The Right to Hot Pursuit - Report Example

The Right to Hot Pursuit Hot pursuit refers to a fresh and immediate pursuit of a suspected perpetrator by law enforcement. In international marine laws, this refers to the fresh pursuit of a suspect ship by marine authorities of a nation whose marine rights or laws have been violated by the said ship. There are however some principles that guide the right to hot pursuit. The pursued ship must be in the territorial waters of the pursuer, there must be enough reason to suspect that the pursued ship s carrying out illegal activity and the pursuers should be competent. As Paine (2013) argues, the laws about maritime and international waters were for the first time codified in the Geneva Convention on the High Seas in 1958. Although at this time there were no specific laws and rules about the right to carry out a hot pursuit, the Geneva Convention on the High Seas in 1958 was integrated into the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the idea of hot pursuit was introduced. The UNCLOS is a codification of the laws and rules of the international waters also called the high seas. The codification provides the guidelines and rules as to how this has to be dealt with by member states. The UNCLOS provides that a coastal state has the right to hot pursuit if the following is the case; Q a Competency of the pursuing authorities of the state is necessary in order for the pursuit to be safe and not to cause unnecessary harm (Frankot, 2012). The pursuers are supposed to be trained in regard to the maritime navigation and also in terms of the laws that govern the maritime and international waters (UNCLOS Article 23). In this regard, it can be said that the Pluto had the right to seek hot pursuit of The Vulcan because the officers who were doing it were trained officers who had both maritime competency as well as international law competency. The second requirement by the UNCLOS is that the pursuant should have good reason to suspect or believe that the suspected perpetrator has violated the states laws or regulations (UNCLOS Article 23). For instance, in a case where Russian authorities captured and detained a ship and its crew belonging to the Greenpeace environmental group, the international tribunal ordered for the release of the ship and the crew because there was no evidence that the captured ship had been doing illegal business. However, Russia had claimed that the ship was carrying illegal drugs. The Australian authorities had good reason to believe that the Vulcan was doing illegal business because as identified in the case, the officers who were operating The Pluto believed that the ship was fishing for Surferfish. This was in contravention of the Australian regulation since the fishing of Surferfish was prohibited as part of the attempt to save the Surferfish which was seen to be going into extinction. The Pluto has every reason to believe that The Vulcan was in contravention to Australian laws because of a number of reasons. First, they did not have any flag on their ship to identify which country they came from. Secondly, their behavior after The Pluto tried to contact them was suspicious. When officers from The Pluto tried to have radio contact with the ship, they behaved as if they did not hear them, only for the people in the Vulcan to attach the officers who tried to board the ship. They blew them with powerful horse pipes and this was an indication that they were not only unwilling to commonly but that they were hiding something. The Pluto therefore had every right to initiate a hot pursuit because they had every reason to believe that the ship was doing bad business and that is why they were not willing to comply when The Pluto asked them to communicate and establish the nature of their business. UNCLOS rules for right to hot pursuit also require that the pursuit should begin while the pursuing party is in the States territorial waters or territorial sea (UNCLOS Article 23 and Article 1). For instance, in a case between Italy and India with regard to high seas, Italy officers in an oil exploration ship shot and killed Indian fishermen. The argument by the Indian authorities was that this was in violation of the UNCLOS doctrine of hot pursuit because the fishermen were on the high seas and not in Italian territorial waters. However, in the case of the Pluto, it can also be argued that The Pluto had every right to have a hot pursuit after The Vulcan because this started not only when the Pluto was in the Australian waters but also The Vulcan itself was in Australian waters. In this regard, The Pluto had not violated any UNCLOS requirements by having a hot pursuit after The Vulcan. The last requirement for a party to have a hot pursuit is that the pursuit should be continuous. As a result, the fact that The Vulcan was pursued by at least three pursuers can cast some doubt as to whether their pursuit and eventual capture was legal under the UNCLOS guidelines. The fact that the Vulcan was pursued by at least three parties can bring in some doubt as to whether the pursuit of The Vulcan by the Jupiter was legal under the UNCLOS requirements (Frump, 2010). As has been identified, UNCLOS rules require that such a hot pursuit be continuous. Q c Panama authorities can argue that this constituted a violation of the UNCLOS rules because the original pursuer was continuous because the Jupiter was not the initial pursuer of the Vulcan. However, the Australian authorities can argue that since both The Jupiter and The Pluto belonged, to the same authorities, the pursuit can be said to have been continuous. However, it can also be argued that the pursuit was not continuous because even Jupiter did not complete the pursuit but enlisted the help of the New Zealand authorizes who eventually captured and detained the Vulcan. This is where I have discussed about the partnership between New Zealand and Australia => However, because the Australian authorities that