This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Meyers, Nationality of Ships (1967), 16; O’Connell/Shearer, The International Law of the Sea (1984), vol. II, 748.
See art. 31(1) of the Convention on the Law of Treaties which reads: “a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” [1969] 8 ILM 690; A/CONF.39/27.
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1988), vol. 10, 746.
Hawkins (ed.), The Oxford Reference Dictionary (1986), 911.
Ibid., at 764; “A vessel that sails the ocean is called a ship”, Encyclopedia American (1884), vol. 24, 719.
The statement read: “... the definition’ ship’ includes or embraces every description of vessel, which includes in turn, if one refers back to the definition of ‘vessel’, ‘any ship or boat’, but, by the definition of’ ship’ any vessel of any description is only included if it is not propelled by oars. In other words, no vessel which is propelled by oars is within the definition of ‘vessel’.” Edwards v. Quickenden and Forester (1939), 261; O’Connell/Shearer, The International Law of the Sea (1984), vol. II, 748.
See infra note 35.
See Mason (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Ships and Shipping (1980), 583; 746.
See The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1988), vol. 12, 336; Encyclopedia Americana (1984), vol. 28, 56; no reference is made to ‘vessel’ in Encyclopaedia of Ships and Shipping and The New Columbia Encyclopedia.
Gidel, Le Droit International Public de la Mer, li.l, 1932, 70; cited as per Sohn/ Gustafson, The Law of the Sea in A Nutshell (1984), 12.
Meyers, Nationality of Ships (1967), 22.
Lagoni, ‘Merchant Ships’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1989), 228.
Florio (1957), 36; O’Connell/ Shearer, The International Law of the Sea (1984), vol. II, 748.
Lazaratos in 22 Rev. hell’en. de droit int. (pts. 3–4), 1969, 73; O’Connell/ Shearer, The International Law of the Sea (1984), vol. II, 748.
Hasselmann, Die Freiheit der Handelsschiffahrt (1987), 60 ff.
Report of the ILC on the Work of its 43rd Session, 46 GAOR, Supp. No. 10 (A/46/10), 1991, 119; Nandan/ Rosenne, The United Nation’s Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 — A Commentary (1993), vol. II, 46.
Hasselmann, Die Freiheit der Handelsschiffahrt (1987), 61.
The work of the Second Committee at UNCLOS III led to the formulation of arts. 2 to 132, i.e. Parts II-X; the work of the Third Committee covered Parts XII, XIII and XIV, Nandan/ Rosenne, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — A Commentary (1993), vol. II, 1; see also Hasselmann, Die Freiheit der Handelsschiffahrt (1987), 56.
Lagoni, ‘Merchant Ships’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1989), 228; Hasselmann, Die Freiheit der Handelsschiffahrt (1987), 57.
Hasselmann, Die Freiheit der Handelsschiffahrt (1987), 56.
Nandan/ Rosenne, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea–A Commentary (1993), vol. II, 45.
One part of the proposal read: “For the purpose of the Convention’ ship’ and ‘vessel’ have the same meaning...” Also Hasselmann, Die Freiheit der Handelsschiffahrt (1987), 57.
[1955] I YBILC 10; the draft article was drawn up by the special rapporteur of the Commission, Francois, in his sixth report and read: “A ship is a device capable of traversing the sea but not the airspace, with the equipment and crew appropriate to the purpose for which it is used.” [1954] II YBILC 9–10; Meyers, Nationality of Ships (1967), 16 f.
Hasselmann, Die Freiheit der Handelsschiffahrt (1987), 60.
In the present international practice a ship is assumed to be not less than 500 GRT. See art. 2 UNCCORS; similar views expressed also in the New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1988), vol. 10, 746.
[1935] III RIAA 1607–1618
Lagoni, ‘Der Hamburger Hafen, die internationale Handelsschiffahrt und das Volkerrecht’ [1988] 26 AVR 271.
O’Connell/ Shearer, The International Law of the Sea, (1984), vol. II, 747; Lagoni, ‘Merchant Ships’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1989), 229; Meyers, Nationality of Ships (1967), 8.
Ibid.
