Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:20:46.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Law and National Regulations concerning the Protection or Advancement of National Merchant Fleets: National Regulation of Maritime Transport and International Public Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

P. J. Slot
Get access

Extract

Regulation of maritime transport is, in many countries a common phenomenon. The following three categories of regulation can be distinguished:

– rules of competition in the field of maritime transport, often referred to as conference or anti-conference legislation,

– flag preference provisions, e.g., cargo reservation provisions,

– retortion provisions or retaliatory provisions.

Provisions in these three categories all have in common that they are aimed to influence the market conditions under which maritime transport takes place. I have outlined the various national provisions regulating maritime transport in a 1979 report for the Dutch section of the ILA. Part III of that report analyses the question to what extent national provisions are compatible with international public law. The present article is a summary of that analysis.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , December 1979 , pp. 329 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Slot, P.J., Nationale maatregelen ter regulering van het zeevervoer mede in het licht van het volkenrecht, (Deventer 1979).Google Scholar

2. Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 2nd ed., (Oxford 1973), p. 280.Google Scholar

3. Mann, F.A., “The doctrine of jurisdiction in international law”, 111 Hague Recueil (1964, I) p. 14.Google Scholar

4. Ibidem.

5. Cf. Liner Shipping in the US trades, a UWIST study for CENSA, University of Wales 1978, p. 86Google Scholar e.v.

6. Mann, , loc. cit., p. 14Google Scholar. Cf. Cheng, Bin, “The extra-territorial application of international law,” Current Legal Problems, 1965, pp. 132–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bin Cheng employs the terms jurisfaction (legislative jurisdiction) and jurisaction (enforcement jurisdiction).

7. Mann, , loc.cit., p. 14.Google Scholar

8. Mann, , loc.cit, p. 128.Google Scholar

9. Mann, , loc.cit., p. 16.Google Scholar

10. Brownlie, , op.cit., p. 302.Google Scholar

11. I omit a discussion of the nationality principle. For the purpose of the present article it is not very relevant to conclude that a state may give rules for actions or activities of its own nationals, which take place abroad. I omit also a discussion of the effect principle. The latter principle has been developed in the context of the extra-territorial application of anti-trust laws.

12. Cf. International Law Association, Report of the Fifty-first Conference (1964), p. 304–592.Google Scholar

13. See Par. II. 5. of my report for the Dutch section of the ILA cited, in n. 1 supra.

14. Mann, , loc.cit., p. 128.Google Scholar

15. Mann, , loc.cit., p. 127Google Scholar. et seq. The rules concerning the production of documents located abroad have been summarized at pp. 156–158.

16. MacDougal, & Burke, , The Public Order of the Oceans (New Haven 1962) p. 128.Google Scholar

17. Brownlie, , op.cit., p. 302Google Scholar. The last sentence under (iii) refers to enforcement jurisdiction.

18. Mann, , loc.cit., p. 44.Google Scholar

19. Cf. McDougal, & Burke, , op.cit, p. 100, n. 25 and p. 127Google Scholar et seq.

20. Cf. Oliver, , “Harmonization of laws and the development of principles for the resolution of conflicts of enforcement jurisdiction as to transnational monopolistic and restrictive trade practices.” International Law Association (1964), p. 449Google Scholar et seq.

21. Cf. Keuneke, H.W., Flaggendiskriminierung, (Göttingen 1964) p. 64.Google Scholar

22. Cf. Keuneke, op.cit., p. 75Google Scholar et seq.; McDougal, & Burke, , op.cit., p. 189.Google Scholar

23. Cf. Keunele, op.cit., p. 78Google Scholar et seq.; See also Colombos, C.J., International Law of the Sea, 6 ed (London 1967), p. 176.Google Scholar

24. Keuneke, , op.cit., p. 87Google Scholar. An enumeration of bilateral treaty provisions may be found at p. 127 et seq.

25. Cf. Keuneke, , op.cit., p. 95.Google Scholar

26. Keuneke, , op.cit., p. 103Google Scholar: 23 Western Countries, the USA not included, are party to the Convention.

27. Cf. Keuneke, , op.cit., p. 88Google Scholar; Oppenheim/Lauterpacht, International Law, 7ed (London 1952), p. 321.Google Scholar

28. Cf. Delprat, D.A., “Vlagbevoorrechting”, Reports of the Dutch ILA section nr. 30 (Amsterdam 1952) p. 18.Google Scholar

29. Oppenheim/Lauterpacht, op.cit., p. 321.Google Scholar

30. Cf. Keuneke, , op.cit., p. 97Google Scholar et seq.

31. Cf. Erler, G., Grundprobleme des Internationale Wirtschaftsrecht, (Göttingen 1956), p. 54, 55Google Scholar; Keuneke, , op.cit., p. 88 et seq.Google Scholar

32. Colombos, , op.cit., p. 176Google Scholar; Laun, R. “Le régime international des ports,” 15, Hague Recueil (1926 V) p. 32Google Scholar; Cf. Brownlie, , op.cit., p. 276.Google Scholar

33. Verzijl, J.H.W., International Law in historical perspective, III, pp. 239–240Google Scholar, et seq.

34. Cf. McDougal, & Burke, , op.cit, p. 112.Google Scholar

35. Oppenheim/Lauterpacht, op.cit., p. 503.Google Scholar

36. Keuneke, , op.cit., p. 127Google Scholar et seq.

37. De Economische Voorlichtingsdienst, Overzicht der Handels- en andere verdragen van NederlandGoogle Scholar, yearly loose-leaf edition of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.

38. Singh, N., Maritime Flag and International Law, (Leyden 1978) p. 70.Google Scholar

39. See Sjah, M.J., “The implementation of the UN Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences 1974”, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 9 no. 1, 1977, pp. 79–110Google Scholar; Capone, R.A., United States Law and Convention on Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences; A catalogue of Conflicts and Dilemmas, (Washington 1974).Google Scholar

40. See Capone, op.cit.

41. Official Journal of the Communities, L 121, 1, 1979.Google Scholar

42. Singh, , op.cit. p. 72.Google Scholar

43. Ibidem.

44. Singh, , op.cit., p. 73–74.Google Scholar

45. Singh, , op.cit., p. 79–81.Google Scholar

46. Keuneke, , op.cit., p. 111–112.Google Scholar

47. For an analysis of the legal nature of OECD-Council decisions and an analysis of the OECD in general see Barents, , Oeso, R., van Themaat, P. VerLoren ed. Studies over internationaal economisch recht. Part 1.4, Transcontinental en subcontinentale regionale organisaties (The Hague 1978).Google Scholar

48. For an description of the OEEC liberalisation Code see Keuneke, , op.cit., pp. 116–122.Google Scholar

49. Code of Liberalisation of current invisible operations, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, March 1973.

50. Van Rijn, T.P.J.N., “Internationale kartels”, in van Themaat, P. VerLoren ed., Studies over internationaal economisch recht, Part 1.2, Organisaties en problemen op het gebied van de internationale handel (The Hague 1977) p. 297Google Scholar, et seq. see also Davidson, J., “Some on the OECD Competition Guidelines”, The Antitrust Bulletin, 1977, p. 441Google Scholar et seq.

51. Rijn, Van, loc.cit., p. 301.Google Scholar