영국법상 해적행위 개념의 재검토

Upon considering the English insurance market's leading position in the world insurance market, it is essential for the insured to examine English law in order to be compensated for the losses caused by the piratical activities. In serial cases, English courts have provided us with the definition and requirements of piracy. Therefore, cases need to be supplemented with the systemic interpretation of the English statutes for the accurate understanding of the meaning of piracy. However, when we go through the English statutes regarding piracy, it is likely that some cases may not provide any valuable information as to the interpretation of piracy. In addition, for matters where geographical limit is one of the formative elements of piracy, English courts do not give substantial instructions as to where piracy can occur. Historically, piracy was defined as both a war risk and a marine risk depending on the circumstances. In this regard, it is in fact difficult to tell the difference between what is considered piracy and what is considered an actual war risk. Even though cases of piracy which were motivated politically and militantly are treated differently by using the dominant motive approach, it will not be easy to draw a line between piracy and war risks which include riots, terrorist acts and malicious behavior. For example, there are reports that Somali pirates have a relationship with Al-Qaeda, an Islamic terrorist group, politically and militantly. If that is the case, there will be some potential legal disputes as to the compensation from the insurers for the losses, because the insured will have difficulty proving the causation. In conclusion, it is highly suggested that piracy, as a marine risk, should be stipulated as one of war risks which is covered by war risks clauses to reduce any legal problems for the compensation of losses.