Churchill/ Lowe, The Law of the Sea (1983), 179; Lagoni, ‘Der Hamburger Hafen, die internationale Handelsschiffahrt und das Völkerrecht’ [1988] 26 AVR 295 f.; O’Connell/Shearer, ibid., at. 752, 865 f; Meyers, “A ship is not a person nor is it territory.” In ibid., at, 14.
Para. 106 of the Judgment of the ITLOS of Saiga case on 1 July 1999, Case No.2, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea, ITLOS; available at <http://www.itlos.org/start2_en.html> (last visited: February 24, 2002).
O’Connell/ Shearer even went further by admitting the personality of a ship to a limited extent, in The International Law of the Sea, (1984), vol. II, 747; Schulte, Die “Billigen Flaggen” im Völkerrecht (1962), 37.
Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 73.
O’Connell/ Shearer, The International Law of the Sea, (1984), vol. II, 751; Skourtos, Die Billig-Flaggen-Praxis und die Staatliche Flaggenverleihungsfreiheit (1990), 132 ff.
Ready, Ship Registration (1998), 4.
Both CHS 1958 and UNCLOS refer to ships as having a nationality. For further details see arts. 5–7 of CHS 1958 and arts. 91–92 of UNCLOS; Meyers used “allocation” instead of “nationality”, in Nationality of Ships (1967), 31 ff.; the use of the term “nationality” is believed to have obscured the reason for identifying the connecting factor between the ship and State. O’Connell/Shearer The International Law of the Sea, (1984), vol. II, 752.
Meyers, Nationality of Ships (1967), 26f; Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 73 f.
It is “merely shorthand for saying that a ship is jurisdictionally connected with a State”. O’Connell/ Shearer, The International Law of the Sea, (1984), vol. II, 752.
Similar views expressed by Churchill/ Lowe, The Law of the Sea (1983), 179 f.; Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1998), 428; Ready, Ship Registration (1998), 1 f.
Schulte, Die “Billigen Flaggen” im Völkerrecht (1962), 40; “in the interest of order on the open sea, a vessel not sailing under the maritime flag of a State enjoys no protection whatever, for the freedom of navigation on the open sea is a freedom for such vessels only as sail under the flag of a State.” Oppenheim, International Law: a treatise, (1974), vol. 1, 546.
Lagoni spoke of “ships under an unrecognized flag”, in ‘Der Hamburger Hafen, die internationale Handelsschiffahrt und das Völkerrecht’ [1988] AVR 270; Lagoni, discussions (1990), Heft 31, DGVR, 157; see different views of Wolfram, Rechte der Flagge und “billige Flaggen” (1990), 182.
O’Connell/ Shearer, The International Law of the Sea (1984), vol. II, 755 f.; Lagoni, ‘Merchant Ships’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1989), 230.
Rienow, The Test of the Nationality of a Merchant Vessel (1937), 216.
This is supported by Churchill/ Lowe, the Law of the Sea (1983), 180; Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1998), 428; Ready, Ship Registration (1998), 2 f.; Oxman, ‘Jurisdiction of State’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL, vol. III, 58; art. 3 of the Ship Registration Regulations of China; § 3 a) of Flaggenrechtsgesetz of Germany; Núnez-Müller would seem to go too far by amplifying certain exceptional state practice when he wrote: “Nicht maßgeblich ist hingegen die Eintragung des Schiffes in das Schiffsregister. ” “vielmehr setzt, wie Art.94 Abs.2 Lit.a) SRÜ deutlich macht, die Registereintragung das Flaggenführungsrecht und damit die Staatszugehörigkeit voraus und macht diese nur publik.” in Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 76 f.
[1905] XI RIAA 83 et seq.; Churchill/ Lowe, The Law of the Sea (1983), 180; O’Connell/Shearer, The International Law of the Sea (1984), vol. II, 752 f.; Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 127 ff.; Skourtos, Die Billig-Flaggen-Praxis und die Staatliche Flaggenverleihungsfreiheit (1990), 104 ff.; Seidel, ‘The Muscat Dhows’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1997), vol. 3, 196.
