Abstract
In this contribution we will not consider the rules of law concerning the nationality of ships on the Yugoslav Littoral in medieval times, but will limit our brief historical aperçu to the laws in force from the 18th century.1
Scientific Counsellor, Adriatic Institute of the Yugoslav Academy of Science and Arts.
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
For the legislation preceding the Austrian domination of the Littoral see V. Brajkovic, Etudes historiques sur le Droit maritime privé du Littoral Yougoslave, Marseilles 1933, pp. 110 et seq.
See A. Gertscher and P. Schreckenthal, “Österreich-Ungarn, Seerecht”, in Handelsgesetze des Erdballs, 1906, XIII, 413–627, especially p. 543 and Sammlung der Gesetze und Verordnungen betreffend den See- und Hafendienst in der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie, herausgegeben von den Seebehörden in Triest und Fiume, vol. I 1883, p. 339.
See Gertscher-Schreckenthal, op.cit., p. 555.
See Sammlung und Verordnungen etc., vol. I pp. 270 et seq. By the Austro-Hungarian compromise of 1867 some matters concerning legislative and operational activities were common to both halves of the monarchy, and in some matters only the legislation was common. Maritime private law was common until 1908, after which it ceased to exist. Thus the nationality of ships ceased to be a common matter but the text cited remained in force until the dissolution of the monarchy.
See M.J. Peric, “L’inscription maritime en Yougoslavie”, Journal de la Marine Marchande, 1925, pp. 1045 et seq.
For a more detailed account of this see B. Jakasa and E. Pallua, “La Nationalité des navires de mer en droit Yougoslave”, Jugoslavenska Pevije za Medjunarodno pravo (Yugoslav Review of International Law, hereafter JRMP), 1964, 36–48 (in French).
We have not reproduced the rules concerning alienation between Yugoslav Socialist organizations within Yugoslavia because it has no relevance for our topic.
See V. Brajkovic — E. Pallua, “Les conditions dans lesquelles les Etats accordent aux navires le droit d’arborer le pavillon national”, in Rapports généraux au V e Congrès international de droit comparé, Brussels 1960, pp. 670 et seq.
See G. Dumke, “Die Flagge des Heiligen Landes” (The Flag of the Holy Land), Jahrbuch für internationales Recht, VIII 2, 101 et seq. This flag ceased to exist in 1916 and it seems that it never had any commercial value.
The CMI tried to arrive at a definition of “operator” (“armateur”) and the Yugoslav and Italian Maritime Law Associations supported this attempt. A draft convention was presented by G. Berlingieri to the Twenty-fourth Conference of the CMI (Rijeka 1959, pp. 1 olio 2), but the responses of the national maritime law associations did not encourage a continuation of the study, ibid., 144–166.
See “Règles relatives à l’usage du pavillon national pour les navires de commerce”, Annuaire XV, (Session de Venise 1896) pp. 201, nouvellement approuvé à la Session de Lausanne en 1927, Annuaire XXXIII, 103 et seq. especially 139 the proposal of M. Lemonon to give solution to the problem “sous forme de convention internationale, de manière que la matière soit réglé de façon uniforme et non de façon multiple comme elle l’est à présent.”
For an analysis of the role of the nationality of ships see E. Pallua, “La nationalité des navires de commerce en doit international public et privé”, JRMP 1958, 1, 81–95 (in French).
See A/CN. 4/SR 121, pp. 7 et seq. for the opinions of Hudson and Amado.
See A/CN. 4, pp. 85 et seq.
See A/CN. 4/99, Add. 1, pp. 39 et seq.
See A/CN. 4/99, Add. 1, pp. 53 et seq.
See E. Pallua, “La nationalité des navires de commerce dans le Projet de la Commission du droit international”, Annual of the Association of Attenders and Alumni of the Hague Academy of International Law, 1957, No. 27, pp. 67 et seq.
ICJ Rep. Advisory Opinion 1960, of 8 June.
