.gif){kind=small}
I hope you enjoy my column. I would love to hear your responses. Use the response form, after the story below, to let us know what you think.
Dr. MyToo
No comments so far. Be the first to comment!
Editor:
The explosion in the BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico has re-introduced the periodically debated provisions of long-standing maritime law which arise in times when their application is inconvenient in the solution of some problem involving the intrusion of foreign flag vessels into American waters and movement between American ports.
Case in point: The Jones Act is preventing the use of available foreign oil recovery equipment into American waters in the effort to capture the oil that spewed out of the well and/or prevent the ecologic and economic damage that it may cause.
In addition, amendments to the Jones Act, known as the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 83-644), provide permanent legislation for the transportation of waterborne cargoes in U.S.-flag vessels.
It is pretty clear how attempts to skirt the Jones Act in rescue of the interests of oil companies and the Gulf-State economy. It is also clear why maritime employees and their unions fight so tenaciously to maintain Jones Act provision which remain their sole protection against virtual elimination of inter-coastal maritime activity by American vessels and their seafaring employees. At the end of WW2, with one stroke of the pen, laws were amended to allow transfer of American flag vessels to foreign flags and operated with none of the historic rights of seamen applied. Most of the shipping between foreign ports and American ports has been shifted to foreign ships. The Jones Act applies only to shipping from one American Port to Another American Port.
All stories and content copyright © 2010-2010 by NextPages, LLC.
