February 26, 2017

Homework Help: please review

Posted by Christi on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 2:33am.

these two paragraphs are from a paper I am writing for my international law class can someome please revise and let me know what you think. thanks
Indeed, as it was customary, over foreign public vessels in its ports nation’s understood to waive the exercise of its territorial jurisdiction. This recognition, based on international courtesy and not a matter of “right” as established in The Schooner Exchange v M’Faddon, because a vessel representing its sovereign power and the dignity of an independent state, and its crew, would not submit to another power (1200). However in respect to foreign private ships in a port there is a different practice.
Rather in practice, it has been commonly recognized, in particular the United States, that over private vessels the territorial sovereign holds absolute jurisdiction. For example, in the Wildenhus’s case in which a Belgian native was accused of homicide against another Belgian on board a Belgian vessel anchored in the port of Jersey City (1498). The Supreme Court of the United States sustained the jurisdiction of the lower courts of New Jersey, based on the territory sovereign principle under customary law. Although, treaty in place, between the Belgian government and the United States, in which under Article 11 (21 Stat 776) of the treaty provided the Belgian government consuls with “exclusive charge of internal order of the merchant vessels of their nation” and that the State of New Jersey is without jurisdiction. The circuit court refused to deliver the prisoners to the consul ( Smit1498).

Answer This Question

First Name:
School Subject:

Related Questions

More Related Questions