Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T02:19:28.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lack of Uniformity in the Law and Practice of States with Regard to Merchant Vessels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Fred K. Nielsen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is at present considerable discussion regarding questions with respect to “the freedom of the seas.” These questions, so often vaguely referred to, should presumably be understood to relate to the exercise of belligerent rights on the sea and to embrace such matters as a possible codification of international law touching this subject, proper compliance with rules heretofore generally accepted if not always strictly observed, the desirability of amendments to such rules, and the formulation of principles to meet new problems that have grown out of the recent conflict. In the light of events in connection with the war the present situation with regard to the disposition of such questions through international agreement unhappily appears more difficult than that which confronted the delegates who assembled in conference at London in 1908 on the invitation of the British Government to reach an understanding among the nations represented relative to the rules of international law concerning the laws of naval warfare, and formulated the so-called London Declaration signed February 26, 1909.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1919 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1919

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Assistance and Salvage at Sea, ratification of which was deposited with the Belgian Government January 25, 1913. See Act to carry this treaty into effect (37 Stat. L. 242).

2 120 U. S. 1.

3 14 Wall. 152.

4 14 Fed. Rep. 424.

5 190 U. S. 169.

6 190 U. S. 169.

7 See Moore, Digest, II, pp. 272–362.

8 150 U. S. 249.

9 38 Stat. L. 1164.

10 Austria-Hungary, May 8, 1848, Art. IV, and July 11, 1870, Arts. XI and XII; Belgium, March 9, 1880, Arts. XI and XII; Bolivia, May 13, 1858, Art. XXXIV; China, June 15, 1858, Art. XVIII; Colombia, December 12, 1846, Art. XXXIII, and May 4, 1850, Art. III; Denmark, July 11, 1861, Arts. I and II; Great Britain, June 3, 1892; France, June 24, 1822, Art. VI, and February 23, 1853, Arts. VIII and IX; Greece, November 19, 1902, Arts. XII and XIII; Italy, May 8, 1878, Art. XIII, and February 24, 1881; Independent State of the Kongo, January 25, 1891, Art. V; Netherlands, January 19, 1839, Art. III, and May 23, 1878, Art. XII; Norway, July 4, 1827, Arts. XIII and XIV; Roumania, June 17, 1881, Arts. XI and XII; Spain, July 3, 1902, Arts. XXIII and XXIV; Sweden, June 1, 1910, Arts. XI and XII, and July 4, 1827, Arts. XIII and XIV; and Tonga, October 2, 1886, Art. X.

11 See The Luigi, 230 Fed. Rep. 495; The Attualita, 238 Fed. Rep. 909; The Pampa, 245 Fed. Rep. 137; The Florence H., 248 Fed. Rep. 1014; The Roseric (D. C. N. J.) decided in November, 1918; The Broadmayne (1916), L. T. Rep. 891; The Messicano, 32 L. T. Rep. 519.

12 238 Fed. Rep. 909.

13 The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. 435; The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 368; The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, 175 Fed. Rep. 215.

14 7 Cranch, 116.

15 179 U. S. 552.

16 (1916) 231 Fed. Rep. 365.

17 114 U. S. 365.

18 Decided November 27, 1918.

19 (July 8, 1918) 252 Fed. Rep. 627.

20 Law Rep. 4 A. & E. 59.

21 (1878) L. R. 5 P. D. 197.

22 The Siren, 7 Wall. 152; The Davis, 10 Wall. 15; Stanley v. Schwalby, 147 U. S. 508; Hassard v. Mexico, 61 N. Y. Supp. 939; The Athol, 1 Win. Rob. 374.

23 39 Stat. L. 728.