A similar point was made by Núnez-Müller when he stated “Die wohl überwiegende Völkerrechtslehre geht daher davon aus, dass das Völkerrecht keine allgemeine Pflicht zur Anerkennung fremder Hoheitsakte — und seien sie völkerrechtsmässig–kennt.... Umgekehrt besteht keine völkerrchtliche Pflicht zur Anerkennung völkerrechtswidriger Flaggenverleihungen; denn dies ware ein Widerspruch des Völkerrechts in sich selbst.” In Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 122 f.; see also O’Connell/Shearer, The International Law of the Sea (1984), vol. II, 757 f.
For the comments on the registration of Saiga, see Lagoni, ‘Folgen des Saiga-Urteils des internationalen Seegerichtshofs fur die Seeschiffahrt (2000), 16 ff.
For example, in Panama. See Ready, Ship Registration (1998), 131 ff.
Meyers, Nationality of Ships (1967), 163 f.; O’Connell/Shearer, The International Law of the Sea (1984), vol. II, 757.
The origin of the genuine link concept is not clear. Quadri mentioned “intenso collegamenta”, which could be the ancestor of genuine link, for the first time in 1939. See Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 151 f.
Nottebohm was born in Germany in 1881 and went to Guatemala to do business in 1905. After the outbreak of World War II, he went to Liechtenstein and submitted an application for the citizenship of that state. In October 1939, he obtained the nationality of Liechtenstein. In December, Guatemala declared war on Germany and as a result, he was arrested there and his property was confiscated. Nottebohm went to Liechtenstein in 1946 and the latter filed a case against Guatemala before the ICJ in 1951; Núnez-Müller, ibid., at 156 ff.; Renton, The Genuine Link Concept and the Nationality of Physical and Legal Persons, Ships and Aircraft (1975), 43 ff.
“... nationality is a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties... Conferred by a State, it only entitles that State to exercise protection vis-a-vis another State, if it constitutes a translation into juridical term of the individual’s connection with the State which has made him its national.” [1955] ICJ Reports 1, 23.
In its draft “Provisional Articles Concerning the Regime of the High Seas” the ILC put forward the criteria for ascertaining the existence of a genuine link in terms of ownership of ships in 1955, but it dropped them later due to lack of general support. See Schulte, Die “Billigen Flaggen” im Völkerrecht (1962), 104 ff; Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 164 ff.
Renton, The Genuine Link Concept and the Nationality of Physical and Legal Persons, Ships and Aircraft (1975), 106 ff.; Núnez-M%:uller, ibid., at 155 ff.; Schulte, ibid., at 73 ff.; Dorr, ‘Das Zweitregistergesetz’ [1988] 26 AVR 377.
Skourtos, Die Billig-Flaggen-Praxis und die Staatliche Flaggenverleihungsfreiheit (1990), 219 ff.; Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerecht (1994), 172.
[1960] ICJ Reports 167–171.
Ibid., at 171.
Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 233 ff.; Renton, The Genuine Link Concept and the Nationality of Physical and Legal Persons, Ships and Aircraft (1975), 125 ff.
For further comments on the case, see Lagoni, ‘Folgen des Saiga-Urteils des internationalen Seegerichtshofs fur die Seeschiffahrt (2000), 18 f.
[1905] XI RIAA 83; O’Connell/Shearer, The International Law of the Sea (1984), vol. II, 753.
Paras. 64, 66, the judgment of the Saiga case (No.2) on 1 July 1999, ITLOS. In this regard, the neglect of the importance of registration of ships by Núnez-Müller is noticeable, in Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994).
See Sec. 659 of Title 46, USC; Sohn/ Gustafson, The Law of the Sea in a Nutshell (1984), 12 f.
Churchill/ Lowe, The Law of the Sea (1983), 181; Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 45 f.
Nünez-Müller, ibid., at 45; the German counterpart is “billige Flaggen”.
Maritime Report 1992, OECD, Paris, 1993, 174.
“A Flag of Convenience is the flag of a state whose government sees registration not as a procedure necessary to impose sovereignty and hence control over its shipping, but as a service which can be sold to foreign ship-owners wishing to escape the fiscal or other consequences of registration under their own flag.” Grundey, Flags of Convenience in 1978 (1978), 2; cited after Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 47.
