No abstract

Piracy holds a special place within the field of international law because of the universal jurisdiction that applies: any state may seize a pirate ship on the high seas and decide upon the penalties to be imposed, as is currently the case with Somali and West African pirates. Unlike today, piracy was the norm in pre-modern times. Maritime trade and piracy went hand in hand. At the same time, kings and emperors recruited their admirals from among pirates. This raises the question of how princes, states and cities distinguished between legal and illegal violence at sea. How did they deal with maritime conflict among themselves and among their respective subjects and citizens? This article puts maritime conflict management in a European, global and long term perspective while avoiding anachronistic and teleological approaches. Finally, it argues that pre-modern conflict management is relevant to understand maritime security in the twenty-first century.

I am grateful to Carsten Jahnke for reviewing an earlier version of this article. The usual disclaimer applies. I thank the students of the ba seminar "Funduqs, Vittes, Factorijen, Koopliedengemeenschappen en de organisatie van internationale handel tot 1600," which I taught at Leiden University in 2014-2015 for their assistance, especially Geeske Bisschop. I also thank Jelte Liemburg, Robert Nijstad, and Jurriaan Wink, who wrote papers on the topic under my supervision. Research for this article has been carried out within the context of the internationalisation programme "Maritime Conflict Management in Atlantic Europe, 1200-1600," financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research

Maritime conflict management is the regulation of conflict in relation to the sea. It comprises conflict enforcement, conflict resolution and conflict avoidance. How did victims of maritime conflicts claim and obtain damages or demand compensation or reparation? The articles in this issue aim to shed light on this question from two distinct yet related perspectives: that of the aggressor and the victim, on the one hand, and that of the political entities to which they belonged, on the other. The articles, covering seven centuries, reveal connections and entanglements between private parties and public authorities, demonstrating the importance of both for the development of maritime conflict management. Taken together these contributions provide evidence for the gradual development of maritime conflict management, diplomacy and norms for international law.