVELING THE LEGAL SEASCAPE: A RIGOROUS EXAMINATION OF PIRACY LAWS
Published Paper
Article Details
“UNRAVELING
THE LEGAL SEASCAPE: A RIGOROUS EXAMINATION OF PIRACY LAWS”
AUTHORED BY
- NANDINI KABRA
ABSTRACT
“We have a duty to protect the ships
that proudly fly America’s flag—and our nation’s military is our partner in
fulfilling that duty. A timid approach will not do. We need to take bold
action to keep our seas and ship crews safe.” - Chairman John D. (Jay)
Rockefeller, IV[1]
The issue of piracy is being
discussed globally. In the interdependent world of today, this crime has once
more broken out in the marine sector, endangering lives, and economy. Extreme
risk exists in the waters of Somalia and Nigeria, while Asian waterways
continue to be of concern. Even the UN Security Council called piracy a danger
to world peace and security. States do not act in a legal void while attempting
to suppress piracy. The use of force at sea is governed by international law
and national laws of nations, which set forth the parameters and requirements
for having criminal jurisdiction against pirates. Numerous legislatures have
started to change their traditions and change their regulations to battle
exemption on the high oceans. Moreover, there is a developing need to close the
"escape clauses made by the Unified Countries Show on the Law of the
Ocean" to appropriately deal with robbery concerns and accomplish a
harmony between the right to opportunity of route and the need to safeguard
sailors' wellbeing. This essay tries to comprehend piracy and to point out the
flaws of the current anti-piracy clauses included in international agreements.
INTRODUCTION
“The area of public international law
known as "international law of the sea" governs States and other
subjects of international law's rights and duties surrounding the use and
exploitation of the seas during times of peace[2]. It
differs from private marine law, which governs private individuals' rights and
duties surrounding maritime issues, such as the carrying of commodities and
maritime insurance[3] . With
the establishment of the contemporary national State structure in the 17th
century, the law of the sea was created as a component of the law of nations[4]. Historically,
the world's oceans have had two important functions: first, as a method of
communication, and second, as a vast storehouse of both living and non-living
natural resources. Both responsibilities have promoted the creation of laws.[5] The
law of the sea and maritime roads have seen the most significant modifications
of any area of international law during the past forty years[6]. Public
order at sea is governed by maritime law, much of which is defined in the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea.”
“In international courts, conflicts
between neighbouring coastal States may commonly occur over the definition of
the maritime boundary, the extraction of minerals or other natural resources,
the commission of any crime inside another State's territorial boundaries, etc.
According to the norms of the international law of the sea or in accordance
with precedents, which serve as an important source of international law, these
conflicts are often settled by international courts or tribunals based on
complaints made by the parties involved.”
“Pirates appear to be mostly
fictional characters from novels or films. Elizabeth Nyman observes that,
"In recent years, piracy has jumped once again from the pages of the history
books onto the front pages of the newspaper. A phenomenon that was thought to
have run its course by the early 1800s fifty years ago by many international
legal specialists is resurfacing more and more often nowadays.”
“The main goal of this essay is to
examine how the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines piracy
legally (UNCLOS). As the paper's title implies, piracy will be evaluated
through the lens of international maritime law, hence state and local laws will
not be included in the research. In addition, rather than merely retelling
facts or numbers, the writers strive to analyse and critically evaluate
pertinent legal requirements.”
“The article is broken up into six
relatively brief sections, each of which focuses on a crucial UNCLOS provision.
Sections 3-5, which discuss the definition of piracy, the "private
objectives" requirement, Criminal Jurisdiction, and, ultimately, the
"two-vessel" requirement, contain important aspects. Introduction,
historical context, and conclusions make up three further sections.”
OBJECTIVE
OF STUDY
“Understanding the pirate provisions
under the maritime laws of UNCLOS and the restrictions on these provisions is
the goal of this article. The subject will cover the following topics: the
definition of piracy in relation to the requirements of the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea. The limitation of the provision about private ends,
jurisdiction, and enforcement are other factors that need to be considered.
Additionally, this essay outlines the global history of piracy.”
