Republic of Italy v. Union of India: The “Enrica Lexie” Incident

1. Case Title & Citation

Republic of Italy v. Union of India (the “Enrica Lexie” incident).

•  The arbitral proceedings: The “Enrica Lexie” Incident, PCA Case No. 2015-28, Award (on 21 May 2020). The Supreme Court of India’s disposal of the Indian proceedings: Latorre v. Union of India, Special Leave Petition No. 20370 of 2012 (Order which is dated 15 June 2021). 
• Citations: PCA Award, PCA Case No. 2015-28 (on 21 May 2020); and the Supreme Court Order: Latorre v. Union of India, SLP No. 20370 of 2012 (Sup. Ct. India dated 15 June 2021).)

2. Court Name & Bench

• Arbitral Tribunal:   The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), the Annex VII tribunal which is constituted under UNCLOS (Proceedings instituted on 26 June 2015 and the award which was delivered on 21 May 2020). 
• Domestic Forum:  The Supreme Court of India: the final disposal order on 15 June 2021 (Special Leave Petition and related proceedings). 

3. Date of Judgment / Award

• PCA Award: 21 May 2020. 
• Supreme Court of India Order (disposal in conformity with the Award) on 15 June 2021. 

4. Parties that are Involved in the Case:

•  The Applicant or the Claimant (Arbitral): The Republic of Italy (acting on the behalf of the marines who aboard the MV Enrica Lexie). 
•  The Respondent: Union of India (and other related Indian authorities such as the Kerala state criminal proceedings). 
• The Relevant persons: Two Italian marines who are named Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone who were accused in India for killing two Indian fishers who were named Ajesh Binki and Jelestin in February 2012. 

5. The Facts of the Case 

The two Indian fishers who boarded the fishing vessel St. Antony were killed in a gunfire which allegedly emanating from the Italian-flagged tanker MV Enrica Lexie on 15 February 2012, which had two Italian Navy marines on board who functioned as ship security. India intercepted the tanker and detained the marines. Kerala police initiated criminal proceedings as they alleged murder under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Italy contended that the marines acted in official capacity on an Italian-flagged vessel in international waters and asserted that the marines’ functional immunity and their exclusive jurisdiction of their flag state. Diplomatic tensions followed. Italy instituted an arbitration under UNCLOS Annex VII (2015) asking the PCA to determine issues of jurisdiction and the state responsibility. The PCA found that Italy enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction over the marines, and it noted that India had suffered losses for which compensation was required, the Award envisaged cooperation between Italy and India on investigations and compensation. India moved on to implement the Award domestically; the Supreme Court disposed the Indian criminal proceedings in June 2021 in conformity with the Award. 

6. The Issues Raised 

1. Does India have the required or needed jurisdiction to try the two Italian marines for the murders that transpired in the contiguous zone or high seas, where the Enrica Lexie was flagged Italian? 
2. The two Italian marines did they enjoy functional immunity from Indian criminal jurisdiction as state officials performing official duties? 
3. What are India’s obligations under UNCLOS (including flag-state jurisdiction and freedom of navigation) and how should conflicting claims of jurisdiction and state immunity be reconciled? 
4. If an Annex VII tribunal decides that Italy has jurisdiction that immunity attaches, what effect does that arbitral award have on domestic criminal proceedings in India? 

7. Arguments of the Parties

• Italy (Claimant):  It argued that the marines, as state officials on duty aboard an Italian-flagged vessel, were entitled to immunity from the foreign criminal jurisdiction. Italy relied a lot on the UNCLOS provisions and the principles of international law protecting state officials acting in official capacities. It maintained that India’s exercise of criminal jurisdiction violated Italy’s rights under UNCLOS (which is a flag-state jurisdiction) and the marine’s immunity as the state agents. 
• India (Respondent):  It asserted its rights to exercise criminal jurisdiction because the victims of the killings were Indian nationals, and the wrongful acts had direct consequences within the Indian legal order. India raised it counterclaims under the UNCLOS for alleged violations by Italy. India argued that its criminal process and investigations were valid and emphasised that the territorial and the protective jurisdiction theories. 

