Drug interceptions on the high seas

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by RPZ

If the U.S. had any intention of universal compliance it would have signed on. The fact that it did not really implies that we wanted to pick and choose what we enforced. But enforcing somehing that we are not signed to by agreement makes any enforcement legally implausible.

I think you are missing the relevance of "customary international law". The US considers UNCLOS a good writeup of customary international law, and a country can act based on customary international law (internationally recognized as a source of law) even if it did not sign to UNCLOS.

I concede that all this international law stuff is very dry. The good thing is that my resident expert on that matter is on her way to Geneva to study more of that stuff and that will give me an excuse to cruise in the Western Med.

[RPZ]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

The expert tells me that a US flagged vessel is "less" US territory that a US Embassy abroad. The Embassy will not be subject to compliance with many local rules and local police will not go in under almost any circumstance. A US flagged boat abroad will only be exempt from a few local rules and local police will go in as if the boat was a local boat.

This is both, to a greater and lesser to degree universally true. A flagged vessel is sovereign territory of the flag nation. However, local jurisdiction within territorial waters will apply respecting certain laws.

For instance, say you are flying flag of country x and enter the waters of country y. An act is committed on board that is not an offense in country x, is in fact a crime in country y, and there is a police action and prosecution by country y.

In the case of embassies sovereign jurisdiction is exclusive, unless he host government ceases to recognize the sovereignty and credibity of the embassy government, as in the case where the British SAS stormed the Iranian embassy in London following the murder of a British policewoman outside the embassy committed by a shooter from within the embassy.

[RPZ]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

I think you are missing the relevance of "customary international law". The US considers UNCLOS a good writeup of customary international law, and a country can act based on customary international law (internationally recognized as a source of law) even if it did not sign to UNCLOS.

I concede that all this international law stuff is very dry. The good thing is that my resident expert on that matter is on her way to Geneva to study more of that stuff and that will give me an excuse to cruise in the Western Med.

Yes, but the inclusion of the word customary implies that there is no binding legal force. It is still a pick and choose that probably would not hold up in any strong legal challenge. The fact is that most people have neither the time nor the money to offer such a challenge, and probably not even aware that a challenge is possible.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by RPZ

This is both, to a greater and lesser to degree universally true. A flagged vessel is sovereign territory of the flag nation. However, local jurisdiction within territorial waters will apply respecting certain laws.

For instance, say you are flying flag of country x and enter the waters of country y. An act is committed on board that is not an offense in country x, is in fact a crime in country y, and there is a police action and prosecution by country y.

In the case of embassies sovereign jurisdiction is exclusive, unless he host government ceases to recognize the sovereignty and credibity of the embassy government, as in the case where the British SAS stormed the Iranian embassy in London following the murder of a British policewoman outside the embassy committed by a shooter from within the embassy.

Regarding sovereignity:

Are you sure that it is always true that "a flagged vessel is sovereign territory of the flag nation" even if the vessel is non-military vessel in the territorial waters of another country? I thought that the United States only asserted sovereignity inside other coutries territorial waters over "..USS vessels and small craft", which does not seem to include pleasure boats.

Taking Spain as an example, according to their laws a foreign vessel in Spanish waters is only considered territory of the flag state if it is a military vessel.

Regarding jurisdiuction:

Thanks for (indirectly) pointing out that in the US vs Flores case from 1933 says that "The (US) jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases extends to crimes committed on vessels of the United States while in navigable waters within the territorial jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns. ", which seems to include crimes committed onboard US-flagged pleasure vessels in the territorial/internal waters of another country. But that is about (concurrent) jurisdiction, not sovereignity.

You also make me realise that in th US they teach the meaning of "high seas" as in "Ships of a sovereign are considered to be part of the sovereign’s territory while they are on the high seas" as something that can be pushed into well inside another country´s waters not just for military vessels. I wonder about the UK, is it the same?

Regarding the anecdote about an embassy incident, I think you are combining two separate embassy incidents that happened in London. The SAS broke into the Iranian embassy. The policewoman (PC Fletcher) was shot from the Lybian embassy, which was held under siege by the good old Metropolitan Police. I shall not forget the facts because my first office in London was at 5 St James´s Square, and the Lybian embassy was next door at #4 St James´s Square!

[RPZ]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

Regarding sovereignity:

Are you sure that it is always true that "a flagged vessel is sovereign territory of the flag nation" even if the vessel is non-military vessel in the territorial waters of another country? I thought that the United States only asserted sovereignity inside other coutries territorial waters over "..USS vessels and small craft", which does not seem to include pleasure boats.

Taking Spain as an example, according to their laws a foreign vessel in Spanish waters is only considered territory of the flag state if it is a military vessel.

Regarding jurisdiuction:

Thanks for (indirectly) pointing out that in the US vs Flores case from 1933 says that "The (US) jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases extends to crimes committed on vessels of the United States while in navigable waters within the territorial jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns. ", which seems to include crimes committed onboard US-flagged pleasure vessels in the territorial/internal waters of another country. But that is about (concurrent) jurisdiction, not sovereignity.

