Piracy is a global phenomenon: an International Maritime Organization (IMO) report advances that in 2013 there were alleged incidents of piracy in areas ranging from the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, and West Africa to South America . Piracy has been attributed to the largely lawless space of the sea, favorable geography, coastal communities that cannot defend themselves, and economic instability. Another factor attributed to piracy is the financial profit stemming whether from ransoms paid in order to free hostages or from the act of selling stolen cargo or vessels. Moreover, corrupt officialdom and weak or compliant States function as breeding grounds for piracy . Yet, although some States can be like sanctuaries for pirates, it seems inappropriate to refer to them as pirate States . This is because the term State evokes an image of authority; while piracy, on the other hand, has been commonly associated with the rejection of State institutions. The view stressing that the State cannot be held responsible for acts of piracy seems to be anchored to the above-mentioned aspect of piracy. There appears to be a consensus among commentators on the issue that piratical acts cannot be attributed to States under the rules on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts . Such a common ground is based on an interpretation of the private ends requirement within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) definition of piracy, excluding all state-sanctioned acts of violence at sea from the category of piratical ones. According to such an interpretation, if there is public interest behind an act of violence at sea, the latter will not be committed for private ends and in turn will not be considered piratical . Notwithstanding such an interpretation, State authorities can be directly involved in piracy. Hence, the study investigates why it is impossible to directly attribute piratical acts to States and analyzes the possibility of indirectly attributing such acts to States.