Some of the world’s most prominent environmental organisations have been accused of piracy for decades. Far from overblown slander, legal definitions are vague, and ramifications threaten our right to protest.
In 1982 Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior went up against whaling boats off the coast of Peru as part of a wider campaign to save some of the largest mammals on Earth. And the world was watching.
The intervention disrupted supply chains and fisheries, and directly contributed to the government in Lima signing up to the International Whaling Commission’s moratorium a year later. Initially intended to allow populations to recover, the agreement would be a precursor to a more widespread whaling ban that followed, which has remained in place across most of the world ever since.
Like most cases in which campaigners have stood in the way of companies and capitalism, Greenpeace’s actions were not without rebuke from the industry. This included, perhaps surprisingly, accusations of piracy. And the charge has resurfaced in the years between then and now, with far more serious implications than first impressions suggest.
‘The key trigger [for the claim against Greenpeace] was the Victoria 7 incident,’ says Laurence Teillet, Lecturer at Nottingham Law School. ‘Activists approached the Peruvian whaling ship, boarded it, and chained themselves to its harpoon cannon and crow’s nest, demanding Peru withdraw its objection to the moratorium. The Peruvian authorities responded by arresting the activists and detaining the Rainbow Warrior crew under armed guard.
‘It was during this incident that Greenpeace was first warned it might face piracy charges,’ they continue. ‘Since then, the term has occasionally resurfaced. Shell has used it in reference to Greenpeace actions, though not consistently. The most aggressive use of piracy rhetoric has come from the Institute for Cetacean Research – linked to the Japanese government – but their target has largely been Sea Shepherd, not Greenpeace.’
On the face of it, labelling environmental groups as pirates smacks of desperate attempts to discredit and sow seeds of distrust through toxic media headlines. But as Teillet explains, there’s an alarming history of groups trying to stand up against economic inequalities facing similar accusations, with unnerving outcomes.
‘There’s a fascinating and long-standing link between environmental protest and the unjust label of ‘piracy’,’ they explain. ‘Historically, the term has been used to prosecute those disrupting trade routes or challenging economic power. As early as the 19th century, small groups in Płock, Poland, protesting poverty, environmental destruction and inequality by disrupting river commerce were prosecuted as ‘pirates’ – even though they never operated on the high seas. Interestingly, some researchers have suggested the decline of piracy indirectly contributed to climate change by smoothing global trade.’
Skipping forward a century or so, and today the world and its legal systems may look very different. But as quickly becomes clear, the legitimacy of piracy claims against environmental campaigners engaged in action at sea is opaque. Terminology surrounding the term itself remains vague, while the steps available to private firms and policymakers alike are clear and far-reaching.
‘Criminal law requires clarity and foreseeability, yet the definition of piracy under international law remains surprisingly vague. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS], piracy involves any illegal act of violence committed for private ends, on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft. But each of these terms is open to interpretation,’ says Teillet.
‘For example, ‘violence’ has been stretched to include non-physical actions like moral coercion,’ the continue. ‘And ‘private ends’ is now often interpreted to mean any action not sanctioned by a state. By this logic, violent, unauthorised environmental activism at sea could technically fall within the definition – and in fact, courts in both Belgium and the US have upheld the use of the term ‘piracy’ in such contexts.’
In cases where piracy was upheld – for example, NL Chemicals against Greenpeace in Belgium, and Japan’s Institute for Cetacean Research versus Sea Shepherd in US courts – the right to invoke universal jurisdiction is granted, because the crime is considered a matter of international concern.
This allows for arrest and prosecution regardless of nationality or where an incident occurred. So activists cannot rely on their citizenship for protection, any country can intervene in any way, regardless of its connection to the case itself. In an age when our right to protest has been curbed, even in some of the strongest democratic systems, and climate activism in particular seems to be a priority target in the eyes of states and the companies that build their economies, it sets a dangerous precedent.
‘UN Special Rapporteur Michel Forst has warned against the over-criminalisation of environmental defenders and the use of dehumanising rhetoric by governments and corporations. The stakes are high: in 2023 alone, nearly 200 environmental defenders were killed… [And] the idea of labelling activists as ‘pirates’ is no longer confined to courtrooms – it’s now echoed on social media whenever Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd engage in direct action at sea. That normalisation of extreme language is worrying,’ says Teillet, before pointing to jurisdictions like Amsterdam District which have taken the legal view that protest and civic engagement are fundamental rights.
‘In parallel, there is growing interest – both in academic scholarship and amongst activists – in the idea of direct enforcement. This would involve granting environmental organisations limited legal authority to intervene directly against unlawful practices like illegal whaling or marine poaching,’ they continue. ‘Such a shift could help address the current legal ambiguity by aligning their actions more closely with State-sanctioned enforcement, thus removing the ‘illegality’ that anchors piracy accusations. But so far, this idea remains politically unpopular and not legally authorised… and the legal and political balance remains tilted against activists.’
Image: Intricate Explorer / Unsplash
More Features, Case Studies, and Industry Insight:
How a German city’s facelift was used to upgrade water management
Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah is an example to us all
From Adaptation to Resilience: Heatwave underscores need to rethink UK’s climate problem
