We are the leading maritime attorneys on piracy liability.

The global commercial shipping industry consensus has been against the use of firearms for self defense purposes. However, the successful actions of an armed security detail in fending off another pirate attack against the Maersk Alabama could indicate a change of that formerly hard and fast attitude.

When the Alabama was attacked by Somali pirates off the Horn of Africa last April, the vessel’s deployment of so-called “standard practices”, i.e. non lethal techniques, did not prevent the 20-person crew from being overtaken. Typical best practices include evasive maneuvering and charged fire hoses and have been the industry’s preferred methodology to repel attacks.

Until recently, most shipping companies were loathe to even consider placing armed security guards aboard their ships, let alone to grant access to the crew members. According to the U.N.'s Maritime Safety Committee, companies should "strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship." The general belief has been that to deploy arms would only serve to escalate the violence.

One of the main fears of using armed security guards is the potential liability issue if crew members are injured or killed. Not only that, innocent fishermen could be mistaken for pirates, who often use trawlers as mother ships and fishing skiffs for direct approach.

There are also unsettled jurisdictional issues to consider. While the international legal community has been making progress in reaching a consensus on the legal rights of suspected pirates, there is still no iron clad policy on where to house and try them.

There are additional issues such as insurance ramifications and various port-state laws dealing with clearing firearms into and out of countries.

However, with the escalation of pirate attacks off the east coast of Africa in recent years, some companies have begun not only considering, but actually deploying, armed security details aboard their vessels. Among those leading this movement are American carriers such as Maersk Line Ltd. When pirates again attacked their ship, the Maersk Alabama on November 17th, the attack was repelled by security guards who fired gunshots as well as by the use of a high noise device called an LRAD, which stands for long range acoustic device.

Ironically, the movement toward authorizing firearms for vessel self-defense may be a return to the attitude of another time. “In the eighties I had shotguns and a pistol primarily for warning shots,” says Tim Nelick, a U.S. flag master. But according to Nelick and the industry at large, the threat of litigation and jurisdictional concerns were not nearly the obstacles against self-arming in the past as they are in the 21st century.

Going back hundreds of years, so called “letters of marque” were issued allowing mariners to take matters into their own hands against pirates.

Is arming ships now a case of “too little, too late?” Maersk may soon find out. Several former crew members of the Alabama have filed lawsuits against them for allegedly failing to adequately defend them prior to the April attack.

Six of the crew members are being represented by attorney Brian Beckcom.

The JonesActBook.com is property of Vujasinovic & Beckcom P.L.L.C.: Maritime Attorney | Jones Act Lawyer | Cruise Ship Attorneys