LITERATURE
REVIEW
·
“International Law of the Sea: An Overlook and Case Study - Arif Ahmed”
“The main goal of this piece of
academic study is to present a succinct review of international maritime law
with a focus on its origins and legal structure. About the various marine
zones, this research also aims to highlight the civil and criminal culpability,
jurisdictions, rights, and duties of the coastal governments. This study also
defines the guidelines and limitations for using these maritime zones in the
context of various treaty provisions on the international law of the sea, where
various adjudicated cases are also presented and thoroughly examined regarding
their facts, problems, conclusions, and justifications.”
“The legal concerns in the maritime
pirate operation are addressed in this essay. This essay discusses and
emphasises some legal concerns that a state may have when battling maritime
piracy. This exercise will aid in our identification of the crucial issues that
require international and regional discussion among states, which would result
in changes to their domestic laws to improve the anti-piracy regime. The
following legal topics were covered in this essay: Private characters,
prosecuting pirates who have been caught, and enforcement.”
·
“The Law of Contemporary Sea Piracy” - John Kavanagh”
“This article explores international
and Australian laws related to piracy and evaluates their suitability to
address the traditional act of piracy that still takes place today. We will
look at the sources of the law and how domestic and international law interact.”
·
“International Law Regime Against Piracy - Lawrence Azubuike”
“This essay discusses how, although
being obvious to international law experts, the application of international
law to an individual may not be obvious to a state's typical citizen. This is
one of the factors contributing to the ongoing debate about the legitimacy of
international law. This topic is serious, as shown by the symposium's title,
"International Law as Law." These laws and guidelines regarding
piracy are ancient. And in this instance, the author has restricted himself to
piracy as it pertains to waylaying or otherwise interfering with ships, as
opposed to the other definition of pirate, which is the unlawful use of someone
else's creation or produce.”
·
“Maritime Piracy and Limitations of the International Law of the Sea”
“The analysis of the legal concept of
piracy as stated in Article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea is the main goal of this essay. As the paper's title implies, state and
local laws are not included in the research since the problem of maritime
piracy is only looked at from the standpoint of international law of the sea.
Rather than recounting in-depth details of events relating to maritime pirate
instances or presenting data reflecting the scope of this phenomena, the
writers seek to understand and critically examine pertinent legal requirements.”
·
“Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea - Mr.
Yacouba Cissé”
“Creating draught articles on the
prevention and suppression of piracy and armed robbery at sea may be the goal
of this topic. Draft articles would continue to be the appropriate format for
the Commission's work if it becomes obvious as the issue develops whether it is
one that calls for the creation of a new convention. However, the outcome might
be altered to "conclusion" or "guidelines" if it turns out
that the subject is best handled as straightforward advice to States for the
fulfilment of current international commitments.”
HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND
“For thousands of years, in fact for
as long as ships have sailed the oceans and if there has been international
maritime trade, piracy has been a persistent issue. In the present era, piracy
is universally condemned, but this does not mean that this has always been the
case. At first, piracy was partially accepted and encouraged[7]. Powers
hired pirates to annoy and assault the trade ships of other states[8]. In
that sense, nations saw pirates as a tool in their armoury. This was especially
evident in the conflicts between England and Spain and between England and
France in the 17th century. One author observes that pirate was seen as the
best means to strike one is opponent and conceal the sword, comparing the
crimes of piracy in those days to state-sponsored terrorism today. Some nations
trained pirates.”
“From the sixteenth through even the
nineteenth century, several nations either actively supported or employed
pirates or outlawed piracy. Typically, the state promoted piracy against the
enemy during times of war while outlawing it during periods of relative calm.
States suffered the consequences of this dual standard. Frustrated, the
decommissioned pirates focused their ire on both their former state sponsors
and other people. They attacked any vessel without hesitation as a result,
which may be how they grew to hate all people and even civilization itself.
Nearly all the imperial powers signed the Declaration of Paris in 1856, perhaps
drawn together by the threat that piracy posed to all of them. All types of
piracy, privateering, and official support were outlawed by the Declaration.
The Declaration appears to have confirmed an international ban on piracy and
marked the end of governments' ambivalence regarding it. Additionally, it
appeared to put an end to any nations' prior selfish motives for supporting
piracy. However, it did not in any way address the other conceptual issues
related to making piracy criminal. The most important of these ostensibly
unanswered questions is: What does piracy mean?”
