There is a reason why the issue is undefined: the issue arises from the lack of definition of a pirate itself. The act of piracy falls under international law, whereby both piracy and armed robbery at sea remains illegal as specified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, when is a pirate defined as a pirate? Is the act of piracy the same as the intent to commandeer? There are grey areas in this debate very similar to the debate on defining terrorism. Similarities develop — the question is why it has taken this long for attention to be drawn to the similarities between pirates of the early modern era to terrorists of the post modern era. Can terrorism and piracy be defined as one and the same?

The post 9/11 world has seen the development of discourse on terrorism. It has been defined as an act akin to war; in fact it has a plethora of definitions — and operates within a set framework. A group or an organisation suspected of terrorism is liable to international jurisdiction as they are in fact neither from a state nor apart from the state. The debate involves state and non-state actors. Terrorists (like pirates) are non-state actors and therefore have a “hybrid status in the law.” They are thus outside the protection of the state and of the nation; the term given is homo sacer — “the sacred man, who may be killed and yet not sacrificed.” However, contemporary political thought has gone beyond the traditional state and non-state debate and attempts are being made to provide an overall framework to define and analyse terrorism and terrorist activity.

... contd.