Maritime Law & Covid-19

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Cyrus,

Test that out and send me a note on how well it’s going.

Well, this gets tested out pretty regularly, lot of ships are forced into foreign ports by mechanical issues etc, goes on all the time and usually it isn't a problem. This isnt a very controversial principle until now.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cyrus Safdari

Well, this gets tested out pretty regularly, lot of ships are forced into foreign ports by mechanical issues etc, goes on all the time and usually it isn't a problem. This isnt a very controversial principle until now.

"until now" being the operative phrase.
One thing has changed the situation: a lethal virus pandemic


I'm very glad that PNG closed its borders.
We've had a total of 8 cases, none fatal and the last one was back in April.

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by StuM

"until now" being the operative phrase.
One thing has changed the situation: a lethal virus pandemic


I'm very glad that PNG closed its borders.
We've had a total of 8 cases, none fatal and the last one was back in April.

There isn't anything unique in this either, the law is still the law and we're not in Mad Max times.

Germs aren't new and sickness aboard is a cause for a distressed vessel etc. I am not sure that the principle is in fact being ignored as you suggest either, in fact it seems that it is being recognized in a few places that have reported and boats in distress due to the virus are not in fact forced to sea without adequate care.

[chrisr]

anyone who believes that a vessel in distress automatically has a right to enter a countries ports or even territorial waters needs to study the 'Prestige' tanker case

the short answer is : YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY SUCH RIGHT

cheers,

[Cyrus Safdari]

The Prestige was one of the two (three actually) oil tankers I mentioned that were indeed denied port access because of their dangerous cargo and broke apart at sea however in their cases the crew were supposedly not in danger, just the cargo, so the right of access to ports is considered less or not applicable because the principle is supposed to protect human life not wealth

And, the incident not only resulted in a huge lawsuit but as a result the Intl Maritime Organization has started setting up "places of refuge" for such tankers to go in case of distress (needless to say no countries want to serve as a place of refuge for a leaky oil tanker) http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety...sOfRefuge.aspx

Yes, you can enter the ports of another country if you;re a vessel in distress. There's nothing magical or exceptional about this, just as with laws that say you can enter with a little piece of yellow cloth, and it has been going on for CENTURIES like the State Dept website says, is well-established int'l law. A distressed vessel not only 1- can enter the waters of another country but 2- once there it is generally immune from the laws of the country so it can't be fined etc.

(Remember, in the old days when these rules were developing, there was no VHF radio to get prior approval from a port for a distressed vessel to enter.)

Any capt should know about this and be aware of options for a distressed vessel

[boat driver]

Originally Posted by Cyrus Safdari

I'm pretty sure that jail would in fact be preferable to drowning, objectively speaking. and nowadays people are being let OUT of jail instead of being taken into them

I understand this general fear of authority, but even authorities generally try to do the right thing and at least don't cause themselves problems, and like I said plenty of countries have actual laws that are actually followed. Aside from that arresting a foreigner is bad enough aside from the diplomatic incident that will be caused, which will be worse if you' force people to sea to die.

Which is why I'm pretty sure that there must be measures taken by countries to aid or at least not hassle vessels that just can't set out to sea, Covid19 or not. Anyone?

lots of confusion here as couple different topics.
A vessel in need of safe harbor (weather, breakdown) is generally permitted to the extent that it follows the rules, which in the COVID 19 time period simply means everyone quarantines 14 days. The Bahamas were closed for cruising and visitor, but a good many vessels were permitted to anchor, be delivered supplies, and left.
On vessels seeking shelter, like the tankers mentioned, they were also in distress and those issues are being challenged.

[Fore and Aft]

Cyrus I think the key word and it is hard to define is distress. Really if you are coming into a port and your vessel looks fine and you are trying to circumvent National laws by claiming distress I think you are going to be in a world of trouble. I would love to have seen how authorities handled that American sailor who drowned just outside Mooloolaba last month. He could not really claim distress or ignorance as to why he was turning up at a Harbour that was not a port of entry to a country that has closed borders. I would say being a dickhead is a crime and I would expect the full weight of the law to descend on him and any other idiot that thinks they can find a loophole in maritime law.
Cheers

[contrail]

I think the OP could answer his question by simply looking at empirical results, which are that countries do, in fact, turn boats away. To me, it's largely a definition of "distress". If I had a critically sick crewmember, I think I would qualify as distressed, and, indeed, would not be surprised to see someone come and retrieve that crewmember. But, if the distress is simply the existence of Covid, or a desire to stop somewhere during a pandemic, I don't for a minute think that is distress. It's kind of like calling Mayday for running out of gas.


This thread has gotten a bit jumbled, however, as we talk about storms and other things. But wanting to make a stop because of Covid? I don't think one has the right, and that's been the interpretation of many countries. Perhaps the OP needs to get around! And, by the way, not all authorities necessarily make doing the "right thing", their top priority, and what that "right thing" is, may be a matter of opinion. And tourists who feel so self important that they think their arrest will always create a diplomatic incident may also be in for a surprise.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Fore and Aft

Cyrus I think the key word and it is hard to define is distress. Really if you are coming into a port and your vessel looks fine and you are trying to circumvent National laws by claiming distress I think you are going to be in a world of trouble. I would love to have seen how authorities handled that American sailor who drowned just outside Mooloolaba last month. He could not really claim distress or ignorance as to why he was turning up at a Harbour that was not a port of entry to a country that has closed borders. I would say being a dickhead is a crime and I would expect the full weight of the law to descend on him and any other idiot that thinks they can find a loophole in maritime law.
Cheers

I recall (vaguely) a report about 15 or 20 years ago about a sailing boat wanting to enter Australia at Southport (Qld) and being told in no uncertain language to proceed to Brisbane (they were from NZ). They claimed distress and the closest refuge was Southport. Again they were warned of the heavy penalties for failing to enter at Brisbane.

They did enter at Southport and were met by immigration who were ready to throw the book at them.

After viewing the boat and interviewing the crew, the book was quietly put away (un-thrown). Story goes that while boat was in excellent condition when departing NZ, two weeks later it was extreme disrepair - busted rigging, sails in ribbons, broken furniture, everything wet with water (and diesel), vomit everywhere and the crew hardly able to stand with exhaustion.

There had been serious weather in the Tasman Sea at the time!

Maybe the tale grew in the telling but I do recall it made the media at the time.

[Discovery 15797]

Originally Posted by Cyrus Safdari

Well, this gets tested out pretty regularly, lot of ships are forced into foreign ports by mechanical issues etc, goes on all the time and usually it isn't a problem. This isnt a very controversial principle until now.

I don't think this is controversial now since the restrictions have been in place for months.

I also think there is a big difference between large cruise ships (which I seem to recall were instructed to return to their country of registry) or commercial ships, and private vessels.

The story of Wong Tetchoong who set out from Singapore on Feb 2, and was eventually towed into Fiji illustrates that a vessel in distress would be rescued. But, the larger question in my mind with regards to this incident is why he continued on his voyage once he was denied entry into the first port of call instead of returning to Indonesia or Singapore?

Finally, here is an interesting legal analysis of the UN convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and a nation state's "inherent right of self defense...to protect their populations."

While this paper is not a legal decision, I think it is easy to see the quandary the IMO faces. The idea of 'suing' a nation for prohibiting entry of a vessel in 'distress' in the "world court" is folly. Not only would it be cost prohibitive, even if the nation lost the case there would likely be repercussions throughout the world that could greatly restrict and tightly control international maritime travel.