DEFINITION
OF PIRACY
“Throughout the ages, the legal
meaning of piracy has changed. According to Kelly, "the horrific character
of the conduct [of piracy] traditionally meant that pirates were subject to
universal jurisdiction, but what defines the act itself has ranged from simple
theft at sea to, recently, violence at sea that includes engaging in acts of
political protest." The recent tendency of using a broad definition of
"violent assaults at sea" is desirable since it may accommodate a
wide range of behaviour in a wide range of situations. However, the results of
such a strategy run the risk of repeating earlier instances where political
expediency was valued above due procedure.[9]”
“According to Article 101 of the
UNCLOS, piracy is defined as any unlawful act of violence, detention, or
depredation perpetrated for private benefit against another ship on the high
seas or otherwise outside the territorial authority of any state by the crew of
a private ship. This provision's wording was chosen as a result of compromise;
as a result, it is incoherent and imperfect. According to O'Connell, the
wording is both tautologous and unclear because it refers to "illegal acts
of violence" without specifying what specific sorts of violence constitute
piracy[10].
It is obvious that the phrase
"illegal acts of violence" might lead to some confusion. One may
wonder within what legal framework the conduct in issue must be considered
"criminal."[11]. The
courts of the state that seizes a pirate ship must decide whether this is criminal
in the absence of a global agreement that defines the idea[12]. However,
there is no uniformity in the prosecution of pirate accused by sovereign
governments. According to some studies, only a small number of governments have
passed thorough anti-piracy legislation that incorporate a structure for
exercising universal jurisdiction over pirate assaults. One may further inquire
as to whether there is a discernible distinction between the terms "acts
of violence" (plural) and "act of depredation" (singular). A
single murder committed at sea would not be considered piracy if these words
were taken literally. However, rather than any particular sorts of activities
that pirates conduct, it appears that the core of piracy is the rejection of
all forms of authority. A definition that is satisfactory "must expressly
exclude all acts by which the authority of the State is not openly or by
implication repudiated" is what Hall insists is necessary. He asserts that
since the specificity of piracy is its rejection of State authority, it is not
limited to depredations or acts of violence.[13]”
“As Jonathan Bellish points out, ship
theft is only one aspect of contemporary maritime piracy. "Historically,
all maritime piracy took place at sea when the pirate ship approached, boarded,
and looted the victim ship before sailing away. Today, Somali piracy, which
accounts for more than half of current international assaults, resembles an
organised crime gang more than Captain Jack Sparrow's exploits. Instead of just
plundering the target ship, Somali pirates capture a sizable merchant ship and
take its cargo and crew hostage, demanding ransom payments that, in 2011, were
on average $5 million.”[14]
“One may conclude by saying that
sovereign states ultimately determine how effective the international legal
system is in combating piracy. To effectively combat maritime piracy, all
governments must accept their responsibility to participate in the cost of
prosecuting pirates. To achieve this, all states must first enact the required
domestic legislation making maritime piracy illegal.”[15]
CURRENT ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW PERTINENT TO PIRACY
“The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) Code and the SUA Convention were adopted to fix the flaw in
the UNCLOS definition of piracy. The UNCLOS concept of piracy has solidified
over time and gained increasing acceptance. Although some nations have
implemented the UNCLOS concept in their domestic legislation, many have not,
which is now causing a problem with the definition of piracy. For instance,
Indian domestic law makes no mention of piracy, which has either caused
procedural delays during trials or prevented efficient prosecution of pirates
who have been arrested.”
“Cooperation is necessary for the
prevention of maritime piracy. In order to minimise the capacity of pirates to
operate on the seas, States should, as part of the execution of these
commitments, address the factors that encourage piracy. The Commission may
examine preventative strategies that have been effective in other fields of international
law in order to advise States on how to carry out these commitments of
prevention.”
