Maritime piracy was a problem from the 15th to 16th centuries, which is called the Golden Age of Piracy. This is due to the lack of a unified body to develop a coherent law of the sea to combat maritime piracy. It is only in the 20th century, with the birth of the United Nations and the inclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, that we finally have an organized set of rules relating to the sea. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe justification for maritime piracy law in international law is strong as this problem flourishes due to the fact that it occurs far from land and isolated from the rest of the world. An assessment of this problem in Southeast Asia shows that the region's waters are hotspots for maritime piracy. This is because 45% of the world's commercial shipping uses routes in that region, and attacks on commercial stores have been reported causing economic damage and losses to international trade.[1]Additionally, in the southern Philippines, pirates often kidnap Malaysians citizens for ransom and those kidnapping activities have the sole purpose of financing terrorist activities. These kidnappings are usually carried out by the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf, which is linked to the global terrorist group ISIS. With the help of stricter and stronger maritime piracy laws, the problem of maritime piracy that some are taking advantage of to fund terrorist organizations could be curbed.[2] Above all, maritime piracy posed a great threat to those sailing the open seas. Seafarers are the first victims of maritime piracy, being exposed to the danger of being killed, kidnapped and tortured by pirates. Maritime piracy continually makes the open sea a dangerous place for travelers and those who work offshore, this causes a dent in the maritime industry, as the scope of work for sailors would involve the risk of putting themselves in harm's way due of pirates.[3] Without a codified law on maritime piracy with harsh punishments to discourage others from maritime piracy, the high seas are an open playground for those who will take advantage of it. In conclusion, maritime piracy is an international problem that requires the cooperation of the world community since this happens all over the world and it is not just an isolated case in a certain part of the world, maritime piracy is thriving and strong. With the help of proper enforcement of maritime piracy laws, the open sea would be a safer place for sailors and the international trade industry would be safe from the threats of maritime piracy. The question we face is whether the Captain and the entire crew of the Bootstrap can be prosecuted under international law? The most appropriate authority on this matter is Article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)[4]. In this provision it is specified that piracy or maritime piracy is “…any unlawful act of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private purposes by the crew or passengers of a private vessel…and directed: ( (i) on the high seas, against another vessel or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such vessel…” To explain this provision briefly, it means that piracy is an act of aggression by another person against another subject occurring on the high seas by using force or unlawful detention of another party. Furthermore, it is Article 103 of UNCLOS[5], which definesthat a pirate ship is a ship that is “…intended by the persons having dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing any of the acts referred to in Article 10…” As shown in the facts, the Bootstrap has been in fact used by Captain Barbossa and his crew to commit acts described in Article 101 UNCLOS. This strongly suggests that the Bootstrap is, by definition, a pirate ship. Then, there is Article 105 of UNCLOS[6], in this provision, in this original wording it clearly states that “…On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, any State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the goods on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure will be able to decide on the sanctions to be imposed, as well as on the conduct to be adopted towards the ships, aircraft or goods, without prejudice to the rights of third parties of good faith... "This means that once committed an offense of piracy using a pirate ship, such ship shall be seized by any State and shall be brought to trial and punished by any court of the State which seized the pirate ship. In short, a pirate ship must be caught and can be prosecuted, even if the crime occurred in international waters or on the high seas. The case in question is Re Piracy Jure Gentium [1926-1941] HKC 153 [7] . In this case, the facts concern a number of armed Chinese citizens who were traveling on two Chinese junks and chased a merchant junk on the high seas for over half an hour during which shots were fired. Two merchant ships intervened and the pursuers were eventually picked up by a British warship. They were taken prisoners to Hong Kong and accused of piracy. One of the issues in this case was whether the case could be tried in municipal court. The judgment delivered by Viscount Sankey LC, in its own words, stated that, "...under international law the criminal jurisdiction of municipal law is ordinarily limited to crimes committed on its mainland or...by its own citizens, wherever committed, it is also recognized as extending to piracy committed on the high seas by any citizen on any ship, because a person guilty of such piracy has placed himself outside the protection of any State is no longer a citizen, but hostis humani generis and as such it can be judged by any state in any part of the world…” This means that once a person is found guilty of the crime of piracy, that person cannot hide behind the laws of any state to escape persecution. But in reality he or she will be tried and convicted by any State for the crime of piracy. This shows that a person accused of piracy can be prosecuted or, in this case, sued under international law for his or her role in piracy. The next case is United States v. Suarez (2017) No. 16-cr -453 (RJS)[8], where in this case the defendants were intercepted by the US Coast Guard. However, the defendant argued that they had not been seized on the high seas for the crime of piracy. However, the court found them guilty of piracy jure gentium since they had been seized on the high seas by the U.S. Coast Guard. These cases demonstrate that for the crime of piracy, any state anywhere has jurisdiction to punish the offender for the crime of piracy. Based on the above authorities, it is clear that, based on the facts provided, it is clear that Captain Barbossa and the entire crew of the Bootstrap had attacked another ship called the Black Pearl and hadused unauthorized and unjustified force against the crew of the Black Pearl, resulting in the deaths of 19 crew members and the arrest of passengers aboard the Black Pearl. Therefore, under Article 1 of UNCLOS, Captain Barbossa and the entire