You also make me realise that in th US they teach the meaning of "high seas" as in "Ships of a sovereign are considered to be part of the sovereign’s territory while they are on the high seas" as something that can be pushed into well inside another country´s waters not just for military vessels. I wonder about the UK, is it the same?

Regarding the anecdote about an embassy incident, I think you are combining two separate embassy incidents that happened in London. The SAS broke into the Iranian embassy. The policewoman (PC Fletcher) was shot from the Lybian embassy, which was held under siege by the good old Metropolitan Police. I shall not forget the facts because my first office in London was at 5 St James´s Square, and the Lybian embassy was next door at #4 St James´s Square!

This subject came up in a thread regarding "best country to flag" your boat.

As you point out with Spain, the extent to which nations regard a flagged vessel as sovereign territory can vary. You can bet the farm that in countries like China, North Korea, and Mexico for example a flagged vessel means nothing.

[RPZ]

SVLamorocha,

Yes I might be mixing up the Iranian and Libyan embassies. But the sovereignty issue is so. Unless two governments really collide, an embassy is exclusive jurisdiction of its flag.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by RPZ

SVLamorocha,

Yes I might be mixing up the Iranian and Libyan embassies. But the sovereignty issue is so. Unless two governments really collide, an embassy is exclusive jurisdiction of its flag.

+1 ; I guess sending the SAS in counts as "collision", which sometimes is a good thing. I think the Lybians took the message and they have been good neighbors since they were allowed back in.

I am still looking for a hard source to the common American statement that a US-flagged pleasure boat is "US sovereign territory" even when tied alongside a dock in Rio de Janeiro or up an estuary in Bahia I do understand that there is concurrent jurisdiction for crimes commited on that boat, but that is another story and it does not change the course of things when the US crew try to extend their "US sovereign territory" claim into an exclusion of Brazilian jurisdiction over the "acts" that happened on that boat... I would appreciate any light you may shed on this.

[RPZ]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

+1 ; I guess sending the SAS in counts as "collision", which sometimes is a good thing. I think the Lybians took the message and they have been good neighbors since they were allowed back in.

I am still looking for a hard source to the common American statement that a US-flagged pleasure boat is "US sovereign territory" even when tied alongside a dock in Rio de Janeiro or up an estuary in Bahia I do understand that there is concurrent jurisdiction for crimes commited on that boat, but that is another story and it does not change the course of things when the US crew try to extend their "US sovereign territory" claim into an exclusion of Brazilian jurisdiction over the "acts" that happened on that boat... I would appreciate any light you may shed on this.

Technically a flagged vessel is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag nation on the high seas, and concurrent jurisdiction within the territorial waters of another nation. However, the nationality of any victim of a crime might alter this, as might the nationality of the suspect charged.

In the event of an alleged crime onboard within the territorial waters of another country, either country make stake a claim to primary jurisdiction. This may be due solely to the nature or seriousness of the crime, the nationality of any victim, or by agreement or treaty, or by assertion. Other influences might be diplomatic, or by force.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

I am still looking for a hard source to the common American statement that a US-flagged pleasure boat is "US sovereign territory" even when tied alongside a dock in Rio de Janeiro or up an estuary in Bahia I do understand that there is concurrent jurisdiction for crimes commited on that boat, but that is another story and it does not change the course of things when the US crew try to extend their "US sovereign territory" claim into an exclusion of Brazilian jurisdiction over the "acts" that happened on that boat... I would appreciate any light you may shed on this.

You won't find a hard source. That "common American statement" is flat out wrong. It's based on a confusion between nationality and sovereignty. A US vessel is no more "sovereign" than a US national walking the streets in a foreign country.

The principle of sovereignty is that: Vessels owned or operated by a state, and used, for the time being, only on non-commercial activities are entitled to "Sovereign Immunity".

Here's the US's own take on it:

NOAA Office of General Counsel International Section - Jurisdiction Over Vessels

"A State exercises almost complete sovereignty in its territorial sea, similar to that which it possesses over its land, internal waters, and ports. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 512 (1987). This exercise of jurisdiction, like port state jurisdiction, is derived from the international law principle of territoriality, which gives a State exclusive authority to regulate persons within its borders. See The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 (1812). Thus a State has jurisdiction over all persons and vessels in its territorial sea, without regard to the person's nationality or the vessel's flag"

[RPZ]

Originally Posted by StuM

You won't find a hard source. That "common American statement" is flat out wrong. It's based on a confusion between nationality and sovereignty. A US vessel is no more "sovereign" than a US national walking the streets in a foreign country.

The principle of sovereignty is that: Vessels owned or operated by a state, and used, for the time being, only on non-commercial activities are entitled to "Sovereign Immunity".

