THE 1958 GENEVA CONVENTION ON THE HIGH SEAS HAS BEEN SEVERELY CRITICIZED FOR ITS UNCLEAR LANGUAGE AND FAILURE TO RESOLVE LEGAL PROBLEMS ARISING FROM MODERN ACTS PIRACY, SUCH AS HIJACKINGS AND ATTACKS ON FLOATING PLATFORMS ON THE HIGH SEAS. TRADITIONALLY THE CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH PIRACY AND USED TO JUSTIFY EXPEDITIONS INTO FOREIGN TERRITORY WITHOUT THE SOVERIGN'S PERMISSION. SINCE THIS IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF COOPERATION UNDERLYING INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, LIMITS ON A STATE'S USE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED. A NEW TREATY FORM COULD BE THE BASIS OF A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN NATIONS. UNDER IT, SHOULD BE ABLE TO PRESCRIBE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR PIRACY AND ENFORCE THESE SANCTIONS IN SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. THE DEFINITION OF PIRACY WOULD BE UPDATED, AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT WOULD BE DICTATED BY THE EXTENT OF PRIVILEGES AVAILABLE TO REBELS AND BELLIGERENTS. ATTEMPTS TO PERFORM AN ACT OF PIRACY WOULD BE PART OF THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME. UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION WOULD BE PERMITTED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF APPREHENDING PIRATES AND SEIZING ANY PROPERTY ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED. ARRESTS ON ACCOUNT OF PIRACY COULD BE MADE ONLY BY AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL. THE ARRESTING STATE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TRY ACCUSED PIRATES, BUT IF IT DECIDES NOT TO PROSECUTE, THE OFFENDER MUST EITHER BE EXPELLED OR EXTRADITED. THE INVOLVEMENT OF A VESSEL IN AN ACT OF PIRACY WOULD NOT AFFECT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ITS OWNER OR SPONSORING STATE, AND THE RETURN OF SUCH A VESSEL SHOULD BE FACILITATED BY THE CONTRACTING PARTIES. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (MJM)