Sovereignty of flagged vessels

[Guest]

Is there anyone out there who is au fait with marine law ?

I'm interested in knowing what level of sovereignty a registered and appropriately flagged vessel has, especially when located in International Waters ?

It's commonly claimed that a ship's captain has the authority to marry a couple when offshore, but I've recently learned that this is only a persistent urban myth ... but how about a birth onboard ? Say a baby is born 'en passage' in the middle of the Atlantic: so which country of birth is assigned to the child ? Country of departure, destination, or of the vessel's registry ?

And what happens in the event of death ? To which country and country's laws is the skipper accountable ? And - worst case - suppose a murder takes place onboard in International Waters (if you'd tasted 'er cooking you'd understand why I'm asking ...) - in which country would the enquiries/ trial take place ?

So - is it really the case that our red duster'd yachts are a little bit of sovereign British territory floating in some foreign port ?

Colin

 

[peteandthira]

Maybe a useless response, but since you don't have any yet I can only assume no-one really knows! I thought I would respond just so that you get one!

As far as I am aware, I think you are sailing around on a little bit of the UK (but not necessarily England) when you fly the rag.

Perhaps UK rules apply.

Pops

 

[rogerthebodger]

I am no expert but I understand it if you are in International Waters it is the country of registration.

We had an incedent several yaers ago when an australian flaged yacht was in International Waters off Durban and the South African police tried to board it, the skipper threatened to arrest the SAP under Austrailan Law. The SAP backed off.

 

[Guest]

A ship on the high seas (ie. outside territorial waters) is "under the jurisdiction" of its flag state. That means in effect that the laws of your flag state apply to the vessel. So if a murder happens etc. then you're prosecuted under the laws of the flag state.

See Article 92 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of Montego Bay, 10 December 1982: "Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas "

Different rules apply if you're in territorial waters.

 

[Krusty]

Understand that, but does the vessel have to be fully registered in the relevant state, and by what procedure?
For instance, in UK, I do understand that Part 1 registration confers 'UK sovereignty' on the vessel, but what about Part 3?

 

[Guest]

Part 3 is enough. In fact, it doesn't even have to be registered under Part 3 if British owned and not registered elsewhere. From the same convention (Art 91) "Every State shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory, and for the right to fly its flag."

Then read S. 1 of the 1995 Merchant Shipping Act "1.—(1) A ship is a British ship if—
(a) the ship is registered in the United Kingdom under Part II; or...

...

(d) the ship is a small ship other than a fishing vessel and—
(i) is not registered under Part II, but
(ii) is wholly owned by qualified owners, and
(iii) is not registered under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom."

 

[Hermit]

Inside the Territorial Waters (up to 12nm from the baselines (about the LW mark generally)) then that state has most jurisdiction. This can, for certain 'crimes' extend out to 24nm. No ship, not even a warship, is actually 'sovereign' territory alongside anther state.

 

[Guest]

Yes, a ship isn't territory, sovereign or otherwise. But I wouldn't say the the state you're passing through has most jurisdiction in criminal matters.

As far as criminal jurisdiction to a foreign ship in territorial waters is concerned, it's Article 27 of the Convention:

"Article 27. Criminal jurisdiction on board a foreign ship

1. The criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage, save only in the following cases:

(a) if the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State;

(b) if the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea;

(c) if the assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the master of the ship or by a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State; or

(d) if such measures are necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.

2. The above provisions do not affect the right of the coastal State to take any steps authorized by its laws for the purpose of an arrest or investigation on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea after leaving internal waters.

3. In the cases provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2, the coastal State shall, if the master so requests, notify a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State before taking any steps, and shall facilitate contact between such agent or officer and the ship's crew. In cases of emergency this notification may be communicated while the measures are being taken.

4. In considering whether or in what manner an arrest should be made, the local authorities shall have due regard to the interests of navigation.

5. Except as provided in Part XII or with respect to violations of laws and regulations adopted in accordance with Part V, the coastal State may not take any steps on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed before the ship entered the territorial sea, if the ship, proceeding from a foreign port, is only passing through the territorial sea without entering internal waters."

 

[Guest]

So what I'm reading from the helpful replies so far (thanks) - is that anyone onboard a flagged vessel is normally *accountable* to the authorities of the country of registration, except in the exceptional circumstances listed.

Ok - but what about the *priviledges* afforded by the sovereignty of the flag state ? An obvious example is that of drinking alcohol onboard a vessel in 'Muslim waters'. Boozing is legal in the UK, but illegal in certain Muslim coutries, and presumably also within their territorial waters.

What I am trying to get a handle on here, is whether for all intents and purposes a vessel flying the Red Duster is a little bit of England, temporarily located abroad ... or not ?

A couple of professors from Delaware College of Marine Studies (quoting from the Convention of the High Seas 1958 and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982) have written that vessels which travel around the world are essentially "stateless", but:
" ...it has long been recognised that each vessel must have a nationality so that it is subject to a regulatory regime. Any nation, consistent with international law, has the right to allow a vessel to fly its flag and essentially grant nationality to that vessel. This right emanates from the principle of freedom of the high seas. When a vessel owner registers a vessel with a nation, the owner agrees to abide by that nation's law and regulations - the so-called "flag state" - in return for protection and the right of its vessel to be of that sovereign state."

