Names of Territorial Quality of (3) The Log Book.-This is a full record of the voyage, with all nautical details. (4) The Manifest of Cargo.-This is a list of the cargo of a vessel, with details concerning the number and the marking of each package, the names of the shippers and the consignees, and the like. (5) The Bills of Lading.-These are duplicates of the documents which the master of the vessel hands over to the shipper of the goods on shipment. (6) If the vessel is chartered, the Charter Party. This is the contract between the owner of the ship, who lets it wholly or in part, and the charterer, who hires it. § 263. Every State must register the names of all private vessels sailing under its flag, and it must make them bear their names visibly, so that every vessel may be identified from a distance. No vessel must be allowed to change her name without permission and fresh registration.1 § 264. It is a customary rule of the Law of Nations that men-of-war and other public vessels of any State Vessels on are, whilst on the open sea as well as in foreign territhe Open torial waters, in every point considered as though they Sea. were floating parts of their home States.2 Private vessels are only considered as though they were floating portions of the flag State in so far as they remain whilst on the open sea in principle under the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State. Thus the birth of a child,3 a will or business contract made, or a crime committed on board ship, and the like, are considered as happening on the territory, and therefore under the territorial 1 As regards Great Britain, see SS 47 and 48 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and §§ 50 and 53 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906. See above, § 172, and below, §§ 447-451. 4 3 Marshall v. Murgatroyd, (1870) L.R. 6 Q.B. 31; and the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. v. c. 17), § 1(1)c. 4 See Jordan in R.I., 2nd Ser. x. (1908), pp. 341-362 and 481-500; and R. v. Lesley, (1860) Bell 220. supremacy of the flag1 State. But although they appear in this respect as though they were, private vessels are in fact not floating portions of the flag State. For in time of war belligerent men-of-war can visit, search, and capture neutral private vessels on the open sea for breach of blockade, contraband, and the like, and in time of peace men-of-war of all nations have certain powers 2 over merchantmen of all nations. Traffic on the Open § 265. Until 1910 no rules of the Law of Nations existed Safety of for the purpose of preventing collisions, saving lives after collisions, and the like; but every State possessing Sea. a maritime flag had enacted laws concerning signalling, piloting, courses, collisions, and the like, which were applicable to vessels sailing under its flag on the open sea. Although every State could then legislate on these matters independently, there was a tendency during the second half of the nineteenth century to follow the lead given by Great Britain in the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act of 1862, with its 'Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea,' and the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1873 and 1894. Moreover, the Commercial Code of Signals for the Use of all Nations, published by Great Britain in 1857, was adopted by all maritime States. In 1889 a conference of eighteen maritime States took place at Washington, which recommended a body of rules for preventing collisions at sea to be adopted by each State,3 and a revision of the Code of Signals. These regulations were revised in 1890 in England, and, after some direct negotiations between the Governments, most maritime States made 1 Since, abroad remain under the personal supremacy of their home State, nothing can prevent a State from legislating as regards such of its citizens as sail on the open sea on board a foreign vessel. however, individuals * See below, § 266. The question of the territoriality of vessels is ably discussed by Hall, §§ 76-79. 3 See Martens, N. R. G., 2nd Ser. xvi. p. 416. See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd Ser. xxii. p. 113. corresponding regulations. A new and revised edition of the International Code of Signals was published by the British Board of Trade, in conformity with arrangements with other maritime Powers, in 1900, and was in general use 1 before the World War. Early in 1920, a committee was appointed by the British Government to prepare a new version. 1 But whereas before 1910 there were no rules of International Law on these matters, in that year, at a conference held at Brussels, to which all the maritime States of Europe, the United States of America, and most of the South American States sent representatives, two conventions were signed on September 23, one for the unification of certain rules of law with respect to collisions between vessels,' and the other for the unification of certain rules of law respecting assistance and salvage at sea.'2 To carry out these two conventions the Maritime Conventions Act 3 was passed in 1911. Moreover, as a result of the disaster to the liner Titanic, an international conference met in London in 1913 to draw up a convention for the safety of life at sea. The convention was signed on January 20, 1914, was to be ratified not later than the end of that year, and to come into operation on July 1, 1915. But owing to the World War no further steps were taken with regard to it, and the coming into force of the Merchant Shipping (Convention) Act, 1914, which was passed in Great Britain to give effect to the convention, has, in consequence, been postponed from time to time.5 1 This matter of collision at sea, as it stood in 1899, is exhaustively treated by Prien, Der Zusammenstoss von Schiffen nach den Gesetzen des Erdballs (2nd ed. 1899). See also Smith, The Law Relating to the Rule of the Road at Sea (1910). 