TL;DR: In this paper, the authors analyse the current legal approach to the carrier's obligation of seaworthiness under Carriage of Goods by Sea due to the impact of such an obligation on the stability of the shipping industry and its effect on reducing marine casualties.
Abstract: Summary: The thesis aims to analyse the current legal approach to the carrier’s obligation of
seaworthiness under Carriage of Goods by Sea due to the impact of such an obligation on
the stability of the shipping industry and its effect on reducing marine casualties. In
addition, recent developments in the industry have had an affect on the carrier’s
obligation. Therefore, it seems necessary to deal with the carrier’s obligation of
seaworthiness under the current law and in the light of recent development.
In order to achieve the aim of this study, a library-based research project will be
conducted and most of the courts’ decisions, recent or old, will be considered in order to
find out how they have dealt with this issue in the past and whether their attitude has
changed to reflect the development in the shipping industry. The opinions and thoughts of
scholars on this matter will also be examined in order to ascertain their opinion on the
law and its development.
The final chapter of this thesis will deal with the conclusions arrived at by this study.
These can be summarised by the following:
- The carrier’s obligation to make the vessel seaworthy should be extended to cover
the whole voyage instead of just limiting it to the beginning of the voyage.
- The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault,
not proved fault.
- The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier,
and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage
contract.
- There is also a need to depart from the use of detailed articles with regard to
Seaworthiness to a more general article which deals with carriers’ duties and
obligations in general.
- Finally, it is necessary to highlight the need to establish that the ISM Code, and
to a lesser extent the ISPS, should be considered as good practice with regard to
seaworthiness.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that recent legal transformations must be understood as participating in an order of non-sense, which bodes ill for protecting and helping to ensure a livable, sustainable human future.
Abstract: What is the likelihood of controlling technology by means of the law? In traditional societies, the law was deeply embedded in, and dependent on, culture (the totality of human creations for making sense of and living in the world). Industrialization required a complete restructuring of both technology and society, thus engulfing all traditions in a flood of new situations for which there were no precedents. This necessitated a growing reliance on reason at the expense of culture, thereby creating a rational and technical order that evolved with less and less reference to sense (i.e. experience and culture). It is within this context that recent legal transformations must be understood as participating in an order of non-sense. This bodes ill for protecting and helping to ensure a livable, sustainable human future.
TL;DR: The War Crimes Act 4 of 1996 as mentioned in this paper allows the U.S. military to implement the Geneva Conventions by criminalizing grave breaches of the Conventions and violations other laws of war and bringing these crimes into the federal criminal code.
Abstract: : Following reports of detainee abuse coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan, some U.S. military members have been tried and convicted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for their involvement. Despite the international and war-related character of these offenses, so far the allegations have been charged as common crimes under Title 10 (aggravated assault, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, murder) even though conduct of members of the U.S. armed forces that constitutes a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions can be prosecuted in U.S. civilian courts under Title 18. The War Crimes Act 4 of 1996 sought to implement the Geneva Conventions by criminalizing grave breaches of the Conventions and violations other laws of war and bringing these crimes into the federal criminal code. This Act expanded federal criminal jurisdiction over U.S. military members by providing the United States jurisdiction to try War Crimes Act violations in federal district court. As part of federal statutory law, the War Crimes Act may be incorporated and charged under the UCMJ. Article 134 of the UCMJ, the "general article," allows the military to import non-capital federal criminal statutes and charge them in a military court-martial. This broadens the subject matter of criminal offenses available to a court-martial. Not only are the punitive articles of the UCMJ6 available to the military prosecutor, any federal criminal statute that applies where the crime was committed could also be charged under the general article. This provision would generally allow military authorities to incorporate the War Crimes Act into military prosecutions and charge U.S. service members with certain war crimes.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe the use of criminal prosecutions in the U.S. Coast Guard from 1964 to 1990, using both the works of Lennon (1988) and Bryant (1979), and show a joint model for defining military deviance, one legal in construction (specific, special, and general), the other occurrence-based (crimes against the person, property, or performance).
Abstract: This work describes the use of criminal prosecutions in the U.S. Coast Guard from 1964 to 1990. Using both the works of Lennon (1988) and Bryant (1979), this research shows a joint model for defining military deviance, one legal in construction (specific, special, and general), the other occurrence‐based (crimes against the person, property, or performance). The findings show that three types of military crime constructed by this joint model predominate in the Coast Guard throughout the study period, Specific/ Property (e.g., larceny), Special/Performance (e.g., AWOL) and General/Performance (e.g., breaking restriction). The findings also suggest the political nature of criminal prosecutions in the U.S. Coast Guard over the period of study through the exaggerated use of crimes against performance and, more specifically, the use of the general article (Article 134) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.