Owing to flagging-out, the number of German merchant ships operated for international navigation fell sharply from 595 in 1978 to 267 in 1988. It is believed that at the beginning of 1987 the German fleet was not able to transport enough essentials of life to sustain Germany in case of a crisis. Dörr, ‘Das Zweitregistergesetz’ [1988] 26 AVR 370 ff.
States of FoC feel that objections to the issue are based solely on the political and economic desire to destroy their shipping performance. Renton, The Genuine Link Concept and the Nationality of Physical and Legal Persons, Ships and Aircraft (1975), 112 ff.
At the Registration Conference, these states opposed the definition of “genuine link” in detail with the same arguments that the US and Open Registers used in 1958, namely State sovereignty. See Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 325.
Ready, Ship Registration (1998), 29 ff.; Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 44.
For details see das Zweitregistergesetz of 23 March 1989 (BGB1. 1989 I, 550); Dörr, ‘Das Zweitregistergesetz’ [1988] 26 AVR 366 ff.
See art. 6 Änderung des Einkommensteuergesetzes, Seeschiffahrtsanpassungsgesetz (BGB1. 1998 I, 2860).
Ready, Ship Registration (1998), 33.
Ibid.
Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 387 f.
The proposal was withdrawn in 1997. See O.J. 1997 C 2/2.
O.J. 1997 C 205/5.
PCIJ, Series A, No. 10 (1927), 25; Colombos, The International Law of the Sea (1967), 285 ff.; O’Connell/Shearer, The International Law of the Sea (1984), vol. II, 735 ff.; Skourtos admitted that the theory of territoriality bears some weaknesses, but he contended that it remains the best explanation of flag State jurisdiction, in Die Billig-Flaggen-Praxis und die Staatliche Flaggenverleihungsfreiheit (1990), 117 ff.; Lagoni, ‘Merchant Ships’ in Berhardt (ed.), EPIL (1989), vol. 11, 230 f.; Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 82 f.
Heyck, Die Staatszugehörigkeit der Schiffe und Luftfahrtzeuge (1935), 12; Stoerk,’ Das offene Meer’ in Holtzendorff (ed.), Handbuch des Völkerrechts (1889), vol. II, 520 f.; Basedow, discussions (1990), in Heft 31, DGVR, 76.
Lagoni, ‘Der Hamburger Hafen, die internationale Handelsschiffahrt und das Völkerrecht’[1988] 26 AVR 336; Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 86 f; Ready, Ship Registration (1998), 6 ff.
Here regulations, procedures and practices are substituted for “standards” employed in art. 10(2) CHS 1958; on the question of terminology, see Lagoni, discussions (1990), DGVR, 126 f.
Art. 94(6) UNCLOS; Hasselmann, Die Freiheit der Handelsschiffahrt (1987), 88 f.
With respect to the duties of flag States, the convention provides in art. 2, inter alia, that: “(9) to hold an official inquiry into any serious marine casualty including ships registered in its territory, particularly those involving injuring and/or loss of life, the final report of such inquiry normally to be made public.” [1976] 15 ILM 1290; Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 283; Hasselmann, Die Freiheit der Handelsschiffahrt (1987), 88.
Meyers, Nationality of Ships (1967), 39; similar submissions of Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 101 f.
Similar opinions of Geck, ‘Diplomatic Protection’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1995), vol. I, 1046; Núnez-Müller, ibid., at 102.
Skourtos, Billig-Flaggen-Praxis und die Staatliche Flaggenverleihungsfreiheit (1990), 98; Schulte, Die “Billigen Flaggen” im Völkerrecht (1962), 93; Von Munch, ‘Der diplomatische Schutz für Schiffe’ in Recht Über See: FS Stödter (1979), 244; Hoog, ‘Deutsche Flaggenhoheif in DVIS (1979), 22 ff.; Núnez-Müller, ibid., at 103.
Lagoni, ’Folgen des Saiga-Urteils des internationalen Seegerichtshofs für die Seeschifffahrt (2000), 19 f.; Schulte, ibid., at 94; Geck, ‘Diplomatic Protection’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1995), vol. I, 1050 ff.
