States, as entities within the international political order, possess both rights and obligations but may also be subjected to violations of these rights, effectively becoming victims. One of the longstanding transgressions against states has been maritime piracy. This study examines the contrasting approaches of Iran and the West in addressing piracy, focusing on the underlying strategic differences. The research hypothesis suggests that Iran's approach is shaped by its anti-hegemonic foreign policy, whereas the West, adhering to neoliberal ideology, has commodified maritime security, using it as a tool to reinforce its global dominance. While the West integrates maritime security into its hegemonic strategies, Iran pursues an independent deterrence model, resisting reliance on the prevailing international system. The findings reveal that Iran encounters two types of piracy: conventional piracy, carried out by armed groups in international waters, and state-sponsored piracy, involving the politically and economically motivated seizure of ships under a façade of legal legitimacy through sanctions and detentions. In response to conventional piracy, Iran employs conventional defense and security mechanisms, while in dealing with state-sponsored piracy, it adopts a counter-deterrent strategy that has somewhat mitigated the damages incurred by such actions.
Introduction
In recent years, international treaties have increasingly emphasized the growing global concern over maritime crimes, including terrorism, drug trafficking, human smuggling, and particularly maritime piracy. The escalation of piracy, especially in regions such as the Somali coast and the Gulf of Aden, has emerged as one of the most significant challenges confronting the global community. As Iran's economy heavily relies on maritime trade, particularly the transportation of oil and petroleum products, piracy poses a direct threat to its national interests.
Maritime piracy has historically been a major international crime, affecting not only states but also non-state actors and the global economy. Today, modern piracy has evolved into an organized industry, employing high-speed boats, sophisticated weaponry, and advanced communication technologies. Pirates no longer discriminate among their targets, attacking vessels of all kinds, including humanitarian aid ships. Given this context, the primary legal challenge in addressing piracy remains the prosecution of offenders and ensuring justice for victims.
Theoretical Framework: Iran’s Anti-Hegemonic Foreign Policy Approach
Iran's foreign policy is rooted in an anti-hegemonic doctrine, which rejects both Western and Eastern imperialist structures. This principle, known as "Neither East nor West," was established following the 1979 Islamic Revolution and continues to shape Iran’s strategic decisions. This policy framework directly challenges the stability of the international hegemonic order, which is predominantly maintained by global powers seeking to monopolize resources and influence regional policies.
In contrast to Western powers, which view maritime security through the lens of economic control and geopolitical dominance, Iran perceives international maritime security as a domain in which sovereignty must be protected from foreign intervention. Consequently, Iran’s engagement with piracy is dictated by this broader ideological framework, influencing its response mechanisms and shaping its maritime defense policies.
Maritime Piracy and Its Legal Dimensions
Under international law, piracy is considered a severe transnational crime. Historical records indicate that piracy has existed for millennia, dating back to ancient Mediterranean civilizations. Over time, international treaties have sought to codify legal frameworks to address this issue.
The 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) define piracy as:

Any illegal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship against another ship in international waters.
Any voluntary participation in the operation of a pirate ship.
Any incitement or intentional facilitation of piracy.

However, the challenge remains in the enforcement of these legal principles, as different nations apply varying degrees of prosecution. Some countries, such as France, have actively prosecuted pirates under UNCLOS, whereas others, including the U.K. and the U.S., prefer extradition or trial in third-party states like Kenya. The inconsistent application of these legal norms has created a fragmented approach to maritime law enforcement.
The Western Approach to Piracy: The Commodification of Security
The Western perspective on piracy largely reflects a neoliberal approach to security, which involves outsourcing protection to private military companies. Notably, some scholars have proposed that piracy-ridden areas, such as the Gulf of Aden, should be privatized and controlled by security firms charging shipping companies for safe passage. This market-driven approach aligns with the broader neoliberal agenda of commodifying security.
Despite international legal efforts, piracy remains an unresolved issue due to the reluctance of Western states to invest in consistent legal frameworks for prosecution. Instead, Western strategies focus on deploying multinational naval forces, strengthening regional security pacts, and integrating private security firms into maritime operations.
A significant contradiction within the Western approach is the selective enforcement of anti-piracy laws. While global powers invest heavily in countering traditional piracy in the Gulf of Aden, they simultaneously engage in what Iran terms "state-sponsored piracy"—the seizure of Iranian vessels under the guise of economic sanctions.
Iran’s Dual Response to Piracy
1. Conventional Piracy
Iran addresses conventional piracy through its naval forces, deploying the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Iranian Navy to safeguard its maritime trade routes. In cases of attacks, Iran adheres to international legal norms, cooperating with regional partners and international organizations.
2. State-Sponsored Piracy
Iran categorizes Western-led sanctions and ship seizures as a form of "state-sponsored piracy." This phenomenon, executed under legal pretenses, involves the detention of Iranian vessels carrying sanctioned goods, particularly oil.
In response, Iran has employed countermeasures, including reciprocal ship detentions. A notable case was Iran’s seizure of Greek oil tankers following the confiscation of an Iranian oil shipment in Greece. These retaliatory actions align with the international legal principle of "countermeasures," which permits states to take reciprocal action against unlawful acts to restore their rights.
Iran has also detained foreign vessels engaged in what it perceives as the smuggling of sanctioned goods. These actions serve as deterrents, signaling that Iran will not passively accept violations of its maritime sovereignty.
Conclusion
Maritime piracy remains a complex challenge in international law, requiring coordinated global efforts to establish effective legal frameworks. While the Western approach prioritizes privatization and selective law enforcement, Iran’s perspective is shaped by its resistance to hegemonic dominance.
Iran faces two distinct forms of piracy:

Traditional piracy, which it counters through conventional maritime security measures.
State-sponsored piracy, where Western nations use economic sanctions as a pretext for detaining Iranian vessels.

In addressing these threats, Iran employs both international legal frameworks and countermeasures based on its anti-hegemonic policy. While Western powers seek to monopolize maritime security through neoliberal mechanisms, Iran advocates for an alternative model that resists external control and emphasizes national sovereignty.