| From the British Royal Navy's initial efforts to destroy pirate fleets in the South China Sea in the 1840s, to the United States Navy's counter-piracy patrols off the Horn of Africa today, powerful maritime states have intervened militarily to suppress piracy on a number of occasions over the past two centuries. Despite the considerable scholarly interest in examining how powerful states go about suppressing piracy, however, there has been little in-depth examination of why these states are willing expend resources combating piracy in the first place. When this question is addressed, counter-piracy efforts are usually portrayed as the provision of the global public goods of secure sea lanes and universal access to the global maritime commons. As a result, counter-piracy is presented as a quintessential example of hegemonic power at work in international system. Through a comparative historical analysis of four cases of maritime piracy, spanning from nineteenth century to the present, this dissertation examines the question why and under what conditions do maritime hegemons intervene militarily to suppress piracy? The findings challenge the standard provision of global public goods explanation; instead, this research demonstrates that maritime hegemons intervene either when piracy threatens the private interests of influential business elites, or when piracy is perceived as linked to other vital national security interests, like combating terrorism. When neither of these conditions is met, maritime piracy is usually ignored. |
