Genuine Boaty Dilemma

Re: Still not there! :)

In any case I have yet to come across a yacht where you can hoist an ensign. All the ones I've seen the flag is just stuck on a stick and you bung it in a slot at the back of the boat! How can you dip properly if the flag wont go up and down the pole?
 
Sorry to tell you this, but

You're committing a criminal offence punishable by a fine not exceeding 50,000 pounds AND two years in prison. In addition to that you forfeit ownership of you boat!

/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Would recommend swapping it for the Tricolore before anytone notices!
 
Re: Sorry to tell you this, but

To exaplain a little further:

A 'small ship' that is registered in a foreign country cannot be a 'British ship' under the definition in Section 1(d)(iii) of the 1995 Act, which says: "A ship is a British ship if... the ship is a small ship and... is wholly owned by qualified owners [eg. British]... and... is not registered under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom")

That means you're not a British ship even though you're British as an owner.

Under S 3(1) of that Act "If the master or owner of a ship which is not a British ship does anything, or permits anything to be done, for the purpose of causing the ship to appear to be a British ship then..." the consequences I mentioned follow - ie.fine confiscation, imprisonment.

S3(5)(a) expressly says that flying the wrong national flag is an example of 'causing the ship to appear to be a British ship'.
 
Re: Still not there! :)

In your corrected statement even the second time around you still said about foreign ports "If you are under 50 tons and SSR registered you need to hoist when entering a foreign port…” which still gives the impression that SSR registration has something to do with it. Also the reference to under 50 tons was misleading, because it's also for OVER 50 tons too.

To put it more simply: ANY British ship needs to raise and lower when entering OR LEAVING a foreign port.

Apologies if this has given offence (as it clearly has).
 
Re: Still not there! :)

Actually you are wrong. The requirements will be dictated by the laws of the country who's national waters she is in. British law has no jurisdiction in foreign countries
 
Re: Still not there! :)

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Jurisdiction under English and Welsh law extends to wherever acts of parliament says it does. In this case it expressly refers to entering and leaving foreign ports.

For example, S 3(7) of the Act says: "This section applies to things done outside, as well as to things done within, the United Kingdom."
 
Re: Still not there! :)

Ok you're in Iranian Waters and the if Iranian LAw says you do'nt .. what wwill you do? And more importantly whose law will the International Cts of Justice enforce when you appear before them in the case of Iran v ERII on Behalf of SimonCR?
 
Re: Still not there! :)

There's a whole specialist area of law with specialist lawyers called "Conflict of Laws" which tries to work out the answer to that one. But in brief the technical answer is: you will have to make a pragmatic choice as to whose army you fear the most.

In other words, if you complied with the Iranian law, you would technically still be committing an offence under English law.

As for the International Courts of Justice - they're not there to enforce the criminal laws of individual countries. I understand that they've been rather creating their own area of 'international criminal law', which is quite a new branch of law, for the likes of Milosevic (genocide and all that), so I think the chances of them getting interested in whether I hoisted my flag is remote.
 
Re: Still not there! :)

Sorry, I have done you an injustice - looking through your earlier post I do see the bit that you're talking about, at the bottom of the post where you acknowledged that SSR was no longer relevant. Unfortunately it came out rather unclearly because you also restated your first incorrect post in a rephrased fashion.

But allowing for the fact that we've agreed that SSR is not relevant, your corrected post was still not there because you've left it as ships 'under 50 tons' have to show their flag when entering a foreign port. As I mentioned before, it's ALL British ships. To be accurate, I added that it also applies on leaving, not only on entering, such ports.

The 50 tons bit is only relevant in the case of British ports.
 
Re: Still not there! :)

You miss a vital requirement, how could you be so remiss? It is required under international maritime law that the ensign be displayed when meeting other vessels... tut tut
 
Re: Still not there! :)

I was describing the position under English & Welsh law.

Are you telling me that you've found an international treaty that requires you to hoist a flag when passing another ship? That is interesting: which treaty?
 
