The Se­cur­ity Coun­cil has shown strong re­solve to counter the pir­ate activ­it­ies in the Gulf of Ad­en. Four Chapter VII-based Se­cur­ity Coun­cil Res­ol­u­tions with­in the past 18 months alone, the au­thor­iz­a­tion to use "all ne­ces­sary means," and the pro­claimed ob­ject­ive of a "full erad­ic­a­tion of pir­acy" in the re­gion send a clear mes­sage. Des­pite the Coun­cil's ef­forts to rem­edy some of the oft-lamen­ted short­com­ings of the UN­CLOS en­force­ment re­gime, as far as en­force­ment jur­is­dic­tion is con­cerned, dis­cern­ing pre­cisely what States are cur­rently al­lowed to do in their quest to repress pir­acy off Somalia's coast, as well as where and against whom, is far from easy. With re­gard to ad­ju­dic­at­ive jur­is­dic­tion, the pic­ture is equally com­plex. UN­CLOS ar­gu­ably con­tains a jur­is­dic­tion­al basis in re­la­tion to ad­ju­dic­a­tion, but the vari­ous Se­cur­ity Coun­cil Res­ol­u­tions have also in­voked a range of oth­er rel­ev­ant leg­al in­stru­ments such as the SUA and Host­age Con­ven­tions. In prac­tice, States have been quite re­luct­ant to ini­ti­ate crim­in­al pro­ceed­ings against cap­tured "pir­ates and armed rob­bers" and have oc­ca­sion­ally re­leased them on Somali shorelines. It is in this con­text that trans­fer agree­ments with re­gion­al States have been con­cluded and the Se­cur­ity Coun­cil has called for the use of so-called "shipriders," al­low­ing States to bring "pir­ates and armed rob­bers at sea" dir­ectly in­to the crim­in­al jur­is­dic­tion of a re­gion­al State will­ing to pro­sec­ute them.