Modern piracy plagues the coasts of Africa and reminds us that this crime, once seemingly remote and distant, is actually a present reality. Acts of piracy off the coast of Africa began around 2005[1] and progressively worsened in the following years. Piracy lends itself to poverty-stricken areas by offering many people a purpose in life and something to do with their time. For the past 20 years, Somalia has been in a state of political instability and lawlessness which has caused the economy to collapse[2]. Without formal government, law enforcement becomes nearly impossible to implement. Without laws or law enforcement, many people have difficulty making an honest living. They end up spending their time commandeering ships instead of getting a formal education or spending time looking for a real job. They are attracted by the idea of ​​​​capturing a ship with passengers and simply exchange them as a package for millions of dollars. It has also been said that the pirates' reasoning for what they do actually justifies their actions. They claim to have lost much valuable fishing revenue and attribute it to waste dumped commercially. Many commercial ships dump their waste into Somali waters when they pass through the area, leaving them polluted and uninhabitable for the fish species that once thrived there. In order for a vessel to legally discharge its various types of waste, it must first obtain a permit allowing it to do so.[3] These permits can be difficult to obtain and it takes a lot of legal work and effort to actually obtain one. Ignoring these rules and regulations, these ships have illegally dumped their oil and machinery waste into the waters for centuries. It has been said that: “Over the last 150 years, all types of waste have been dumped into the oceans. These include sewage, industrial waste, rubbish, dredged material and radioactive waste. "[4] Regardless of the new laws that have been put in place, commercial ships in the area continue to freely release their waste and excess oil into the ocean. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why i should violent video games not be banned"? Get an original essay The Somali government has been in steady decline for many years and has seen some low points, despite the fact that it is now growing again. Somalia's government originally collapsed in the beginning of the 1990s following the overthrow of President Siad Barre by the forces of the warring clans.[5] After this overthrow of the government, Somalia divided into sectors with the names of: Kenya, Pirates, AU force, Ethiopia and areas under the influence of Shabab.[6] Many attempts were made to repair the government of Somalia and try to return it to how it was before. However, these warlords could not agree on the type of government that they wanted to impose and this led to conflict. The disagreements lasted 9 years, until around 2000, when Somali elders elected Abdulkassim Salat Hassan.[7] What broke this temporary peace was a tsunami that hit Somalia in 2004, dragging a large amount of toxic waste from the sea onto the shore. This infuriated Somali citizens and brought to their attention a problem that they now had to do something about promptly. Domestic consumption of fresh fish is already limited to coastal areas due to poor infrastructure,[8] and there are now further restrictions on what should be caught, sold and consumed. With the boom in illegal fishing following the collapse of the government,[9] a new problem has arisen: pollution of fishing regions. Many angry citizensthey were uniquely positioned to conduct attacks on ships sailing in their waters, many of which ultimately led to the capture and detention of the entire vessel and its crew. The Somali government was also non-existent at this point in regards to law enforcement, making this an easy activity to participate in. These pirates monitored the sea, preying on innocent passersby, trying to export goods by traveling from port to port. This idea of ​​piracy spread quickly, and soon many nations took advantage of the easy profits that could be made by targeting and seizing commercial ships carrying various types of loot. Piracy is not just a problem off the coast of Somalia, many citizens of other countries looking for quick money have taken note of the success Somali pirates have had. As piracy has eased in East Africa, as demonstrated by the declining number of attacks in Somalia's Gulf of Aden, it has spread to West Africa. While most attacks in the region occur in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, attacks have also occurred in Benin, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Guinea and Togo. However, there were also powerful fighters that emerged when piracy was at the height of its influence. The strongest of which is called “Combined Task Force 150”, a multinational coalition task force. This collaboration took on the role of combating piracy off the coast of Somalia by establishing a Maritime Security Patrol Area (MSPA) within the Gulf of Aden. They decided that this needed to be done because the growing threat posed by piracy has caused concern in India as most of its maritime trade routes pass through the Gulf of Aden. Hijackings also prevent shipments from being delivered altogether, thus increasing shipping costs, which cost $6.6 to $6.9 billion annually in global trade.[10] If these routes are completely compromised, this could complicate India's import and export market, affecting an estimated 1,236,344,631 people[11]. It was said that since the assembly of this task force, “about 25 naval vessels from EU and NATO countries, the United States, China, Russia, India and Japan have patrolled about 8.3 million km2 (3.2 million square miles) of ocean, an area about the size of Western Europe.”[12] This is done in an attempt to ward off, or capture and arrest any pirates wandering these waters at search for vulnerable commercial vessels. Pirates who conduct attacks outside Somalia's coastal waters have different motivations and different loot to seek. West African piracy mainly revolves around oil being the selling point, due to its many uses and how valuable it can be in large quantities. Oil and gas dependent companies in many different countries around the world have spent almost $200 million over the last 4 years gaining resources across Africa[13]. This acquisition leaves the natives with little oil at their disposal, and they find this problematic. In addition to this, much of their oil is also exported in large quantities to countries around the world due to low oil prices globally.[14] This oil then goes to the ongoing need for fossil fuels and fuel for homes, businesses, etc. The natives in both the West and South Africa decide to rebel against these forces mainly through aggression until they lose their most precious resource without having a say. . These incidents led to a “monitoring” organization called the “International Maritime Organization (IMO)” beingmost involved in the increasing amount of nautical hostility occurring off the coast of Africa. The IMO keeps watch on the coasts of Somalia, reporting any misbehavior or suspicious behavior that may soon occur. This is a small but growing attempt to decrease the number of hijacking incidents affecting countries around the world whose ships sail along the coast of Somalia. There are many countries involved in these naval complications and, as a result, hijacking situations have been handled differently depending on who is directly affected by the attack. Some countries do a better job than others, and they all depend on certain budgets that allow for different types of rescue attempts. Working together, the United States, India and Russia have come together to create many different solutions to this hijacking problem, the most successful being their “Combined Task Force 150,” a multinational coalition task force. This task force has outposts in surrounding waters both close to Somalia but also close to the homelands of each country involved. They use intimidation to ward off the pirates and attempt to keep them at bay. They try to capture as many pirates as possible[15], thus dampening their enthusiasm towards hijacking ships in order to keep all shipping and sailors in the surrounding area as safe as possible. However, overall there is a large bias towards rescue missions and regarding exactly who has the highest priority when it comes to hostage recovery in the aforementioned situations. Often too many hijackings occurred at once for the affected country to attempt to resolve them all. As a result, they end up capitalizing only on cases that affect them directly and in the most dangerous way, leaving others to try to solve them themselves. It is said that “the vast majority of the 3,700 seafarers captured by Somali pirates since 2006 were Asians, for whom there had been no dramatic rescue attempts worthy of being chronicled in a Hollywood blockbuster, and whose freedom was won generally as a [16] It often happens that, without valuable ships to barter for, the lives of ordinary seafarers held hostage are almost worthless. However, there have been many different solutions to regain control over captured citizens and ships. The most common, which involves fewer negotiations and the least possible risks, is to pay the ransom proposed by the pirates themselves. This is the path that most countries and companies choose to take, because it keeps everything simple and honest. Unlike a rescue mission or a large negotiation, this method keeps the affected country out of the media and recovers its citizens as quickly as possible. Ransom prices vary depending on the size of the ship and the number of passengers captured. This price could range from 700,000 to 1.5 million and, in rare cases, around 9 million.[17] Despite the risks, the United States conducted a rescue mission in 2009 in response to the Maersk hijacking in Alabama. It was a truly iconic victory for the United States: “The siege ended after a rescue attempt by the US Navy on April 12, 2009. It was the first successful pirate seizure of a vessel registered under the American flag since its inception. of the 19th century". As successful as it was, it publicized the Somali pirates and popularized them through the media, including the film made about the capture of the Maersk Alabama called “Captain Phillips.” Although the solution adopted by the United States worked and spread awareness of this global phenomenon,[18] it forced the pirates themselves into hiding. It is said that,“Despite this reduction in the number of incidents, the people who carried out these attacks are still numerous and still have the capabilities.”[19] It was a kind of “strong” solution and made it seem like the US was doing a noble thing, but in reality they were just giving the pirates what they wanted. Not only did it put them in the news in all their glory, but it also acted as a warning that the anti-piracy movement was growing and that it was time for them to hide for a while. Every aspect of piracy has a price and every attack or even attempt has a negative impact on the economy of the affected country. These pirates patrol the African coast and attack any vessel they deem vulnerable, regardless of the country of origin or where the shipping company is based. They know that even if the ship runs out of loot, they will be paid handsomely just for the boat itself and its many hostages. A report by the US non-profit Oceans Beyond Piracy estimates that the cost of Somali piracy to the global economy in 2012 alone was between $5.7 and $6.1 billion. That said, the cost of piracy to the global community actually decreased by approximately $850 from 2011 to 2012. million (12.6%)[20] This $6.1 billion price tag has many different contributions coming from a variety of attempts at different solutions to this piracy problem. The first concerns the 29% of the cost allocated to additional safety equipment and guards on board ships. This was initially thought to be a brilliant solution, keeping pirates away from any ships with armed guards on board, thus allowing for safe voyage. However, the cost of placing armed guards on every ship traveling in the waters off the coast of Africa was too high, and the intimidation factor of firearms did not last long. Very effective, but ultimately too difficult to implement wherever it was needed, so other solutions were pursued. 19% of the cost goes to finance the few military operations conducted in an attempt to save the captured ships. The most notable of these was the rescue mission of the Maersk Alabama, a Virginia-based US-flagged vessel bound for Kenya, which was hijacked by Somali pirates resulting in the taking of hostages. 27% of the cost is attributed to increased fuel consumption, due to the increased speed at which ships must travel through the affected region. Regardless of the numerous solutions attempted, the ships found that the most effective solution was to simply pass through the danger area quickly. However, this translates into increased fuel consumption on ships which already burn around 225 tonnes of fuel per day.[21] 1% of the cost is attributed to the ransom payment. This number is surprisingly low, but it makes a big statement regarding how much money was put at stake during this whole piracy catastrophe. Prices vary depending on the vessel, but are almost always between $700,000 and $1 million. scope and sometimes reach up to 9 million per ship. There have been 226 recorded attacks on commercial vessels from around the world off the coast of Africa, most of which were successful and resulted in ransoms.[22] Finally, 0.64% of the cost of piracy was spent investing in long-term solutions, which suggests that “the international community has yet to move from treating the symptoms of piracy to treating its causes.” Symptoms of piracy can be described as attacks and loss of money in an attempt to regain control of ships and sailors. We focus more on how to solve the dilemmas that arise.