About a month ago we saw a movie called “One Way Passage”, set on an ocean liner travelling from Shanghai (or maybe it was Hong Kong)to San Francisco with a stop in Honolulu. The movie was made in 1932, so Prohibition was still in effect in the United States.
How did the law apply to those on ships, on international voyages? As I imagined it, the ship’s bars would be serving
from Shanghai until it got near Hawaii, then Prohibition would come into force. Then after leaving Hawaii the passengers could enjoy a few more days of blissful sloshing
until reaching the Sahara of the USA. Or would the ship’s
bars have to be shuttered for the entire leg of the journey from Hawaii to California, being then considered a domestic
voyage during which all the laws of the US would apply?
When we took a cruise from L.A. to Baja, the casino was
closed while in port (both San Pedro and Ensenada), casinos
being illegal in both California and Mexico. When in port,
don’t the laws of the port country trump those of the country where the ship is registered? I realize now I’m
broadening the discussion to gambling when my OP was just
on alcohol, but I think the principle would be the same.
Always? I thought that, at least for some purposes, it came under the domestic law of a country when it is in territorial waters. (That’s why the GTS Katie dropped anchor of Newfoundland, and why our government had to get permission from St. Vincent and the Grenadines to board her, something we wouldn’t have had to do if she was inside the territorial limit of N miles.)
( DISCLAIMER ) **** HYPOTHETICAL RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, NOT MEANT TO FOMENT STRIFE, OR SUGGEST ANY ILLEGAL ACTS**** ( End of Disclaimer.)
Let’s say that… you are the wily and fearless Cap’n of the HMS Coronado, under sail and fully registered in the sovereign nation of Vulvania. Nestled in the cleft of two immense mountain ranges in South America, etc. It’s just that…where ole Cap’n Spar Varnish of the HMS Coronado is concerned, there’s nothing more fun that taking used radioactive fuel rods from the famous Infernia I and Infernia II Nuclear Power Plants, and leaving them on deck in balsa wood crates.
Okay, ludicrous but go with me here. The hale and hearty crew of the HMS Coronado NEVER LEAVES the ship, but only remains docked at the West Side Piers in NYC.
You really going to tell me that because in the delightful sovereign nation of Vulvania, people are allowed to carry radioactive waste in their knapsacks, and on board ships, and SINCE THAT'S WHERE THAT SHIP IS REGISTERED- that they are within their rights to do so, as long as it all stays ON The ship? C'mon.....gimme a break. Some good Maritime Lawyer, jump in here, please?? I can't IMAGINE that the laws of the land you are approaching ( once you enter International Water Line ) don't apply. Otherwise, you have NO controls until you actively board a ship, or until goods are off-loaded, by which time it's way too late. ( In the case of said hypothetical isotopes, OR the odd South American Tarantula spider...).
Cartooniverse
p.s. Cap’n Spar, the HMS Coronado and Vulvania are all figments of the imagination. No real or implied imitation or slighting of any sovereign nations, Captains of vessels, or ships at sea is intended. Thank you.
…but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night! No, but I am a CG Boarding Officer. All ships, regardless of registry, are subject to US Inspection laws upon entering the US Customs waters 12nm limit. Fortunately, the smuggling of radioactive fuel rods is something I have not dealt with (yet!), but I’d be making some calls pretty quick, if encountered (from a great distance, mind you) I’m gonna guess that radioactive rods are regulated by some type of international agreements and treaties, and ALL KINDS of agencies would be involved. Point being, however, they would be subject to US government action. Under what law/s specifically, I could only guess.
Well, since our experts haven’t shown up yet, I’ll try to work in a related tangent. I have been told, but do not know this to be fact, that alcohol becomes available on Saudi airliners once they leave Saudi airspace. True?
The OP was asking about international waters. My point is that even if you are in international waters you are subject to some jurisdiction (or you are an outlaw).
The fact that as soon as a ship of any registry enters the jurisdiction of any country it is subject also to the jurisdiction of that country is so obvious to me that I did not think it was necessary to say so. Sometimes I wonder about people if things like this have to be explained: A country can deny entry to any foreign vessel for any or no reason. They can and do make it a condition of entry that the vessel accept the laws and jurisdiction.
Normally to what extent a country will exercise that jurisdiction upon visiting ships is a matter of custom. When naval vessels visit another country it is understood they are exempt from pretty much everything (including the requirement of hiring a pilot which would be compulsory for a merchantman, etc). But if Australia does not like the idea that a US vessel might have nuclear weapons on board, it can just deny it permission to enter their space.
As far as merchant vessels is concerned, authorities tend to not get involved unless they have a very good reason. If a crime takes place on a foreign merchant ship in port, the local authorities will normally not get involved unless their assistance is requested or the crime has effects on shore. For example, if a local woman is raped on board.
In the case of passenger ships they would normally be subject to US laws (for example regarding alcohol, gambling etc) while in US territory if only because they would accept that as a condition to being allowed to operate.
I would also point out that this topic has already been discussed in past threads…