Here's the US's own take on it:

NOAA Office of General Counsel International Section - Jurisdiction Over Vessels

"A State exercises almost complete sovereignty in its territorial sea, similar to that which it possesses over its land, internal waters, and ports. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 512 (1987). This exercise of jurisdiction, like port state jurisdiction, is derived from the international law principle of territoriality, which gives a State exclusive authority to regulate persons within its borders. See The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 (1812). Thus a State has jurisdiction over all persons and vessels in its territorial sea, without regard to the person's nationality or the vessel's flag"

Its is still concurrent. Keyword is " almost"". And the extent to while countries assert jurisdiction on any foreign flagged vessel can vary.

Let's say boat flagged country A enters waters country B. Someone onboard commits a crime under country A laws that is/are not a crime in country B. Country A can assert its jurisdiction on said flagged vessel and prosecute.

Just as another example see the thread:"More problems with Australian customs" Read post #15 by Pelagic.

You cited one example of case history. While case history is often accepted as a sort of legal norm it is by no means absolute

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by RPZ

Its is still concurrent. Keyword is " almost"". And the extent to while countries assert jurisdiction on any foreign flagged vessel can vary.

Let's say boat flagged country A enters waters country B. Someone onboard commits a crime under country A laws that is/are not a crime in country B. Country A can assert its jurisdiction on said flagged vessel and prosecute.

Just as another example see the thread:"More problems with Australian customs" Read post #15 by Pelagic.

You cited one example of case history. While case history is often accepted as a sort of legal norm it is by no means absolute

There is something more to this, but I do not have time to research it. It dates back to, I believe, America's war of independence from Britain, or, perhaps, to the War of 1812 between Britain and the USA. The facts that I can remember are slim, but I do recall that the British were stopping private (non-Navy) American or USA (which depend upon the date) ships on the high seas and impressing seamen into the British naval service. That is all I can recall with reasonable certainty, but I seem to have a memory of America/USA claiming the ships were its sovereign territory (which makes me think USA) and the British claiming they were British (which makes me think War of Independence). No answers, just more questions. Since the Brits beat Nappy, and the Spanish, much of the Law of the Sea is from them, by way of tradition, with bits and pieces from other sources.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by StuM

You won't find a hard source. That "common American statement" is flat out wrong. It's based on a confusion between nationality and sovereignty. A US vessel is no more "sovereign" than a US national walking the streets in a foreign country.

The principle of sovereignty is that: Vessels owned or operated by a state, and used, for the time being, only on non-commercial activities are entitled to "Sovereign Immunity".

Here's the US's own take on it:

NOAA Office of General Counsel International Section - Jurisdiction Over Vessels

"A State exercises almost complete sovereignty in its territorial sea, similar to that which it possesses over its land, internal waters, and ports. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 512 (1987). This exercise of jurisdiction, like port state jurisdiction, is derived from the international law principle of territoriality, which gives a State exclusive authority to regulate persons within its borders. See The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 (1812). Thus a State has jurisdiction over all persons and vessels in its territorial sea, without regard to the person's nationality or the vessel's flag"

If I am reading The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon correctly, a very big "if," it implies, or at least I infer, that had the ship not been in the national service of another nation with which the USA was at peace, or if she had come into USA territory while in the service of a nation with which the USA was at war, she would have been returned to the rightful owners. Nonetheless, none of the facts implications, or inferences of the case really seem to answer the question of the US or any government's authority on the high seas in reference to a non-naval foreign vessel.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

There is something more to this, but I do not have time to research it. It dates back to, I believe, America's war of independence from Britain, or, perhaps, to the War of 1812 between Britain and the USA. The facts that I can remember are slim, but I do recall that the British were stopping private (non-Navy) American or USA (which depend upon the date) ships on the high seas and impressing seamen into the British naval service. That is all I can recall with reasonable certainty, but I seem to have a memory of America/USA claiming the ships were its sovereign territory (which makes me think USA) and the British claiming they were British (which makes me think War of Independence). No answers, just more questions. Since the Brits beat Nappy, and the Spanish, much of the Law of the Sea is from them, by way of tradition, with bits and pieces from other sources.

It was one of the causes of the War of 1812.

https://www.marinersmuseum.org/sites...avy/08/08a.htm

[daletournier]

Ive been boarded several times in Asia. Last time it was off the south Java coast, they were all official until they wanted their photos taken behind the wheel. One by one they get their pictures taken.My girlfriend will often bring up family with them, its something all Asians relate to and enjoy talking about.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Scotty Kiwi]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

We talked to a NZ registered boat at Cocos Island off Costa Rica. They had encountered a US Coast Guard cutter about 400 miles off Mexico. The CG had requested permission to board, and they said no. The cutter shadowed them for about 6 hours (presumably while requesting permission from the NZ government) and then departed.

The New Zealand official whose job it is to give permission was busy looking after his sick kids that day. <grin>. Or maybe he was asleep due to the time difference.