crew of the Bootstrap committed acts of piracy. Furthermore, based on the eyewitness testimony given by William Turner, it is clear that the Bootstrap, which is Captain Barbossa's ship was used for the crime of piracy, in which it was mentioned that Bootstrap was involved in the capture of the Black Pearl. Therefore, by virtue of Article 103 of UNCLOS, it should be considered a pirate ship used by Captain Barbossa. Finally, by virtue of Article 105 of UNCLOS, it is specified that the crime of piracy makes the guilty party liable to capture and trial in any State and anywhere. This is supported by the two cases Re Piracy Jure Gentium [1926-1941] HKC 153 and United States v Suarez (2017) No. 16-cr-453 (RJS), where the judges in this case held that in case of piracy, any State will have jurisdiction to seize the pirate ship and prosecute those involved in piracy. Therefore, in conclusion, by virtue of Article 105 and the cited cases, Captain Barbossa and the entire crew of the Bootstrap can be sued for their action against the victims of the Black Pearl. Based on the facts stated, the question of the case is whether Albert Co. Ltd can be considered to be subject to international law? Whether this matter can be examined in an International Court or a National Court of Cuba? And what is the best decision for the actions of Albert Co. Ltd for the possession of the Black Pearl, the hijacking of 20 Mexicans and the violation of the contract with the company? For the first issue, Albert Co. Ltd is a company incorporated under Mexican law and had a business agreement with Guinea Incorporation from Cuba. Therefore, this makes Albert Co. Ltd subject to international law, since the agreement between Albert Co. Ltd and Guinea Incorporation is international in nature without any similar national legal link between them. For the second question, the most appropriate authority is the case of Compagnie Tunisienne De Navigation SA v Compagnie D'armement Maritime SA HL (1970), where in this case the parties involved are Tunisian and French companies, disputes have arisen in their reports and the Tunisian company requested compensation for damages for the repudiation of the contract. The Tunisian company claimed that the law applicable to the dispute is Tunisian law, but the French side claims that the applicable law is French law. The court held that the applicable law is French law since the facts show that the express choice of law during the agreement was French law.[9]Furthermore, in the case of Iran Continental Shelf Oil Company and others v. IRI International Corporation [2002 ] EWCA Civ 1024, where in this case the plaintiffs are Iranian companies owned by the Government of Iran and the defendant (“IRI”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. The Court of Appeal held that because both parties were unable to choose the law to use in the event of a dispute, there was no choice of law to resolve the dispute.[10]This means that a dispute between private individuals can usually be resolved through municipal court if both parties had previously included a choice of law clause in the contract. If the parties include this clause, the dispute will be resolved according to the municipal law of the chosen law. Based on the above authorities, it is clear that if Albert Co. Ltd and Guines Incorporation had included a clause naming Cuban law as the choice of law to resolve the dispute, then thisdispute may be heard before the National Court of Cuba, as shown in the case Compagnie Tunisienne De Navigation SA v. Compagnie D'armement Maritime SA HL (1970). However, according to the case of Iran Continental Shelf Oil Company and others v IRI International Corporation [2002] EWCA Civ 1024, if there was no such clause in their commercial agreement, then the best option for them is to choose to have the case heard in an international tribunal or tribunal. This means that this case can be judged either by an International Tribunal or Court, or by the National Court of Cuba, depending on the provisions. For the third question, the most appropriate authority is Article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),[11] which clearly states that piracy is an act that includes “…illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private purposes by the crew or passengers of a private vessel or private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another vessel or aircraft , or against persons or things on board such ship..." and Article 105 of UNCLOS[12] further establishes that "...any State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken from piracy and under the control of pirates, arrest people and seize goods on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure will be able to decide on the sanctions to be imposed, and will also be able to determine the actions to be taken..." This means that anyone caught committing the act of piracy is liable to be prosecuted for this offense against any State everywhere. Therefore, the best decision that the law can apply against Albert Co. Ltd for the illegal possession of the Black Pearl and the illegal hijacking of 20 Mexican citizens would be to be tried and convicted for the crime of piracy under the principle of piracy jure. gentium. As for the action of breach of contract, when a party breaches his part of the contract, the creditor has the right, firstly, to demand specific performance, secondly to annul or terminate the contract altogether, thirdly and lastly , request compensation for damages. The appropriate cases are Oakacre Ltd v Claire Cleaners (Holdings) Ltd (Chancery Division) [1981] 3 At ER 667[13], the court held that "... In an action for specific performance, therefore, the court had right to compensate for damages for delay in execution even if the action had been initiated before the date of execution arrived and therefore before the cause of the action for compensation had matured..." This case demonstrates that the creditor has the right to recognition of a certain performance in case of breach of contract and even if the breach has not occurred but is intended to occur. Follows the case of Forslind v Bechely-Crundall 1922 (Sessions Court) (HL) 173[14], where in this case, the court held that “…in the circumstances, the seller's conduct entitled the buyer to believe that the seller did not intend to timely perform his part of the contract, such conduct amounted to repudiation of the contract; and that the buyer had the right to decree...” This shows that a breach of contract will certainly entitle the aggrieved party to repudiation of the contract. The latest case is the case of Addis v Gramophone (House of Lords) [1909 ] AC 488[15], in its case the Court held that in matters of contract law the injured party should be compensated in money for the damage suffered if the circumstances deem it sufficient. Therefore, for breach of contract, the above case suggested that based on the circumstances of the matter, Albert Co. Ltd will be liable for either specific performance, repudiation or.