Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) (North, 1993). The new policy was seen as consistent with authorities recognized under international law and as not requiring consent by the international community. However, the Coast Guard also stated that the United States did not intend to undertake enforcement actions with respect to violations taking place in international waters. Such actions would "disrupt the institutional arrangements and multinational agreements that led to the existing level of international cooperation" (Eastern Research Group, 1992).
Principles of jurisdiction articulated in Article 218 of the 1982 Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) establish that a port state may take action against foreign-flag vessels that violate applicable international rules and standards—even when the violation takes place beyond the port state's EEZ. Thus, to date, the United States has chosen not to exercise the full complement of enforcement authorities recognized under international law. The broad context, including the impact on legal precedents for U.S. enforcement with respect to violations taking place on the high seas, would need to be examined. The DOS could review this issue as part of the federal effort to enhance the effectiveness of U.S. enforcement of Annex V.
In addition, the United States could examine with other nations the rights and responsibilities of port states to initiate actions against foreign-flag vessels. Through the appropriate diplomatic channels, clear rules could be developed so that port states can exercise fully and efficiently their jurisdictional authorities in a manner that assures compliance with the international standards set forth in Annex V and general principles of international law.
The Coast Guard is experimenting with a simplified enforcement procedure for civil cases involving oil discharges that violate the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (P.L. 80-845), as amended.3 The committee believes this procedure might prove useful in enforcing Annex V. In the pilot project, conducted in three ports4, alleged violators of the FWPCA were issued a Notice of Violation, similar to a traffic ticket, containing a proposed penalty. A penalty was assessed if an investigation established the elements of a civil case. The violator then had the option of paying the fine within 30 days, requesting a determination by a hearing officer, or not responding at all, in which case the file was sent to the
Sign in to access your saved publications, downloads, and email preferences.
Former MyNAP users: You'll need to reset your password on your first login to MyAcademies. Click "Forgot password" below to receive a reset link via email. Having trouble? Visit our FAQ page to contact support.
Members of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, or National Academy of Medicine should log in through their respective Academy portals.
Thank you for creating a MyAcademies account!
Enjoy free access to thousands of National Academies' publications, a 10% discount off every purchase, and build your personal library.
Enter the email address for your MyAcademies (formerly MyNAP) account to receive password reset instructions.
We sent password reset instructions to your email . Follow the link in that email to create a new password. Didn't receive it? Check your spam folder or contact us for assistance.
Your password has been reset.
Verify Your Email Address
We sent a verification link to your email. Please check your inbox (and spam folder) and follow the link to verify your email address. If you did not receive the email, you can request a new verification link below