8. The Judgment / The Final Decision

• PCA Award (on 21 May 2020): The Annex VII tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to address certain disputes, and it found that Italy had authority over the marines in relation to the criminal prosecution because of its functional immunity and the special status of state agents. The Award also directed that India was entitled to compensation for the losses caused by the incident. It required the parties to cooperate on quantification and the implementation. 
• Supreme Court of India (on 15 June 2021): Acting in conformity with the PCA Award, the Supreme Court quashed all  the Indian criminal proceedings stemming from the incident, discharged all  bail bonds, directed transfer or disbursement of funds to victims  heirs as appropriate and  it called for cooperation between India and Italy in pursuing the investigations envisaged by the Award.  

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The core legal reasoning pivots on the two interlocking principles which are:

• the law of the sea and the flag-state authority under the UNCLOS
• the doctrine of functional (acta jure imperia) immunity for state officials.

1. Jurisdiction under UNCLOS or the Flag State Rule: The PCA analysed the maritime location of the incident (contiguous zone or exclusive economic zone) and the UNCLOS provisions concerning the rights and the jurisdiction of flag states over vessels on the high seas, concluding that the flag state which is Italy had predominant regulatory interests. The tribunal treated India’s exercise of criminal authority as constrained by UNCLOS norms as far as those norms protect exclusive flag-state authority for certain conduct on the high seas. 
2. Functional immunity of state officials: The tribunal evaluated whether the marines as agents of Italy performing duties connected to state functions which is ship protection had enjoyed the immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction. On that question the tribunal found that functional immunity attached to the acts performed in official capacity, thereby shielding the marines from criminal prosecution by India; this formed a central pillar of the Award’s conclusion to vest the jurisdiction in Italy. The legal consequence was that India lacked jurisdiction to continue its criminal proceedings against the marines. 
3. Domestic implementation: The Supreme Court of India, confronted with a binding between the parties to Annex VII arbitral award and seeking to give effect to India’s international obligations and the PCA’s findings, exercised its constitutional powers to quash domestic criminal proceedings and to conform domestic law to India’s international commitments. The Court balanced both respect for the victims’ rights and India’s interest in criminal justice with the binding international adjudicatory outcome and the need for state-to-state cooperation on compensation and further investigation. 

10. Conclusion / Observations 

Significance: The Enrica Lexie episode is a landmark demonstration of how international dispute settlement (UNCLOS Annex VII arbitration) can decisively shape the domestic criminal processes. It clarifies the legal interaction between flag-state authority, the law of the sea and immunity doctrines. It underscores that international adjudicatory outcomes can necessitate domestic court action to avoid conflict with treaty-based rulings. The PCA Award and the Supreme Court’s subsequent compliance, illustrate a mature approach to treaty obligations, arbitration outcomes, and diplomatic resolution of international criminal-jurisdiction disputes. 

As an aspiring international lawyer and student of international criminal law, this case offers three lessons to me which includes the following. First is that facts at sea implicate a complex web of jurisdictional claims such as territorial, flag state and protective thus requiring nuanced application of UNCLOS and the general international law. Second, the doctrine of the functional immunity for the state officials can produce difficult trade-offs between accountability and the state sovereignty thereby reconciling victims’ rights with immunities demands thoughtful institutional responses for example state-level investigations, compensation and many more. Third, effective international dispute resolution mechanisms like Annex VII tribunals can provide finality where bilateral diplomacy and the domestic courts might otherwise flounder.

Practical implication: The case encourages states and practitioners to strengthen pre-emptive arrangements which are rules of engagement for ship security personnel, clear status of forces or the status of persons agreements on the commercial ships and to design cooperative mechanisms for the investigation and the compensation that protect human rights while also respecting international jurisdictions.

Sources 

• The “Enrica Lexie” Incident, PCA Case No. 2015-28, Award (May 21, 2020). (Permanent Court of Arbitration press release and award text). 
• Latorre v. Union of India, SLP No. 20370 of 2012 (Supreme Court of India, Order dated June 15, 2021) (Supreme Court disposal of Indian proceedings in conformity with the PCA Award). (Indian Kanoon / Supreme Court record). 
• ITLOS & PCA case pages on the Enrica Lexie incident (procedural history, provisional measures). 
• Academic commentary and analysis: Odello, The Enrica Lexie Incident and the Status of Anti-Piracy Security, Journal of Conflict and Security Law (2021); other law-review commentary. 
• Media summaries and context: BBC, Wikipedia (for background timeline and the use only for non-authoritative narrative points; rely on PCA/Supreme Court/ITLOS for legal facts).