NATO’s Gender Wording: Opportunity or Backstep?
NATO is reportedly considering changes to its terminology around the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. This development, emerging amid broader political shifts, raises a critical question: is this an opportunity or backstep for the alliance? The existing WPS framework, anchored in UN Security Council Resolution 1325, recognises the distinct impacts of conflict on women […]When The FBI Gets It Wrong: Urgent Need for Maritime Governance
A recent arrest by the FBI, published on 3 April 2025, has highlighted the urgent need for maritime governance. The incident involved an alleged assault aboard a non-state vessel, over 70 nautical miles from the nearest coastline — well outside any national jurisdiction. Despite this, U.S. authorities charged the individual under domestic law: “Assault within Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States.”
This misstep wasn’t a technicality — it was a misapplication of jurisdiction. The charge likely rested on the suspect’s U.S. citizenship rather than the vessel’s position. Yet, when even federal agencies like the FBI fail to navigate the legal boundaries at sea, it underlines a broader problem: confusion over how crimes at sea are to be properly handled.
This confusion extends far beyond law enforcement. On non-state vessels, captains and crews often face serious incidents without legal training, judicial support, or clear procedures. Jurisdiction shifts depending on the ship’s flag, sea zone, and the nationalities involved. In the absence of legal certainty, responses are improvised — and that’s where danger arises.
Risk of Excessiveness
The lack of structure creates real risk. Excessive actions like detaining crew or passengers, restricting movement, or using force may be taken in the name of safety — but without lawful justification. At the same time, actual crimes may be ignored, as no one is sure who holds authority. Victims and accused alike are left unprotected.
This highlights the urgent need for maritime governance that supports captains, safeguards rights, and ensures lawful, proportionate responses. A shared international framework wouldn’t override national sovereignty — it would strengthen it, providing minimum standards, legal clarity, and procedural safeguards.
The International Maritime Organization would be best placed to take the lead. But so far, it has demonstrated a great effort to newly interpret its mandate.
That silence leaves a dangerous gap. As the FBI’s misjudgement shows, even the most capable authorities can get it wrong. It’s time for the maritime community to step forward — before another incident exposes the cost of legal uncertainty at sea.