They go on to say, the "law of the flag supercedes the territorial principle ... because the vessel is deemed to be part of the territory of that sovereignty whose flag it flies, and does not lose that character when in navigable waters of another sovereignty. In such circumstances, the law of the flag state applies 'unless some heavy counterweight appears'."

By "some heavy counterweight" I'm interpreting this as being the same as the exceptional circumstances already mentioned.


The expression, "... the vessel is deemed to be part of the territory of that sovereignty whose flag it flies ..." appears to be quite an important issue, and perhaps it's about time I revealed my hidden agenda:

Under UK Law, non-means-tested winter fuel payments are made to UK residents over the age of 60, providing they are physically resident within the UK during a designated qualifying week in September. So - does the skipper of a British flagged vessel located outside UK territorial waters qualify ?

The Social Security Commissioner has dismissed an appeal by a guy based in Gibraltar on the grounds that, "There is no general provision to the effect that residence on a British registered boat is to be treated as residence in Great Britain when the boat is not in British waters and, in particular, there is nothing in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to that effect."

So - the issue of flag sovereignty seems somewhat imbalanced in practice: you can be held accountable by the flag state for one's conduct - for all intents and purposes 'as if you were actually resident within the state' at that time - yet not receive one's due entitlements in regard of the same status.

That sounds to me like: "Heads they win, tails we lose".

Colin

 

[bobgosling]

Obtaining benefits is the flip side of paying taxes so my guess is that if you had to pay UK tax due to being resident on a UK flagged vessel then they would also have to pay you benefits. If you pay no UK tax despite being on a UK flagged vessel then you should not expect benefits.

I should have been a lawyer ...

 

[Guest]

Yup, there's nothing about vessels being territory of the national state. Ships aren't territory at all! That implies terra firma. So while you're on board a British boat outside British waters, you are NOT in Britain.

The Convention is clear that they're subject to the flag state's jurisdiction. That means the flag state's laws apply on board. Or at least, mostly. There are cases when the laws of a state you are visiting will also apply. eg. Try not paying your harbour fees in France and telling them that they have to sue you in Britain via a British court, and you won't get very far.

So for example, if someone's born on board a British flagged boat in the middle of the Pacific, it doesn't mean that their place of birth is technically "Britain". Their place of birth is the middle of the Pacific. If they are entitled to British citizenship, it'll be because eg. one of their parents is British.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Conversley, I understand that if a child is born on an international flight to a British couple flying into the UK, the time of birth is always given as some time when in British airspace - it saves a lot of hassle. All 'allegedly' of course... One of the reasons why airlines don't like flying with heavily pregnant women.

 

[cliffordpope]

Isn't there an idea in circulation for a giant permanent live-aboard vessel containing expensive apartments, facilities, shops etc, that would not have any flag, and therefore be an entirely independent (and tax-free) "state"?

 

[Bergman]

Sounds good

But to whom would they complain if someone pinched it?

 

[Bergman]

Can I select any state in which to register a vessel?

Perhaps somewhere exotic with liberal laws in some areas that British law may be considered draconian.

Or maybe one of the West African states where there seems to little or no law at all.

 

[Guest]

I think that that's what's generally known as a flag of convenience. Chosen for precisely that reason.

 

[cliffordpope]

I think the idea is that the vessel would be so large, and the community aboard so rich, that it could afford to be entirely self-reliant, presumably with its own security police as well as all other aspects of a state infrastructure.
It would be larger, in population and GDP terms, than many new states. The population would not necessarily be permanently resident aboard, just long enough so as not to be caught by any country's laws on tax, length of stay, etc.
If you imagine someone like say Bill Gates being a technical resident aboard, the vessel's international clout would be considerable.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
presumably with its own security police as well as all other aspects of a state infrastructure

[/ QUOTE ]
So presumably the ship would start to develop its own legal system, then start to offer citizenship and passports to the passengers, then start to impose tax on them...

Until the passengers launch the ship's lifeboats in order to escape the harsh taxation system on board. And they land on a beautiful desert island. Where they they begin a beautiful new way of life away from taxation. They even start their own police security service, and introduce laws of good behaviour, and citizenship, and... AAAAAARRRGGGGGHHHH!!!

Utopia was ever thus.

 

[rogerthebodger]

[ QUOTE ]
Can I select any state in which to register a vessel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you can.

2 Frends each purchased yachts from a local durban yacht builter, one registered in Jersey and the other in Belize. Both were resident in South Africa at the time one had British Passport one South African. Nither paid SA VAT as the yachts where (or should have been) Exported in the required time by SA revenue services. The duty/VAT would be paid to the country of residance (not necessary the country of registation) if in country for over the linit for yacht visits generally 6 to 12 months .

For a person the be deemed "in" a country he must have entered at a reconised border post "or never left" so on board a vessel cannot be deemed to be in any country (country of registation of the yacht) you are deemed to be "in transit"

So the answer to the question can you claim any benafits that require resedance status while on a UK flaged vessel is NO.