“The “Private Ends” Requirement”
“The definition of piracy has been
the subject of great debate, as was previously indicated. The definition of
"private ends" under UNCLOS article 101, subsection (a), is the first
area of disagreement. The question of whether the term just eliminates actions
taken with governmental support or if animo furandi is still a necessary
component of crime, so excluding politically motivated actions like piracy, is
at the heart of this dispute. In addition to arguing that animo furan- di is no
longer essential and that "private objectives" was employed so that
actions of hatred and retaliation were also encompassed by the definition, the
ILC draughts have also been used to argue that acts done with a political
motivation cannot constitute pirate[16]. Thus,
the UNCLOS definition, which states that pirates must be acting for private
gain, excludes the possibility of piracy with other goals, such as terrorism or
political purposes.”[17]
“The law of the sea has been focused
with the topic of theft in piracy since historically, pirates have engaged in
loot for acquisitive objectives and violence against people has only been a
secondary goal[18]. The
UNCLOS definition, however, blatantly rejects this conventional idea. It does
this by introducing the concept of "private ends," which encompasses
motivations other than purely selfish desires for money, such as behaviours
driven by sentiments of hatred or retaliation. In other words, this definition
does not need the existence of animus furandi, the purpose to rob.”[19].
“Because of the contrast between true
piracy and state-sponsored privateering in the 16th and 17th centuries, the
need that piracy be undertaken for personal gain has existed ever since. [20]. Article
101 of the UNCLOS precludes conduct with political or public purposes by restricting
the definition to acts performed for private ends. This raises the issue of whether
the apprehended pirate might successfully defend himself in court using this
justification, such as by saying that he acted in the interests of the general
welfare. By the way, Islamic terrorists frequently use this as a form of
defence. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between acts of violence or
theft done by legitimate pirates and others, such as environmentalist
organisations fighting to safeguard the maritime environment or national
liberation movements looking for a political solution. Their actions are
occasionally characterised by piracy. Therefore, there are still certain
"grey zones" that make it challenging to distinguish between an
action taken for "private reasons" and an action taken to further
some political objective. The practise of certain rebel organisations, which
rob or seize a ship and hold the crew for ransom as a fundraising plan to
support their political operations, is a good illustration of this”[21]
“The Almezaan”
“In one
instance, off the coast of Somalia, private security personnel on board a cargo
ship owned by the UAE shot and killed a pirate who tried to attack the ship.
Later, captured pirates and their boat were taken into custody by a Spanish
vessel. The warship's captain ordered the captured pirates to be freed. Due to
the lack of a suitable jurisdiction, this event generated concerns regarding
the law's applicability to the private security guards' actions, particularly
with reference to the incident's investigation. This was the first instance in
which a pirate from Somalia was slain by private security personnel.”
“Criminal Jurisdiction with Respect
to Piracy at Sea”
“Of course, prevention is not always
possible, and there will continue to be instances of piracy, prompting
questions about how to penalise those responsible. Long considered a crime
punishable by any State, even if that State has no connection to the pirates,
their victims, or the scene of the crime, piracy is now recognised as such.
Indeed, for a very long time, states and mankind have seen pirates as their
adversaries (hostis humani generis). As a result, the first type of universal
criminal jurisdiction is the exercise of national jurisdiction against pirates
by any State, which forbids pirates from seeking asylum in any State regardless
of their relationship with it.”
“Even yet, it is unclear what exactly
falls inside this type of universal criminal jurisdiction when it comes to
piracy. The Commission may conduct an analysis of the concept of
"piracy" included in the Law of the Sea Convention of 1982 to assist
States in establishing and exercising national criminal jurisdiction.
Additionally, it might be determined if States are required to create such
jurisdiction under either conventional or customary international law as
opposed to whether they are merely entitled to do so at their discretion.”
“National Criminal Laws on Sea Piracy
are Adopted and Harmonized”
“Considering the findings drawn
above, thought may be given to the precise steps that States should or may take
within the framework of their domestic criminal laws in order to establish and
exercise jurisdiction over those who are allegedly responsible for maritime
piracy. The adoption and harmonisation of national laws by States in this area
may be encouraged by such measures, allowing for a more effective global
enforcement system and better interstate cooperation.”