See E. Pallua, “Savjetodavno misljenje Medjunarodnog suda od 8.VI 1960. i drzavna pripadnost brodova” (The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice 8 June 1960 and the nationality of ships) JRMP 1962, pp. 44–53 (with resume in French (pp. 53–55). In this article the view is expressed that “the advisory opinion was not a judicial precedent for the interpretation of the contents of the notion of “genuine link” at all, and also that it missed the possibility of taking a standpoint on the question”. As is well known the Lotus decision was followed by trade union reaction that eventually led to the signing of an international convention for the unification of certain rules relating to penal jurisdiction in matters of collision or other incidents of navigation, Brussels, 10 May 1952.
The opinion of Professor François (R/Conf. 13/C2/L. 14, p. 10) was consistent with his view that the right of states to fix the conditions for the nationality of their ships is not unlimited. But see Gidel, Le Droit international publique de la mer, 1932, vol. I, p. 349, the case Virginius and H. Meijers, The Nationality of Ships, The Hague, 1967, pp. 99 et seq. for the case I am Alone.
See A/Conf. 62/VP 10/rev. 3.
See “Economic Consequences of the Existence or lack of a Genuine Link between Vessel and Flag of Registry”. Report of UNCTAD Secretariat, TD/B/C.4/168.
Ibid.
See the Report of the Committee on Shipping of UNCTAD at its third special session, 27 May — 6 June 1981 to be published under TF/B/1855 — TD/B/C. 4/227.
Ibid. pp. 10–27.
Ibid. Annex I, p. 30 especially 31. 49 delegations voted in favour, 18 against and 3 abstained. Panama gave reasons for her absence (p. 22).
Ibid. Annex II, p. 33 et seq.
Ibid. Annex III, p. 35.
ICFTU stands for International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Its intervention p. 26.
Industrial action taken by ICFTU in ports in England against the ship... “The Nawala”, registered in Hong Kong, was recognised by the House of Lords as having all the legal immunities which pertain to such actions in English law, in its Judgment 25 September 1979, see Lloyd’s Rep. 1980, 1, p. 1. But see the limits set to that immunity in the later judgments of the Court of Appeal in The Antama (1982) and in Merkur Island Shipping Corporation v. Laughton and others (1982) Times Law Report, 5 November 1982.
See on ships without a nationality, Ripert, Droit maritime, 1929, I p. 427: “S’il ne se rattachait à aucun Etat il serait lui-même un Etat indépendent et souverain”. Ships registered in open-registry countries are almost in this situation. But see Myres S. Dougal, William T. Burke and Ivan V. Vlasic, “The maintenance of public order at sea and the nationality of ships”, AJIL, vol. 53 (1960) pp. 26–116 which considers registration a sufficient link with the flag state. For the opposite point of view see Peter Mander, The Nationality of Ships — Politics and Law, Arkiv for Sørett 1961, p. 267 et seq. But see H. Meijers who in his exhaustive monograph on the nationality of ships, op.cit., considers the registration of ships as sufficient link only on condition of effectivity of the exercise of jurisdiction and control by the flag state. On p. 297 he is very benevolent towards the flag of Liberia.
In the resolution adopted by the Committee on Shipping it is inter alia recommended: “... the present régime of open registries be gradually and progressively transformed into one of normal registries (italics mine E.P.) by a process of tightening the conditions under which open-registry countries retain or accept vessels on their registers...”, so that the existence of normal registries is there affirmed, which was the point of departure of the Institut de Droit International in 1896 and 1927, and of the ILC until 1956.
The first session (doc. TD/B/AC. 34, 10 June 1982) of the Intergovernmental Preparatory Group on Conditions for the Registration of Ships was held after this article had gone to press. The third annex of its report contains a “Draft set of basic principles concerning conditions upon which vessels should be accepted on national shipping registers”. This draft set allows grounds for optimism on the outcome of future work. The second session of the group was held in November 1982 and no report has as yet been published.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pallua, E. (1983). The Nationality of Ships in Yugoslav Law with Reference to Present International Developments. In: Essays on International & Comparative Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1468-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1468-6_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-1470-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1468-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive