17

First: it is a misconception that international waters are "lawless;" many aspects of international maritime law are determined by international treaty. Second: countries can obtain jurisdiction over criminal acts that took place outside of its own territory under many doctrines: for instance, if you used your boat for human trafficking or child ...


12

California has a particular set of regulations addressing coastal land ownership, detailed at https://www.coastal.ca.gov/laws/ In short, everything below the high-tide mark along the coast is public access. If you own coastal property, you don't own anything below that point and you cannot prevent public access, as explained in Why California's Beaches are ...


9

The relevant law is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which both the Philippines and China are signatories. With very few exceptions, the only country with jurisdiction over a ship in international waters is the country whose flag it is flying. Ships engaged in the drug trade appear to be one of those few exceptions: Article 108 ...


9

Where I suspect you will run in to your first problem is that in most countries soliciting for illegal activities is also illegal even if those activities are legal where you are planning on hosting them. For instance it was at one time legal in Iowa to gamble at 19. However it was illegal in Illinois unless you were 21. So if you solicit 19 and 20 year ...


7

Maritime law has a lot of weird rules, but the normal rule of statutory construction is that scienter requirements -- intent, knowledge, recklessness, etc. -- apply to everything that comes after them, until a new scienter requirement is stated. That would leave you with a statute looking like this: A person liable shall not be entitled to limit his ...


7

Ownership of coastal land is controlled by the California Civil Code, which reserves land below the mean high water mark to the state: Section 670: [670.] Section Six Hundred and Seventy. The State is the owner of all land below tide water, and below ordinary high-water mark, bordering upon tide water within the State; of all land below the water of a ...


5

International waters is not a law-free zone. If your ship is flying the flag of any country, that country's laws apply aboard the ship, and that country may board you or authorize another country to board you. Also, the people on the ship may be subject to thejurisdiction of more countries, For instance, if you're running an operation that smuggles drugs ...


5

First of all, cruise ships are not lawless zones. At all times, the law of their country of registration applies. In addition, if they are in sovereign waters, that country's law applies. Also, many countries impose their law on ships that depart from their ports until they dock in another country's port. And finally, international maritime law applies (IML)....


4

First of all, the wording in your question hints at the UK deliberately launching a missile (even if it is a test one) towards the USA. Nothing in the news piece you link to support that supposition, the general idea is a missile that was launched towards the Atlantic Ocean that steered off route. From your link: The treaty recognizes five states as ...


4

The passage is alleged to be not “innocent” From Article 19: Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. The article enumerates a non-exhaustive list of things that are not innocent but the UK is free to make laws adding things to the list providing these are “published” (Article 21). The ...


4

Assuming we're talking about U.S. jurisdiction due to your location, some aspects of your question are addressed in this Professional Marine article from June-July 2018, which generally notes that your autonomous boat will still have to comply with any regulations for vessels of its size and speed in terms of things such as operational control, visibility, ...


4

"Recklessly", which is an adverb, must modify a verb. It can only be sensibly construed as modifying "committed" – the action is committed recklessly. The clause "with the intent to cause such loss" is what is technically known as a "sister" of the clause "recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would ...


4

Yes More exactly, nations will not regard places outside of their physical limits as outside of their jurisdictions. Overview Traditionally, a nation has regarded any ship flying its flag as under its jurisdiction, and a place where it may enforce its laws. More recently, many nations will undertake to enforce laws in cases where their citizens are the ...


4

The sea area in question is a Marine Protected Area, which is referred to in the united-kingdom as a Marine Conservation Zone (as per No17 on the 2016 linked list) and lies within the UK's territorial waters. What UK law prohibits this? I have discounted my initial thoughts about s.58(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 as I strongly suspect the Greenpeace ...


3

The thing is: there is nothing to prevent a sovereign state from making laws whatever it wishes (subject to international agreements/treaties/conventions it signed, if any, and the extent it is prepared to flout those). A country could make a law that assumes jurisdiction over whatever wherever — be it international waters, Mars, Alpha Centauri or even just ...