requested the New Zealand authorities to pursue The Vulcan, it can be argued that the pursuit was an Australian affair all along, only with some help from the New Zealand authorities. The problem is with regard to the definition of what a continuous pursuit is. Continuity can refer to time, which would mean that the pursuer should pursue without stopping (United Nations, 2010). It can also refer to pursuer being one and this would mean that the pursuer should not hand over the pursuit to another party. If it refers to time, the pursuit can be argued to have contravened the UNCLOS rules because as seen in the case, the Pluto did not continuously pursue the Vulcan because they first had to deal with saving the officers whose boat had been capsized. If the requirement for the pursuit refers to the number of parties pursuing the perpetrator without enlisting the help of another party, still, it can be argued that the pursuit was in contravention of the UNCLOS rules because the perpetrator was pursued by at least three parties. If it refers to the fact that the perpetrator should only be pursued by only one sovereign authority, still this introduces a problem because the perpetrator was pursued by parties from at least two legal jurisdictions. According to the above information, it can be said that the claims by Panama have some validity to them. For instance, the fact that The Vulcan was eventually pursued and captured by the New Zealand authorities and not the Australian authorities to whom they had offended means that this was in contravention of the UNCLOS. It is discussed in the case that the New Zealand authorities started pursuing The Vulcan despite the fact that it was at least 250 miles off the coast of New Zealand. This in itself brings in some issues with regard to the legality of the exercise because the UNCLOS rules require that a hot pursuit can only be started when the perpetrator is within the terrestrial waters of the pursuer. As was identified in the case, The Vulcan did not fly any flag at all and therefore even if it came from Panama, it did not have any proof that it was under the Panama jurisdiction. It is important to note that the UNCLOS rules also deliberate that when perpetrator ship is in the high seas, it is under the jurisdiction of the country for which flag it flies (UNCLOS Articles 4–7). For instance, in a case between India and Italy where Italy officers had shot and killed Indian fishermen after mistaking them for pirates, the issue of jurisdiction came up. The dispute was twofold. First, the Italy authorities argued that India did not have jurisdiction over the case, based on UNCLOS rules because the incident happened on the high waters. Secondly, the issue of hot pursuit was also disputed because the Italian officers did not need to kill the suspected perpetrators because they were not on Italian territorial waters. The claims by the Panama authorities that this was not in line with the UNCLOS rules is also debunked by the fact that The Vulcan was not flying a Panama. Again, the issue of the interpretation of the law comes in here. One of the laws for interpretation => Concerning this issue, the facts of law that will need to be interpreted here is with regard to whether the non flying of a flag by the Vulcan means that it was not under any particular jurisdiction, not even the Panama jurisdiction. There was no apparent evidence that the Vulcan was doing any illegal business, especially that of which it was suspected by the Australian authorities. As a result, it then becomes hard to determine whether the pursuit was justified or not. Q d The facts in the case point that the ship and the crew who were captured by the New Zealand authorities are still in detainment by the New Zealand authorities. This is in contravention of the UNCLOS rules because of a number of issues. First, there is the issue of the fact that the ship and the crew had not violated the water rights of New Zealand. New Zealand was only helping the Australian authorities to capture the perpetrators. In that case, the least they could have done was to hand over the perpetrators to the Australian authorities as soon as it was possible. In this regard, they should not continue to detain the ship and the crew since this is in contravention of the UNCLOS requirements. They should however consider handing the culprits to the Australian authorizes or at least to the Panama authorities. Continuing to hold them would mean that there is going to be a problem with regard to the way adherence to the requirements of the UNCLOS rules. Even if they can argue that they did this as a way to help the Australian authorities to capture the perpetrators, this does not means that they have the legal right or privileged to hold them captive. Conclusion Every country has the right to guard protect their territories and to protect their wasters in terms of economic and environmental interests (Vukas, 2004). This is well outlined in the UNCLOS codification. However, this must be done within the guidelines and there is a necessity to make sure that the way nations handle this issues when they arise is not in such a way that it can lead to diplomatic rows between two nations. As a result, regardless of what the UNCLOS laws say, there are a number of issues that the Australian, as well as the New Zealand authorities should have considered. However, Australia had a right to pursue the ship in a hot pursuit because it was very clear that the ship was doing illegal business. The fact that the Vulcan was in the Australian territorial waters is also another basis to validate the right for Australian authorities to pursue the Vulcan. The argument about continuous pursuit does not invalidate the right for hot pursuit because the Australia had the right to use two ships and also to ask for help from New Zealand in order to ground the ship of the suspected criminal. All the rubles of hot pursuit had been observed by Australia. Read More