Some unsettling maritime terms: The interpretation of found, cargo, ballast and voyage

Maritime Policy and Management

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 61-68

  Forsyth, Craig j ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MARITIME TRANSPORTATION;

EID: 0033004633     PISSN: 03088839     EISSN: 14645254     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/030888399287069     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Individual states are being given a greater voice in maritime manners, which have long been the sole domain of the Federal government. Fruhling, L.(1997), Stating their case. Work Boat, 54, 58-72.
2. 1990. George Barnes v. Andover Company L. P. 1990 American Maritime Code 1265
3. Alexandervich v. Gallagher Brothers Sand & Gravel Corp. Barnes [2], 1962 AMC 308, 298 F. 2d 918, [2nd Cir. 1961]
4. 1996. Hollenbeck v. Ocean International, Inc. 685 So. 2d 163, 175, (La. App. 1 Cir)
5. 1962. Vaughan v. Atkinson 369 US 527, 531, 1962 AmericanMaritime Code 1131, 1134
6. 1938. Calmar, S. S., Corp. v. Taylor 303 US 525, 528, 1938, American Maritime Code 341, 343
7. 189 US 158. (1903). However, the duty was derived from medieval maritime codes, (the Rules of Oleron, the Laws of Wisbuy, and the Laws of Hanse Towns).
8. 11 Federal Case 480, 482-483, (C. C. D. Me. 1823).
9. 1975. Vella v. Ford Motor Co. Barnes [2], 1975 American Maritime Code 563, 565-66, 421 US 1, 5; Vaughan v. Atkinson, [5]
10. 1943. Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. 318 US 724, 730, 1943 AmericanMaritime Code 451, 456; Maintenance is an applied provision in contracts of maritime employment
11. 1932. Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line 287 US 367, 371, 1933 American Maritime Code 9, 10
12. The shipowner's obligation to pay maintenance arising regardless of fault and continues until the seafarer reaches maximum cure. See:Norris, M. J. (1985), Law Of Seaman, (Rochester, NY:Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company)
13. 623 So.2d 1257, (La. 1993).
14. Maraist, F., 1996. Admiralty In A NutShell, St. Paul, Minnesota:West Publishing Company. Ref [16]; See
15. The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) attempts to get FOC ships to sign collective bargaining agreements with national labour unions or to bargain with the ITF itself, putting all members of the crew in the ITF special seafarers department. Those vessels without ITF blue certificates (collective bargaining agreements) are frequently struck in ports. If the ITF were successful FOC and COC would no longer exist. Ships would be registered in the nations of their owners and the unionized crews would be of the same nations as their vessel and its owner. Many Asian seafarers unions and other so-called labour unions in the ThirdWorld have protested the workings of the ITF because it would eliminate jobs for Asian seafarers. It is the opinion of this author that such a position is very selfish and short-sighted. Indeed these labour organizations are not interested in the welfare of the seamen, but in their own business of crewing ships. The ITF's success will improve conditions for all seafarers. There are two international agencies concerned with operations of ships. The International Labour Organization (ILO) and the InternationalMaritime Organization (IMO). The ILOaddresses all labour problems including seafaring. The IMOis concerned strictly with issues such as pollution and safety. International Transport Workers' Federation (1996). ITF Standard Collective Bargaining Agreement For Crews on Flags Of Convenience Ships, (Worthing, UK:College Hill Press); Donn, C. (1991), National regulation of international industry:industrial relations in the maritime industry, Research Paper Number 14 (Syracuse, NY:Le Moyne College Institute of Industrial Relations); Maritime Education and Resource Center (1990), International Seafarers' Code:A Compendium of I. L. O. Conventions and Recommendations for Seafarers (Quezon, Philippines:Maritime Education and Resource Center); Chapman, P. K. (1992), Trouble On Board:The Plight of International Seafarers (Ithaca, NY:ILR Press)
16. 46 United States Code 10313 et. seq.; MacArthur, W. (1919), The Seaman's Contract, (San Francisco:MacArthur).
17. Act of 20 July 1790, c29, Section 6, 1 Stat 133; MacArthur [16]
18. Norris [12]; MacArthur [16]
19. Shipping Commissioner Act (1872), c 33, 17 Stat 269; MacArthur [16]; Norris [12]
20. 46 United States Code, Sections 596–597
21. Forsyth, C., 1993. Transnational Corporations:problems for study in the new international order of maritime shipping. Maritime Policy and Management, 20:207–214. Forsyth, C. (1988), Economic infrastructure and the development of state autonomy:a case study of U.S. maritime policy. Sociological Spectrum, 8, 303–322; MacArthur [16]; Clee, C. (1926), Desertion and the freedom of the seaman. International Labour Review, 13, 649–672, 808–849
22. 1955. Funk & Wagnall's Dictionary, New York:Funk &Wagnall's Company.
23. The general categories are:passenger, RoRo cargo, vehicles carrier, offshore supply, fishing, dredger, general cargo, refrigerated cargo, container, tanker, bulk carrier, and icebreaker. Lloyd's Register of Shipping, (1997), (London:Lloyd's Register of Shipping), pp. 15–18
24. Forsyth, C. J., 1989. The American Merchant Seaman and His Industry:Struggle and Stigma, 52New York:Taylor & Francis.
25. Goldberg, J. P., 1958. The Maritime Story, 52–53. 71Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press. Goldberg explains that the act was designed to equalize the operating costs of American vessels with those of foreign ships. If one attributed the greater cost of operating American ships primarily to differences in wage costs, then this act was a good attempt at equalization, although the American Merchant Marine has virtually disappeared ‘under’ the act. The idea was that the elimination of the forced aspect of the labour of seamen, and application of this principle to the seamen of foreign ships in American ports as well would strengthen the position of the American merchant marine. It permitted all seamen to desert at will in ports of theUS. The writers of the act assumed it would cause seamen on foreign ships to quit in American ports and subsequently demand wages prevailing in those ports. This has not happened
26. Wissman, R. W., 1942. The Maritime Industry:Federal Regulations in Establishing Labor and Safety Standards, New York:Cornell Maritime Press. Marvin, W. L. (1919), The American Merchant Marine, (New York:Scribner); Lane, C. D. (1941), The Merchant Marine, (New York:Norton & Co.); Kilgour, J. G. (1975), The United States Merchant Marine, (New York:Praeger Publishers); Forsyth [21]
27. Approximately two-thirds of world crews are Filipino, consequently any discussion of this issue concerns Filipino labor; Chapman [15]; Forsyth [21].
28. Chapman[15]; Donn [15]; Forsyth[21]
29. Forsyth, C. J., Bankston, W., and Thompson, C., 1989. The merchant marine desertion penalty:a study in legal evolution. International Review Of Modern Sociology, 19:53–67. Beer, P. (1986), Keeping up with the Jones Act. Tulane Law Review, 61, 379–414; Taylor, P. S. (1923), The Sailors' Union of the Pacific, (New York:The Ronald Press Company); Forsyth [24]
30. Goldberg [25]