Schulte inferred that the prerequisites for nationality apply also to diplomatic protection and vice versa, in ibid., at 94; doubts about it are expressed by Skourtos, Die Billig-Flaggen-Praxis und die Staatliche Flaggenverlei-hungsfreiheit (1990), 99 f.
Both cases kept silent on the nationality issues, but actually refused the exercise of diplomatic protection by Canada and Liechtenstein respectively. For more information see Joint Final Report of the Commissioners. [1935] 29 AJIL 329; [1955] ICJ Reports 1, Nottebohm Case.
Supra note 53.
Lagoni, ’Folgen des Saiga-Urteils des internationalen Seegerichtshofs für die Seeschifffahrt (2000), 21.
Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 108.
Von Münch, ‘Der diplomatische Schutz für Schiffe’ in Recht Über See: FS Stödter, 247 ff.; Hoog, ‘Deutsche Flaggenhoheit’ in DVIS, 24 f.; Núnez-Müller, ibid., at 108 f; in a diametrically opposed view, Geck even seems to hold that diplomatic protection based on the nationality of the shipowner or of the crew members should prevail over that based on the flag State jurisdiction when he wrote “It may not be unreasonable to grant the owners’ and the crew members’ home State the right to give diplomatic protection vis-a-vis the flag State.” See Geck, ‘Diplomatic Protection’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1995), vol. I, 1055.
Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1998), 106 f., 301; Mann, ‘The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 140; Bowett viewed jurisdiction as a manifestation of State sovereignty in ‘Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’ in ibid., at 237.
Lagoni, ‘Der Hamburger Hafen, die internationale Handelsschiffahrt und das Völkerrecht’, [1988] 26 AVR 329.
Cf. Der Hamburger Hafen, die internationale Handelsschiffahrt und das Völkerrecht’, [1988] 26 AVR 329 ibid; Meyers, Nationality of Ships (1967), 40.
In his celebrated work The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction (1927), xxxiii. P. C. Jessup wrote: “In this work, therefore, jurisdiction will be used to connote the power of courts to adjudicate, whereas control will be taken to mean the power of administrative or executive officers to govern the actions of individuals or things.”
Oxman, ‘Jurisdiction of State’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1997), vol. III, 55.
Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1998), 301; Bowett, ‘Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 240; Verzijl, International Law in Historical Perspective (1970), Part III State Territory, 12 f.; Lagoni, ‘Der Hamburger Hafen, die internationale Handelsschiffahrt und das Völkerrecht’ [1988] 26 AVR 331 ff.
Brownlie, ibid., at 303.
Bowett, ‘Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 242 f.
Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1998), 306.
Higgins favors the inclusion of citizens of a State in ‘Chapter IV’ Allocating Competence: Jurisdiction’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 103; Brownlie and Bowett tend to reject it, in respectively Principles of Public International Law (1998), 307, and ‘Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 246 f.
Oxman counts the slave trade, genocide, war crimes, apartheid and terrorism in the group of universal jurisdiction. In ‘Jurisdiction of State’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1997), vol. III, 58; Brownlie specifies murder and drug traffic as those, in Principles of Public International Law (1998), 307 f; Higgins argues that universal jurisdiction exists over war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity but not over hijacking and apartheid; in ‘Chapter IV’ Allocating Competence: Jurisdiction’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 96 ff; in this regard, Bowett is one of the most conservative when he repudiates war crimes, genocide, terrorism, apartheid and even hijacking as being within universal jurisdiction; in Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 248 f.
The doctrine was established by the US Supreme Court in the Alcoa case (US v. Aluminium Co. of America 1945), Higgins, ‘Chapter IV’ Allocating Competence: Jurisdiction’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 110.
For a similar view, see ibid., at 101 ff., 110 ff.
Cf. Oxman, ‘Jurisdiction of State’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1997), vol. III, 60; Lagoni, ‘Der Hamburger Hafen, die internationale Handelsschiffahrt und das Völkerrecht’ [1988] 26 AVR 337; Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1998), 321; Mann, ‘The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 137.
Lagoni, Der Hamburger Hafen, die internationale Handelsschiffahrt und das Völkerrecht’ [1988] 26 AVR ibid., at 337.
