Admiralty Commons^™

Memorandums Of Understanding On Port State Control : The Need For A Global Mou?, Dilip Mehrotra

World Maritime University Dissertations

No abstract provided.

Liner Agency Agreements, Patricia Mwikali Mbindyo

World Maritime University Dissertations

No abstract provided.

The Legal Status And Cargo Liability Of Terminal Operators Under The Maritime Code Of The People's Republic Of China, Wang Haifeng

World Maritime University Dissertations

No abstract provided.

The Regulation Of International Shipping : Systematic Issues Facing States In The Administration Of Maritime Affairs And The Eradication Of Substandard Shipping, George S. Reynolds

World Maritime University Dissertations

No abstract provided.

Transport And Handling Of Dangerous Cargoes In Port Areas : Weaknesses Of Existing International And Estonian Regulations, Tarmo Ots

World Maritime University Dissertations

No abstract provided.

An Analysis Of The Implementation Of The Ism Code In Mauritius After 1 July 2002 And Beyond, Johnny J.M.D.C. Lam Kai Leung

World Maritime University Dissertations

No abstract provided.

The Dumping Of The New Carissa: An Analysis Of The Emergency Provisions Of The London Convention, Jill S. Murakami

Washington International Law Journal

The London Convention prohibits the dumping of hazardous materials into the ocean. This prohibition may, however, be suspended in emergencies. The bow of the M/V New Carissa ("New Carissa "), which contained approximately 135,000 gallons of oil, was dumped into the Pacific Ocean under the emergency provisions of the London Convention. An analysis of the dumping of the New Carissa illustrates the weaknesses of these provisions. As written, the provisions are ambiguous and open to varying interpretations. As a result, nations may use the emergency provisions as loopholes to dump substances that they would otherwise be prohibited from dumping, thereby …

Admiralty Law, Robert S. Glenn Jr., George M. Earle, Marc G. Marling

Mercer Law Review

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided nine admiralty cases with written opinions in 1998. With one exception, these cases did not involve issues of first impression. They instead fell into the following categories: cases that were decided with reference to existing law; a case in which the court's decision put it at odds with the holding of other circuit courts; a case in which the court's holding continued an expansive trend in maritime law; and a case of first impression involving important constitutional issues.

The cases that were decided with reference to existing law were three admiralty …

Federal Maritime Commission Sanctions On Japanese Carriers: A Call For Fairer Methods Of Resolving Disputes, Randy L. Baldemor

Washington International Law Journal

On February 26, 1997, the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission imposed sanctions upon Japanese shipping carriers for allegedly restrictive port practices that existed in Japan. The Federal Maritime Commission imposed the sanctions under Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Section 19 gives the Federal Maritime Commission authority to make rules and regulations where conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade exist. However, the Japanese Government does not control the port practices in Japan. The Japan Harbor Transportation Authority, a private conglomeration of labor unions, shippers, and other shipping entities in Japan, regulates port practices through collective-bargaining negotiations. …

Preemption At Sea, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Although Erie Railroad v. Tompkins put an end to the "general federal common law," a form of general common law lives on in admiralty. The interaction of that law with state regulatory authority in maritime cases has given rise to one of the thorniest questions in federal courts law -- the problem of maritime preemption. Because admiralty law remains largely a "brooding omnipresence over the sea," maritime preemption affords a unique opportunity to explore the implications of both pre- and post-Erie approaches to judge-made law for our modern system of federalism. In this article, Professor Young proposes that the present …

The Last Brooding Omnipresence: Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins And The Unconstitutionality Of Preemptive Federal Maritime Law, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Collision At Sea: The Irreconcilability Of The Superseding Cause And Pure Comparative Fault Doctrines In Admiralty, Kelsey L. Joyce Hooke

Washington Law Review

Courts have long sought to develop rational methods both for limiting a tortfeasor's liability and allocating damages among multiple tortfeasors. Courts developed the doctrine of proximate cause to address the first concern, employing superseding cause analysis when multiple forces produce an injury. In admiralty, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the second concern by adopting pure comparative fault in . In Exxon Co. v. Sofec, Inc., the Court endorsed the continued use of superseding cause in admiralty cases, holding that it does not conflict with pure comparative fault. This Comment argues that the Sofec Court's method of superseding cause analysis …

Federal Common Law In Admiralty: An Introduction To The Beginning Of An Exchange, Joel K. Goldstein

All Faculty Scholarship

Most scholars and practitioners of admiralty law have long relied upon two central assumptions regarding their subject. First, they have understood that uniformity was a requisite of maritime law such that, generally speaking, national, rather than state, law governed most maritime events and transactions. Second, they have believed that in order to preserve the uniformity of maritime law, federal admiralty courts are empowered to fashion federal common law.[1] The commitment to these related propositions has been attested to or illustrated by a collection of Supreme Court decisions.[2] For instance, in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen,[3] the case that stands as …

Treasure Salvage And The United States Supreme Court: Issues Remaining After Brother Jonathan, John Paul Jones

Law Faculty Publications

On April 22, 1998, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., 1 a case of shipwreck salvage begun as a maritime action in rem. Because the Court does not often accept cases of admiralty and maritime law, its decision was eagerly anticipated by American maritime lawyers and constitutionalists, both for what it might say about the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity in a federal system and how it might limit Congressional power to alter the general maritime law and admiralty jurisdiction. Also anxious for the Court's decision were the few maritime lawyers …

Federalism In The Era Of International Standards: Federal And State Government Regulation Of Merchant Vessels In The United States (Part Iii), Craig H. Allen

Articles

No abstract provided.