3

This is a copy of my answer to a similar question on politics.se, which I only became aware of after posting this question. My answer there is itself derived from material dug up in another answer, but it expands on the legal justification I think that material implies. The key legal point of their justification seems to be this, from the press release. ...


3

Inter-country law enforcement is quite common. Based on the links you provided, the US requested the Indonesians to detain the ship and then transfer it to their control for violation of US law. The Indonesians complied with that request which was presumably within the scope of their treaties with the US and their local law. As to why they didn't seize the ...


3

The basis for timezones within the US is part of the 15 U.S. Code SUBCHAPTER IX— STANDARD TIME, which defines the offset from UTC, names and special cases. The actual specific boundaries are formed by the basis of an order from the Transportation Secretary.


3

“... in charge of, in command of, or in actual physical control of a vessel ...” applies even if the vessel is stopped, at anchor or even if no one is on board (in which case it would be the last person in charge). Also, both Florida and the USA can have jurisdiction at the same time. Jurisdiction is not exclusive.


3

Although this speaks more to groundwater, I think it would apply. http://aic.ucdavis.edu/events/outlook05/Sawyer_primer.pdf It says, in part: Regardless of the nature of the water right in question, two very important principles will always apply. First, under the California Constitution, water must be put to reasonable and beneficial use. No ...


3

The most commonly used definition for statehood is the declaratory theory, codified by the Montevideo Convention. This says that statehood doesn't depend on recognition by other states; it merely requires four things: A defined territory A permanent population An effective government The capacity to enter into relations with other states. You immediately ...


3

Can someone by prosecuted if they commit a crime outside of all jurisdictions? This is a tautological question. If they can be prosecuted, then they are by definition subject to the jurisdiction they are being prosecuted under, and if they are outside of all jurisdictions, then there is no jurisdiction they could be prosecuted under. Also, if they are ...


3

As pointed out in a comment, exclusive zones cannot overlap by definition, given the meaning of "exclusive." Your question is answered in the Wikipedia article you link to: Generally, a state's exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, extending seaward to a distance of no more than 200 nmi (370 km) out from ...


2

This is true of the merchant ships of most countries. The collection of all merchant ships bearing a nation's flag are collectively its merchant fleet. Basically, this means that German flagged merchant ships are subject to German admiralty law when on the high seas, and that German merchant ships can be conscripted to aid a war effort on behalf of Germany ...


2

You're really asking about the requirements for Statehood - whether individual States will recognise another, as has correctly been noted, is largely a matter of politics and policy, which is distinct enough of an issue that we need not concern ourselves with it here. You're asking too many questions for me to answer here, particularly the last one, so I'm ...


2

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, "Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost, to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in ...


2

This is an incomplete and not fully authoritative answer but it may answer some of your questions. Footnote 85 to a law review Note (i.e. student written law review article) by Maria Efaplomatidis from 2000 lists a number of international treaties that govern pollution from merchant ships. It cites the following treaties as relevant (as of the year 2000, of ...


2

Most seafaring nations, including the United States, by express constitutional grant, reserve the right to regulate conduct on the "high seas" (an archaic concept synonymous with what we would now call "international waters"), and could intervene according to naval rules of engagement and admiralty. This jurisdiction is not limited to crimes against ...


2

This needs to go before a Prize Court, a jurisdiction which in this case will be exercised by the Admiralty Court, a specialised division of the High Court. (The courtroom has two clips into which a ceremonial oar is placed to indicate that the Admiralty Court is in session). As the Wikipedia article says, "A prize court may order the sale or destruction of ...


2

The last part “and with knowledge that …” should come after “recklessly” or after “committed with the intent”, or modify both? The element of "knowledge" qualifies only the "recklessly" premise. The alternative premise of "intent" already implies the person's knowledge --even if inaccurate-- that his act would cause the loss, ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible