Opinion ID: 361206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authority of the Coast Guard

Text: 8 Under 14 U.S.C. § 89(a) 2 the Coast Guard is granted authority to search and seize any vessel on the high seas that is subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States. As we noted in Cadena, supra, the statute is not limited on its face to domestic vessels; we there concluded that jurisdiction over the offense conferred authority under § 89(a) to search and seize foreign vessels on the high seas. 9 In Cadena, there was clearly probable cause to believe United States law was being violated when the Coast Guard approached the vessel later searched. Here it is conceded that at the time the CAPE SHOALWATER approached the PITER it had no reason to suspect the vessel was engaged in illegal activities. The fortuitous subsequent discovery of misdeeds cannot itself confer the jurisdiction necessary to warrant the Coast Guard search. 10 There was ample reason to investigate to determine whether the PITER was registered, and, if so, its nationality; or, if it was stateless, to ascertain that fact and to take such action as its lack of vassalage might warrant. The actions of the Coast Guard were restricted to inquiries, boarding, and limited search designed to elicit information about the vessel's identity and registration. Under the principles of international law discussed below, stateless vessels are subject to this type of examination. Hence, stateless vessels are subject to the jurisdiction . . . of the United States for these limited purposes; we conclude therefore, that the Coast Guard had authority under § 89(a) for its actions. 11 This authority is not curtailed by the Convention on the High Seas, 450 U.N.T.S. 82, 13 U.S.T. 2312, T.I.A.S. No. 5200. The Convention recognizes certain principles of international law for the mutual benefit of its signatories. As a stateless vessel, the PITER was entitled to no protection under its provisions. Indeed, even had the vessel been registered in Colombia, the nationality of its crew, the Convention would have provided defendants no comfort because Colombia is not a party. As we stated in Cadena, supra, 585 F.2d 1252 at 1261, There is no indication in the treaty, or elsewhere, that it was intended to confer rights on non-member nations or on vessels of non-member nations, let alone on citizens of non-member nations. 12 The defendants argue that, even if they cannot invoke the protection of the Convention, the treaty, or the international law it recognizes, operates to restrict the actions of signatory nations towards stateless vessels. The only mention of statelessness in the Convention is in Article 6 which provides in part: 13 2. A ship which sails under the flags of two or more States, using them according to convenience, may not claim any of the nationalities in question with respect to any other State, and may be assimilated to a ship without nationality. 14 Ships without nationality are afforded no special protection in any other provision of the treaty. 15 Defendants note, however, that Article 22 3 of the Convention deals with situations in which a warship, such as a Coast Guard cutter, may board and search a foreign merchant ship on the high seas, and claim the Coast Guard is limited by its provisions. 16 Even were we able to conclude that the provisions of the Convention may be invoked by citizens of a non-signatory nation to restrict the powers of a party to the treaty, Article 22 would not limit the Coast Guard's actions here. By its very terms, that section applies only to the boarding and search of foreign merchant ships, and those ships are identified as vessels that have the right to fly the flag they show. The PITER was a stateless vessel, or, using the terminology of Article 6 of the Convention, a ship without nationality. Stateless vessels are not entitled to the same protection afforded vessels registered in a foreign nation which is a signatory of the Convention. 17 Whatever protection may be afforded stateless vessels and their alien crews under local law, see our discussion of the Fourth Amendment, Infra, international law shelters only members of the international community of nations from unlawful boarding and searches on the high seas. As stated in I. Oppenheim, International Law 546 (7th ed. 1948): 18 In the interest of order on the open sea, a vessel not sailing under the maritime flag of a State enjoys no protection whatever, for the freedom of navigation on the open sea is freedom for such vessels only as sail under the flag of a State. 19 Thus in Molvan v. Attorney General for Palestine, 1948, A.C. 351, 369, the Privy Council stated that with regard to stateless vessels (n)o question of comity nor of any breach of international law can arise, if there is no State under whose flag the vessel sails. See also I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 212, 222 (1966); H. Meyers, The Nationality of Ships 309-323. (1967). To secure the protection accorded foreign merchant ships on the high seas, a vessel must accept the duties imposed by registration. This the PITER failed to do; her crew can not complain of the results.