“Some States might be permitted to
use their domestic criminal laws based just on their acceptance of the 1958 or
1982 Conventions, or even just on customary international law. [22]. However,
it is likely that in most countries, such bases would be insufficient,
necessitating the adoption of national statutes that criminalise piracy. Nullem
crimen, nulla poena, sine lege, which literally translates to "no crime,
no punishment, without law," may be the guiding premise behind this need
for national legislation. The rise of violent maritime pirate crimes in 2008
off the coast of Somalia in the Indian Ocean and in the Gulf of Guinea
bordering the Atlantic Ocean showed that numerous States from all continents
lacked any domestic piracy law. France's involvement in the Ponant case is one
example.[23] France
had to release the Somalian pirates it had captured since, at the time, there
was no national statute designating piracy as a crime, and French general
criminal law was insufficient to make piracy activities justiciable in a
criminal court. France was not, however, alone in this sense. Currently, most
of the African States lack legislation against piracy or have obsolete laws in
this area compared to current international law.”[24]
“As a result, certain States' basic
criminal laws might not be enough to pursue offenders and suppress piracy. To
guarantee that criminal processes are accessible for prosecuting pirates,
explicit law on piracy offences or at the very least a vague reference to
marine piracy in general criminal provisions may be required. Additionally,
national prosecutors and judges frequently lack the technical and legal
expertise needed to deal with this crime effectively. This crime is unique and
may need special guidance to comprehend the elements that must be proven as
well as the kinds of evidence required to meet those elements. Although
ratifying the Convention on the Law of the Sea is a necessary legal action and
the clearest indication of nations' willingness to be bound by international
law, it is insufficient for the efficient implementation of states'
commitments. The Convention on the High Seas, which is still in effect for six
nations, and customary international law pertaining to piracy are both subject
to this remark. In other words, a state cannot only rely on the fact that it is
a party to one of the two pertinent treaties or on customary international law
to criminalise pirate actions. Although the legal foundation to combat piracy
has previously been established by international law, nations' national
legislation is required for the criminalization of piracy. Even if the legal
foundation to combat piracy has previously been established by international
law, nations' national laws are still required for the criminalization of
piracy.” [25]
“Along with a lack of national legislation
and certain outdated national laws against piracy, there is also the issue of
pirate law harmonisation. National laws of certain States only define maritime
piracy as crimes performed on the open seas, whereas laws of other states only
define it as crimes committed within their territorial sea or exclusive
economic zone.[26]. In an
ideal world, States' laws combating piracy in all places outside of the
territorial waters would be the same or comparable.”
“The “Two-Vessel” Requirement”
“The two-vessel requirement is another
contradiction in the concept of piracy. On the one hand, subparagraph (a)(i) of
Article 101 of the UNCLOS states that an assault against "another"
ship is required for the attacker's action to be covered by the definition of
piracy. On the other hand, any assault on "a" ship is considered
piracy under subparagraph (a)(ii). If the last clause were to be taken
literally, challenges made by a ship's crew against their own master may be
included by the definition of the Convention. However, it is fair to say that
the one-ship scenario was not meant to be included in the pirate definition and
that it is not covered either, especially considering the travaux
préparatoires. Remember that a ship on the high seas is exclusively within the
authority of its flag state, as stated in Article 92 of the UNCLOS. As a
result, local law, not international law, should be applied to any act
committed against a ship travelling the high seas. It is obvious that internal
ship seizure would not qualify as piracy under this criterion. Without a
differentiation, piracy and mutiny/hijacking would be the same. The fact that
Article 100 requires all states to combat piracy and that "there are
evident political dangers in demands for the delivery of persons who seize
ships internally, as well as in the interference of foreign nations in the
event" are additional arguments in favour of the two-vessel requirement of
Article 101.”
CONCLUSION
“As a result of modern piracy's
increasingly deadly currency, it is no more an issue of antiquity or historical
curiosity. The current international regime on the matter is not entirely
inadequate. There are two main recommendations, though. First, a more forceful
response by the UN Security Council will address the immediate issue and at the
very least halt the situation by discouraging pirates. Second, combining the
international definition of and prohibition against piracy with an effective
legal system, preferably within the confines of the international criminal
court, will result in a more long-lasting and effective solution. States would
have a suitable alternative venue if they are unable or unable to prosecute
pirates in their home nations thanks to the simplification of the legal system.
The international community would thus recognise that piracy is a criminal
offence by providing an international definition and ensuring an appropriate
forum, and this will subsequently ensure that piracy is treated as an
international criminal offence, which it is, and create awareness of the
contempt and condemnation with which mankind views piracy.”