Re: Still not there! :)

No treaty, as far as I'm aware its Maritime Law established by convention and precedent. A ship in international waters without an ensign is effectively stateless so fair game to be grabbed as a prize. Precedent initially established in the case of F. Drake v. Enrico Loztmaship. Otherwise the flag determines the law applied on the ship in international waters although it will be subject to the national law of the country whose waters it is in when not in international waters. Therefore important to fly the red duster rather than Saltire in international waters as saltire is not a recognised national ensign.
 
Re: Still not there! :)

OK, you're pulling my leg now /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif In case anyone falls for it, "F. Drake v. Enrico Loztmaship" is a Jimi invention. And there is no such thing as international maritime law established by precedent. Precedent is mostly an English law invention.

As a serious answer, just in case anyone's interested, international maritime law = international treaties. The treaties impose obligations on governments, not on individuals (or ships), but sometimes require the governments to create in the national (English) law obligations on individuals implementing the treaties. IRPCS is an example. SOLAS is another.

The most relevant treaty on flags that I am aware of is United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships (Geneva, 7 February 1986). Other treaties touch on them, and there is a provision for example that require submarines to travel on the surface while in territorial waters, and flying a national ensign. So far as I am aware the submarine provision hasn't been enacted into English law, perhaps because it doesn't have to be - submarines tend to be owned by the government and the government are obliged directly under the treaty. It would be interesting to know however if there is a regulation anyway applying the treaty to private submarines!

Oh dear, think I'm wandering off the point - conversing with Jimi has this effect on me /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
'fraid so. Was working on my engine couple of months ago, got my hands oily and couldn't find anything to wipe them on - there was my faded and frayed Red Duster that I'd just replaced with a shiny new one... Was either that or the bedsheets... /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif
 
Re: Still not there! :)

Erm acshully I'm fairly sure you're wrong .. OK I made up the Drake bit and possibly exagerrated the consequences of being stateless but in other respects I don't think I'm too far from the truth. I did do International Law as part of my Law Degree ... but that was many moons ago and the mind has lost a few brain cells since then so I could be subject to informed correction!
 
Re: Still not there! :)

'fraid I didn't do international law as part of my law degree, but I did practise as an international lawyer for 13-odd years, so tried to make up for it a bit /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

It is a slight exaggeration that precedent is NEVER relevant in international law - there have been incidents where international courts have tried to create law without a direct provision in a treaty - the genocide/Milosevic thing is the one that springs to mind. That has created some kind of precedent for other dictators. It's a very unusual thing though - countries are generally only considered to be bound by treaties that they've signed on the dotted line.

Having said that, international maritime law was not my bag, and it is possible that there's a provision buried in an international treaty somewhere that requires flags to be hoisted when passing other ships in international waters. However, I had a scan through the main treaties, and couldn't find anything like that. But it would take hours of searching to be absolutely sure.
 
Re: Still not there! :)

you twa lawyers been at this for 4hrs ... who's picking ra tab up? nivver known it afore ....
 
Re: Still not there! :)

nearly all of the international rights about boarding, when you can confiscate etc. are contained in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982).

The provisions which deal with merchant ships on the high seas (ie. international waters outside straits used for navigation etc.) can be read here:

http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/unclospart7.html
 
p.s.

p.s.: the bit in the statement you dug out about the Korean ship being stateless works in the following way: if you don't claim to be from any country then you don't have the protection of the treaty because you don't 'belong' to any country that's signed the treaty. You are therefore 'fair game', as the guy in Philadelphia says.

However, I think the lawyer's speaking a bit loosely, because the conventions don't actually require you to fly the flag in international waters - the Korean ship has the protection of the treaty anyway (if Korea is a signatory) because the ship is registered there.

But, whether or not the ship is actually flying the flag, the US Navy are within their rights to arrest it for two reasons: (i) they suspect it's committed a crime under US law, and the treaty allows you to arrest a ship in those circs; and (ii) under English law you are obliged to show your flag when challenged by a Royal Navy vessel - US law probably says something similar.

So I suspect that the Phildapelphia lawyer has slightly mistated the case, but the end result is the same.

Phew!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top