Law at High seas

[salomon]

I saw a question posted on May 23, 2006
In international waters, are you beyond the reach of the law?

on a related question:
If country a deems action x as illegal, but country b deems same action as legal;
and said action x is taking place on high seas aboard a ship under country b flag,
can country a board/inspect/sanction the ship , while on high seas?
Thanks

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Here’s gfactor’s excellent 2006 SDSAB overview of law on the high seas: In international waters, are you beyond the reach of the law? - The Straight Dope

[Ravenman]

Did you read the column on the question? Link.

You asked about ungoverned spaces. Technically they exist–the LOSC calls them the high seas: “No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.” But that doesn’t mean you can avoid prosecution for crimes committed there.

…

The idea that there is no jurisdiction on the high seas comes from confusion about the meaning of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction describes the limits of the legal power of a nation (international lawyers call them States) to make (prescriptive jurisdiction), apply (adjudicative jurisdiction), and enforce (enforcement jurisdiction) rules of conduct. One basis of jurisdiction is territory–a State can make and enforce laws in its own territory. The confusion arises from the assumption that this is the only basis of jurisdiction.

…

Even if none of these exceptions apply, U.S. courts have held that arrest in violation of international law doesn’t necessarily bar prosecution. For example, in United States v. Postal, the defendants were U.S. nationals arrested on board a vessel registered in the Grand Cayman Islands, 16 miles from shore (which at the time was the high seas). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that though the arrest violated the Convention on the High Seas (1958), the treaty violation didn’t impair the court’s jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit followed suit in 2002. So on the high seas not only are you not beyond the reach of any nation, sometimes you’re with the reach of two.

Clink on the link for more.

[salomon]

@Ravenman

Did you read the column on the question? Link.

Clink on the link for more.

I did, but does not really answer my question

[md2000]

Obviously, if A’s ships have really big guns, they will board B’s vessel any time they like; unless B starts sending bigger ships with bigger guns to tell them not to.

The actual answer was in the column. Some crimes are considered especially heinous (piracy, slavery, etc.) and will be actioned on by any state. Some states claim jurisdiction if their citizens are committing offenses or are the victims, regardless of the locational situation. In general however, if B citizens are doing X on a B boat on the high seas, A has no say.

From the column:

(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.

Of course, what qualifies as heinous - YMMV. If you are painting cartoons of Mohammed on your sails off the coast of Iran or Saudi Arabia, maybe your embassy will send a strongly worded note to their government after the issue is settled…

[Ravenman]

@salomon

I did, but does not really answer my question

I’m not sure what’s ambiguous. The article states a case in which Americans were on a foreign-flagged vessel in international waters that “happened” to have marijuana on board. The Americans were arrested, brought back to the United States for trial. They claimed the U.S. authorities didn’t have jurisdiction in international waters, and the court said, “That’s nice. You’re still going to prison.”

Your first question, as you wrote it, is whether you are beyond the reach of the law in international waters. The crew of the good ship La Rosa have tested that question for you, and did not enjoy the answer.

[salomon]

@md2000

Obviously, if A’s ships have really big guns, they will board B’s vessel any time they like; unless B starts sending bigger ships with bigger guns to tell them not to.

The actual answer was in the column. Some crimes are considered especially heinous (piracy, slavery, etc.) and will be actioned on by any state. Some states claim jurisdiction if their citizens are committing offenses or are the victims, regardless of the locational situation. In general however, if B citizens are doing X on a B boat on the high seas, A has no say.

From the column:

Of course, what qualifies as heinous - YMMV. If you are painting cartoons of Mohammed on your sails off the coast of Iran or Saudi Arabia, maybe your embassy will send a strongly worded note to their government after the issue is settled…

I do appreciate your answer
I was revering to a case where action X is not a crime all together in B, which would exclude the case of the guys with the marijuana on board, especially where they showed intent of bring the material ashore;
I guess my curiosity is more concretely worded as if citizens of country A, aboard a ship of country B are doing action X, which is 100% legal in country B
hard to think of heinous crimes

Still not 100% clear from what (the very good article) in the link mentioned

[salomon]

@Ravenman

I’m not sure what’s ambiguous. The article states a case in which Americans were on a foreign-flagged vessel in international waters that “happened” to have marijuana on board. The Americans were arrested, brought back to the United States for trial. They claimed the U.S. authorities didn’t have jurisdiction in international waters, and the court said, “That’s nice. You’re still going to prison.”

Your first question, as you wrote it, is whether you are beyond the reach of the law in international waters. The crew of the good ship La Rosa have tested that question for you, and did not enjoy the answer.

I do appreciate your answer
I was referring to a case where action X is not a crime all together in B, which would exclude the case of the guys with the marijuana on board, especially where they showed intent of bring the material ashore;
I guess my curiosity is more concretely worded as if citizens of country A, aboard a ship of country B are doing action X, which is 100% legal in country B
hard to think of heinous crimes

[UltraVires]

Anecdote alert: Last year I took a day cruise from Florida to the Bahamas. When you boarded the ship, each passenger received one of three different armbands. One color was for passengers over the age of 21. Another color was for those aged 18-20. The third color was for under age 18.

Signs were posted at each bar that stated while the ship was in U.S. territorial waters, the drinking age was 21. On the high seas and in Bahamian waters, it was 18. The ship flew a Bahamian flag.

[salomon]

@jtgain

Anecdote alert: Last year I took a day cruise from Florida to the Bahamas. When you boarded the ship, each passenger received one of three different armbands. One color was for passengers over the age of 21. Another color was for those aged 18-20. The third color was for under age 18.

Signs were posted at each bar that stated while the ship was in U.S. territorial waters, the drinking age was 21. On the high seas and in Bahamian waters, it was 18. The ship flew a Bahamian flag.

thnk you

[UltraVires]

@salomon

thnk you

What struck me as funny was on the way back, the PA system kept announcing. 10 minutes to U.S. waters, 8 minutes to U.S. waters, etc.

You couldn’t get a drink at the bar during this time because all of the 18-20 year olds were ordering 3 to 4 drinks at a time. Each.

Now, I’m sure that the U.S. and Florida authorities have more pressing concerns, but it seems that the ship and all of those 18-20 year olds were at least violating Florida law for the last three miles in. And I’m sure that 80% of those (and probably 50% of the rest of the passengers) were violating the Florida law against intoxicated driving shortly after we arrived at port.