Regarding GFactor’s nicely done staff report about international waters:
How does this affect gambling on a cruise ship? Is it that once the ship leaves US territorial waters that the gaming laws of the country of the ships registry kick in? I know that the ship’s casino’s aren’t open when you leave port, but open once you’ve been sailing a while.
[QUOTE=Cluricaun]GFactor’s nicely done staff report about international waters:
How does this affect gambling on a cruise ship? Is it that once the ship leaves US territorial waters that the gaming laws of the country of the ships registry kick in? I know that the ship’s casino’s aren’t open when you leave port, but open once you’ve been sailing a while.
I figured this would come up. I wrote this:
Of course, not all criminal statutes apply everywhere. A State must decide where its laws apply within its jurisdiction. For example, in United States v. One Big Six Wheel, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Gambling Ship Act did not apply to American Flag vessels that were beyond three miles from the coastine. According to the court:
quote:At one time, the Gambling Ship Act flatly prohibited gambling aboard American-flag vessels engaging in interstate and foreign commerce, anywhere. The existence of the cruise-to-nowhere industry depends upon a 1994 amendment to the Act, which created exceptions for vessels on certain cruises, defined by reference to a provision of the Internal Revenue Code as of 1994 that levies a tax on the gambling revenues of such cruises. In 1994, the Internal Revenue Code defined such cruises as ( inter alia ) those that return within 24 hours to their port of embarkation and conduct gambling (subject to federal taxation) "beyond the territorial waters of the United States." Under the corresponding Internal Revenue regulation in effect in 1994, the territorial waters of the United States extended to three nautical miles.
The court found that despite the extension of U.S. territorial waters to 12 nautical miles from the coastline, the statute’s reference to territorial waters limited its coverage to 3 miles:
There is no indication that Congress now intends to prohibit shipboard casinos to the full extent of the nation’s territorial reach. The 1994 amendment to § 1081 effected a narrowing of the previously absolute prohibition. And the term “territorial waters” used therein is not coextensive with the extent of the nation’s criminal jurisdiction; rather, it specifies geographically where a certain kind of offshore gambling is a criminal activity and where it is licit. However one expands the territory in which one’s conduct might be proscribed as an offense against the United States, that territorial expansion does not criminalize offshore gambling that the Gambling Ship Act itself does not forbid. . . . For purposes of the Gambling Ship Act, until Congress says otherwise, the “territorial waters” extend three nautical miles from the U.S. coastline.
So not every law of the flag State applies to its vessels on the high seas or even in its own territorial waters. Nevertheless, you certainly can’t sail anywhere where you will be free of the State’s regulation.
It got cut because we felt the report was too long, and this was a peripheral matter.
Here is an opinion from the Florida Attorney General about Florida’s power to regulate cruise ship gambling:
astro
May 24, 2006, 3:08pm
5
Nice Job! I want you to do my homework Gfactor!
astro
May 24, 2006, 3:11pm
6
BTW why don’t you submit that as a Wikipedia article. It would be very informative.
[QUOTE=Rico]Gfactor!
Thanks.
[QUOTE=astro]
Thanks. A lot of this information is already in the Wikipedia articles on Law of the Sea (Law of the sea - Wikipedia ) and Grotius Hugo Grotius - Wikipedia
[QUOTE=astro]
I’ll give you the same rate I give my ex-wife.
I agree, this was an interesting read. I’m curious about this bit:
(5) Universal jurisdiction. According to Henry Kissinger, “the doctrine of universal jurisdiction asserts that some crimes are so heinous that their perpetrators should not escape justice by invoking doctrines of sovereign immunity or the sacrosanct nature of national frontiers.” Under the relevant treaties, any State can board a ship on the high seas if the ship is suspected of piracy, transporting slaves, or broadcasting illegally.
Piracy is pretty heinous. Transporting slaves is pretty heinous. Broadcasting illegally? Is illegal broadcasting at sea really that bad if it happens?
[QUOTE=Tierce]
According to Evans (citation in article):
In the 1960s elements of the international community became agitated about the rise of commercial broadcasting into a country from foreign registered vessels on the high seas and over which they could not exercise any control (or extract revenues). Regional State practice to address this problem in the North Sea was subsequently built on with the result that the LOSC Article 109 permits the arrest and prosecution of any person engaged in ‘unauthorized radio broadcasting’ from ships or installations on the high seas by a range of States, including the State where the transmissions are received. A perhaps unexpected consequence of this arose in the early 1990s when a vessel called Goddess of Democracy planned to broadcast messages of solidarity and support for those arrested in the pro-democracy demonstrations in Beijing. The Chinese made it clear they would arrest the vessel if it did so, and the mission was aborted.
The rather heavy handed approach to radio broadcasting contrasts with the comparatively feeble manner in which other, more pressing, issues were tackled. The international prohibition of slavery is well-established in international law yet the convention does not permit the arrest of vessels engaged in slave trading by non-flag states, merely providing that a State ‘shall take effective measures to prevent and punish the transport of slaves in ships authorized to fly its flag’
It is a heavy handed approach, no question about it. The fact that suspected slaving vessels can only be visited–not arrested if it turns out they are slave ships–is disconcerting.
