مطالب

Background and Theoretical Foundations: Marine oil pollution represents one of the most severe threats to the marine environment, with long-lasting ecological, economic, and social consequences. While civil liability regimes have been extensively developed under international conventions, the realm of criminal liability—especially for both natural and legal persons—remains fragmented and inconsistently applied across jurisdictions. Theoretical underpinnings of criminal liability are rooted in the principles of international environmental law, state sovereignty, and the evolving recognition of corporate culpability under international legal frameworks. Key conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the MARPOL 73/78 Convention, and the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC) set the stage for state responsibilities and potential penal responses to pollution incidents, yet do not explicitly create unified standards of criminal prosecution for polluters.   Methodology: This article applies a comparative and analytical legal methodology grounded in the study of international treaties, customary international law, case law, and state practice. It examines both soft law instruments and binding conventions, alongside selected national laws and prosecutions.  Findings: The research reveals significant gaps in the international legal system’s approach to criminal liability for marine oil pollution. While several instruments impose obligations on states to adopt penal measures, enforcement varies widely, and the actual prosecution of corporate actors is rare. States often rely on civil penalties or administrative sanctions. However, where domestic laws are aligned with international obligations—such as in the U.S. or the EU—criminal prosecutions have led to substantial deterrent outcomes. Furthermore, corporate criminal liability, although increasingly recognized, remains legally ambiguous in many jurisdictions, and international law does not yet fully incorporate binding norms in this regard. Conclusion: International law recognizes the seriousness of marine oil pollution but lacks a harmonized and enforceable framework for holding individuals and corporations criminally liable. To bridge this gap, a more robust international regime is needed—one that explicitly defines environmental crimes at sea, standardizes evidentiary thresholds, and fosters cooperative enforcement among flag, coastal, and port states. Enhancing international cooperation, supporting capacity building in developing states, and codifying corporate environmental responsibility are essential steps toward achieving greater accountability and marine environmental protection on a global scale. Keywords: Marine Oil Pollution, Individual Criminal Liability, Corporate Criminal Liability, International Environmental Law, MARPOL Convention,

Background and Theoretical Foundations: By the end of the 20th century, the international community had managed to develop a relatively cohesive legal system for fighting against piracy and had taken commendable actions against pirates. Recent cases have been greatly efficient in inhibiting the activities of pirates. However, the situation has changed since the beginning of the 21st century, in which there has been an extremely rising trend in statistics for the theft of merchant ships. In other words, the activities of pirates have now become the most important challenge to the security of international trade and merchant ships at sea worldwide. Methodology: This research employs a descriptive-analytical method, in some cases, combined with a prescriptive-mandatory approach, to examine the international legal framework for combating piracy through the use of force, with an emphasis on the role of private military security companies. Findings: It is necessary to comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality, as well as all provisions of international humanitarian law, when fighting against pirates. However, it is preferable to resort to force against pirates to resolve the piracy problem. Although we believe that eradicating the challenge of piracy seems to be an Idealistic and utopian idea, we are sure that by adopting a coherent plan, this major international challenge can be curbed. Even without weapons, merchantmen can defend themselves well, and reducing the motivation of pirates will definitely have an effect on reducing piracy. Conclusion: According to the research results, states are obliged to comply with all principles and regulations of international humanitarian law for the use of force against pirates. The results also identified two challenges to the roles of private military security companies in this regard. Finally, five solutions such as holding scientific workshops and providing theoretical and practical training to sailors, reviewing recorded videos of pirates' actions, using the experiences of ship Capitan who have been able to neutralize pirates' operations, preparing suitable scenarios for how to manage the crisis, and ultimately the possibility the use of simulated workshops and placing the vessel in a position that is going to be attacked by pirates can improve the readiness of sailors and ship captains to deal with piracy to enhance the security of merchant ships against piracy operations.