[1] Key Quotes from Piracy on the High
Seas Hearing, https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2009/5/key-quotes-from-piracy-on-the-high-seas-hearing, (last visited Sep. 22, 2022)
[2] Volume 2, Brown, E. D., The
International Law of the Sea, (Oxford University Press 1994)
[3] 3rd Edition, Churchill, R., &
Lowe, A. V., The Law of the Sea, (Huntington, NY: Juris Publishing, Inc, 1999).
[4] Volume 2, O’Connell, D. P., The International
Law of the Sea, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982).
[5] Shaw, M. N., International Law, Cambridge, (Cambridge
University Press, 1997)
[6] 10th Edition, Starke, J. G., An Introduction
to International Law, (New Delhi: Aditya Books, 1994).
[7] John Peppetti, Building the Global
Maritime Security Network: A Multinational Legal Structure to Combat
Transnational Threats, 55 Naval L. Rev. 73, 87 (2008).
[8] Michael Bahar, Attaining Optimal
Deterrence at Sea: A legal and Strategic Theory for Naval Anti-Piracy
Operations, 40 Vand. 1. Transnat'l L. I, 12 (2007).
[9] Kelly, M.J., The Pre-History of
Piracy as a Crime & Its Definitional Odyssey, 46, 25–42, (Case Western
Reserve Journal of International Law, 2013)
[10] Volume 2, O’Connell, D. P., The
International Law of the Sea, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982).
[11] Middleton, R., Piracy and Legal
Issues: Reconciling Public and Private Interests, p. 28-29, (Conference Report,
Chatham House, 2009)
[12] Nandan, S.N., Rosenne, S., (1995);
Volume 3, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: a commentary, 1982; Dordrecht:
Martinus Nijhof, p.201
[13] Hall, W.E., A Treatise on
International Law, p. 302, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924).
[14] 15, Bellish, J., A High Seas
Requirement for Inciters, and Intentional Facilitators of Piracy Jure Gentium
and Its (Lack of) Implications for Impunity, p. 122, (San Diego International
Law Journal, 2013).
[15] 86, Dutton, Y.M., Maritime Piracy
and the Impunity Gap: Insufficient National Laws or a Lack of Political Will?
1111–1162, (Tulane Law Review, 2012).
[16] 12, Paige, T., Piracy and
Universal Jurisdiction, 145-146, (Macquaire Law Journal, 2013)
[17] XXVII, Dowdle, P., A Dire Need for
Legislative Reform, p.629, (Pace International Law Review, 2015).
[18] Volume. 2, O’Connell, D.P., The
International Law of the Sea, P. 967, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982).
[19] Nandan, S.N., Rosenne, S., (1995);
Volume 3, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: a commentary, 1982;
Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhof, p. 197
[20] Bento, L., Toward an International
Law of Piracy Sui Generis: How the Dual Nature of Maritime Piracy Law Enables
Piracy to Flourish, p. 119, (Berkeley Journal of International Law, 2011).
[21]46, Kelly, M.J., The Pre-History of
Piracy as a Crime & Its Definitional Odyssey, p. 378, (Case Western Reserve
Journal of International Law, 2013).
[22] Dutton, “Maritime piracy and the
impunity gap,” p.1143–44
[23] Mahinga, Jean-Grégoire, “L’affaire
du Ponant,” 7 Revue de droit des transports 10 (2008); Philippe Chapleau &
JeanPaul Pancracio, La piraterie maritime: Droit, pratiques et enjeux, p.
106–107 (Paris: Vuibert, 2014)
[24] United Nations Division for Ocean
Affairs and the Law of the Sea. National Legislation on Piracy.
[25] Anna Petrig & Robin Geiß, Piracy
and Armed Robbery at Sea: The Legal Framework for Counter Piracy Operations in
Somalia and the Gulf of Aden, p. 140– 44, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2011).
[26] United Nations Division for Ocean
Affairs and the Law of the Sea
Article Information
UNRAVELING THE LEGAL SEASCAPE: A RIGOROUS EXAMINATION OF PIRACY LAWS
Authors: NANDINI KABRA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/12/26
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.