2 Misc., No. 5 (1911), Cd. 5558; Treaty Ser. (1913), No. 4; Martens, N.R.G., 3rd Ser. vii. p. 711. 31 & 2 Geo. v. c. 57. As to the second of these conventions, see below, § 271. 4 & 5 Geo. v. c. 50. The convention is printed as a schedule to the Act. See also Wheeler in A.J., viii. (1914), pp. 758-768. 5 London Gazette, December 9, 1919. 3 But although certain rules of law which are to be applied in actions relating to collisions at sea have been settled by the first of the conventions just mentioned,1 the question as to what courts have jurisdiction in such actions is not at all settled.2 That the damaged innocent vessel can bring an action against the guilty ship in the courts of the latter's flag State is beyond doubt, since jurisdiction on the open sea follows the flag. If the rule that all vessels while on the open sea are considered under the sway of their flag State were one without exception, no other State could claim jurisdiction in cases of collision. But in fact maritime States do claim jurisdiction over vessels flying other flags, though their practice is not uniform. Thus, for instance, France claims jurisdiction if the damaged ship is French, although the guilty ship may be foreign, and also if both ships are foreign in case both consent, or for urgent measures having a provisional character, or in case France is a place of payment. Thus, further, Italy 5 claims jurisdiction, even if both ships are foreign, in case an Italian port is the port nearest to the collision, or in case the damaged ship was forced by the collision to remain in an Italian port. Great Britain goes farthest, for the Admiralty Court claims jurisdiction provided the guilty ship is in a British port at the time the action for damages is brought, even if the collision took place between two 1 Both the Brussels Conventions of 1910 are in the list of multilateral treaties of an economic or technical character which, according to Article 282 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, 'shall alone be applied as between Germany and those of the Allied and Associated Powers party thereto.' See below, § 581b. 2 See Phillimore, iv. § 815; Calvo, i. § 444; Pradier-Fodéré, v. Nos. 2362-2374; Bar, Private International Law (2nd ed. translated by Gillespie), pp. 720 and 928; Dicey, Conflict of Laws (2nd ed.), pp. 650-652 and 790; Foote, Private International Juris prudence (3rd ed.), pp. 486 and 495; Westlake, Private International Law (4th ed.), pp. 266-269; Marsden, The Law of Collisions at Sea (6th ed. 1910); Williams and Bruce, Treatise on the Jurisdiction of English Courts in Admiralty Actions (3rd ed. 1902); Halsbury, The Laws of England: Collisions, vol. xxvi. p. 359. 3 See above, § 146. foreign ships on the high seas.1 The court justifies this extended claim of jurisdiction 2 by maintaining that collision is a matter communis juris, and can therefore be adjudicated upon by the courts of all maritime States.4 Powers of War over chantmen § 266. Although the freedom of the open sea, and the fact that vessels on the open sea remain under Mer- the jurisdiction of the flag State, exclude, as a rule, the exercise of the authority of any State over foreign vessels, certain exemptions exist in the interest of all maritime nations. They are: of all Nations. (1) Blockade and Contraband.-In time of war belligerents can blockade, not only enemy ports and territorial coast waters, but also parts of the open sea adjoining those ports and waters, and neutral merchantmen attempting to break such a blockade can be confiscated. And, further, in time of war belligerent men-of-war can visit, search, and eventually seize neutral merchantmen for carriage of contraband, and the like. (2) Verification of Flag.-It is a universally recognised customary rule of International Law that men-ofwar of all nations, in order to maintain the safety of the open sea against piracy, have the power to require suspicious private vessels on the open sea to show their flag. But such vessels must be suspicious. Since 1 Or even in foreign territorial waters. See Williams and Bruce, op. cit., p. 78: "The Admiralty Court from ancient times exercised jurisdiction in cases of collision between foreign vessels on the high seas; and since the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, it has entertained suits for collision between ships in foreign waters, and between an English and a foreign ship in foreign waters.' 2 The Johann Friederich, (1838) 1 W. Rob. 35; The Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London, and China v. The Netherlands India |