See BGBl. 1996 II, Nr. 38, 1451.
Ibid., arts. 6, 11.
Ibid., art. 7.
E.g. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgment in Civil and Commercial matters, 1968, Brussels; International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collisions, 1952, Brussels, 439 UNTS 217; International Convention on Arrest of Ships, 1999, see the website available at <http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/imo99d6.pdf> (last visited: February 24, 2002); arts. 27, 28 UNCLOS; many other conventions also touch upon the issue of jurisdiction. Cf. Lagoni, ‘Der Hamburger Hafen, die internationale Handelsschiffahrt und das Völkerrecht’ [1988] 26 AVR 338.
Oxman, ‘Jurisdiction of State’ in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1997), vol. III, 55; Bowett, ‘Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 237.
Mann, ‘The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 139 ff.; Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1998), 301; Bowett, ibid., at 237; Lagoni, ‘Die Abwehr von Gefahren füe die marine Umwelt’ in DGVR (1992), 142 f.; see also Section 6. Enforcement, Part XII, UNCLOS.
“Judge made law” is also called case law. That is to say, the previous judgments made by superior courts in the hierarchy are binding on inferior courts, stare decisis. Faulkner, Historical Background of the Common Law System (2001), Lecture Materials at the Hamburg University.
Bowett, ‘Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 237; Mann, “The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years” in ibid., at 134; Oxman challenges this point, but the challenge tends to be unconvincing, in “Jurisdiction of State” in Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL (1997), vol. III, 55.
Mann, The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 132 f.
Mann, ‘The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 187; Brownlie, Principles in Public International Law (1998), 302.
The rule was expressed by the maxim actor sequitur forum rei, i.e. the plaintiff has to submit to the defendant’s court. Cited as per Mann, The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 187.
Brownlie, Principles in Public International Law (1998), 302.
Mann, The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 188 f.
Brownlie, Principles in Public International Law (1998), 302; Ngantcha, The Right of Innocent Passage and the Evolution of the International Law of the Sea (1990), 113.
Brownlie, ibid., at 303.
Bowett, ‘Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 238.
Ibid.
O’Connell/ Shearer, The International Law of the Sea (1984), vol. II, 1072.
Ibid.
[1935] III RIAA 1609; Ibid., at 1072.
[1962] 35 ILR 485; Ibid., at 1072.
Mann, ‘The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years’ in Reisman (ed.), Jurisdiction in International Law (1999), 146; Bowett, ‘Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’ in ibid., at 254 ff.
Ecuador, for instance, established its 200-mile territorial sea in 1966, see Sohn/ Gustafson, The Law of the Sea in A Nutshell (1984), 96; some other South American States claimed 200-mile territorial sea as well, see Churchill/Lowe, The Law of the Sea (1983), 61.
Cf. Churchill/ Lowe, The Law of the Sea (1983), 61.
Editing Committee, ‘Ocean Vol.’ in Natural Resources Series of China (1995), III.
Cf. Churchill/ Lowe, they labeled it as a basic defect of the IMO conventions, in The Law of the Sea (1983), 190.
Similar views expressed by Núnez-Müller, Die Staatszugehörigkeit von Handelsschiffen im Völkerrecht (1994), 240 f.
Art. 7 of the Sino-German Shipping Agreement of 9 May 1995 (BGBI., 1996 II, 1451).
Ibid., art. 6.
Art. 32 of German-British Consular Treaty of 30 June 1956 (BGBL, 1957 II, 284); Lagoni, ‘Der Hamburger Hafen, die internationale Handelsschiffahrt und das Völkerrecht’ [1988] 26 AVR 291, 338.
E.g. the Directive 95/21 of the Council of the EC on 19 June 1995, O.J. 1995 L 157/1; Lagoni (ed.), The Reception of Oily Waste from Ships in European Ports (1997), 27.
O.J. 1994 L 73/19; German BGBl. 1994 II, 1355. art. 8 of and Annex IV to the Convention deal with the prevention of pollution from ships.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer Berlin · Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2006). Basic Concepts. In: Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 4. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-33192-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-33192-1_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-33191-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-33192-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)