The development of the law on piracy under two major international treaties; the Geneva Convention, 1958 and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 has witnessed great acceptance and application of the law with many coastal states have crafted specific anti-piracy law as a manifestation of their commitments to the international treaties. However, up until today, Malaysia has yet to come out with a single and unified statute against piracy despite being a member to both treaties. The law is scattered in a different set of documents and carried out by various agencies that are responsible to each respective law. It is argued that given this is the position in Malaysia, the prosecution of piracy would be a critical problem for the law enforcement. In this paper, we address this concern by looking at both Malaysian legal framework as well as the experience of the country against international piracy, particularly the case of Bunga Laurel. The findings suggest that there are more than twenty Acts that might be used against piracy. As a sovereign state under the international law, Malaysia also has the right to resort to principles of international law for the apprehension and prosecution of high sea pirates. To this effect, the case of Bunga Laurel has really manifested the successful application of Malaysian law by the High Court of Malaya against international piracy. The paper concludes that the absence of a single anti-piracy law is not necessarily an obstacle, but instead an advantage with great choice of law available for the prosecution in this country.

Penelitian ini dilaksanakan di Kantor Pengadilan Kota Sorong dengan mengambil sebanyak 2 orang Hakim, 3 orang saksi dan terdakwa sebagai sampel pengamatan yang diberikan wawancarai. Teknik pengumpulan data yaitu observasi dan wawancara terstruktur dengan responden, juga diadakan wawancara bebas dengan para pegawai tertentu serta menelaah naskah-naskah asli (dokumen). Analisis data dilakukan dengan menggunakan analisis deskripsi kualitatif.Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dan pembahasan maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa Pada perkara Nomor 105/Pid.B/2017/PN.Son Majelis Hakim memutuskan bahwa terdakwa telah terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan bersalah telah melakukan tindak pidana “Menyalahgunakan Pengangkutan Dan Niaga Bahan Bakar Minyak Yang Disubsidi Pemerintah. Terdakwa MUNAWAR KHALIL Alias ALE telah terbukti melanggar Pasal 55 UU RI No. 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak dan Gas Bumi. Namun, menurut penulis hakim dan Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam menerapkan hukum pidana lebih tepat jika memutus terdakwa melanggar Pasal 53 Undang-undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak dan Gas Bumi. Dalam memutus suatu perkara, Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Sorong lalai dalam menerapkan hukum dengan tidak mempertimbangkan secara matang dakwaan dari Jaksa Penuntut Umum. Majelis Hakim menjatuhkan vonis kepada terdakwa Pasal 55 Undang-undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 bukan Pasal 53 Undang- undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001, sehingga putusan hakim dapat dikatakan keliru.

The punishment for ḥirābah as a ḥadd crime has been prescribed by the Lawmaker in the Qurʻān, in Chapter al-Mā’idah, 33. The provision stipulates four types of punishment, namely; execution, cutting off of hands and feet, crucifixion and banishment. Despite ḥirābah being a serious crime and the only ḥadd crime with four punishments, al-Mā’idah 33 is completely silent about the meaning of ḥirābah, its constituent elements, modes of crime and conditions. This has led the crime being approached either through a restrictive or a permissive manner by Muslim scholars. The objective of this paper is to study the concept of ḥirābah from both perspectives, their justifications and significant impacts on possible application of Islamic criminal law on the subject. This is carried out through careful examination of literature contributed by both classical and modern times. The findings of the study suggest that the restrictive approach considers ḥirābah to be a crime of highway robbery – grave theft – while the permissive approach does not stipulate any particular designation to the crime. Ḥirābah to the latter is of an unlimited crime. Their justifications range from textual to contextual analyzes, application of qiyās and other principles of Islamic jurisprudence. The significant impacts of both approaches are seen on the possible application of ḥirābah; either being a strict or a flexible form of crime, a limited or an unlimited with specified or unspecified types of punishment, involving the application of two witnesses or otherwise and the effect of repentance.