ELR Citation: 43 ELR 20114
No(s). 12-35266 (9th Cir. May 24, 2013)

The Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court decision dismissing a Japanese whaling research organization's piracy claims against an environmental activist group. The researchers hunt whales in the Southern Ocean pursuant to a permit issued under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. They filed suit against the activists under the Alien Tort Statute for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that their acts—ramming ships, fouling propellers, and hurling fiery and acid-filled projectiles—amount to piracy and violate international agreements regulating conduct on the high seas. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the High Seas Convention defines “piracy” as “illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship . . . and directed . . . on the high seas, against another ship . . . or against persons or property on board such ship.” The lower court dismissed the piracy claim, interpreting the term “private ends” as limited to those pursued for financial enrichment. It also held that the activists' conduct is not violent because it targets ships and equipment rather than people. But “private ends” are not limited to those pursued for financial enrichment. They also include those pursued on personal, moral or philosophical grounds, such as the activists' professed environmental goals. That the activists believe themselves to be serving the public good does not render their ends public. In addition, “violence” extends to malicious acts against inanimate objects. Thus, the activists' alleged conduct easily qualifies as violent activities, even if they could somehow be directed only at inanimate objects. Accordingly, the activities that the researchers allege the group has engaged in are clear instances of violent acts for private ends, the very embodiment of piracy. The court also reversed the denial of the whalers’ motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, there was a likelihood of irreparable harm, and the balance of the equities and the public interest favored the whalers.