OBJECTIVES
As a person with knowledge of the legal foundations in Australia, the author has always brought up to his superiors the viability of strategy formation regarding maritime law management and at times fail to understand the reasons or logic behind certain strategic implementations imposed on it.
By delving into this project paper, the author intends to have better insights into how maritime laws are thought up, formulated and then imparted down. The author hopes to have an in-depth understanding as to how the maritime laws of Australia enables them and their people to compete effectively and profitably in this era of internationalization where competition is extremely intense.
In order to reinforce the learning objectives, two key focal issues were focussed upon, i.e. innovation and diversity. Innovation was discussed with regard to the maritime laws of Australia where they were renowned for their developmental capabilities to constantly innovate. Diversity came under strategic thinking and formation as the author considered the diverse culture, political climate, economic surroundings, social environment, technological settings, government policies and legal systems in order to better understand the legislative foundations in Australia.
INTRODUCTION
Maritime Laws can be defined as the legal and constitution-based policies that contribute to the efficient and effective protection of the country’s waters and their boundaries. Maritime laws focus on the careful management of the processes involved in the protection and security of the seas, including its resources and services (Chase 1998, p. 72).
More often than not, small countries don’t really have the capabilities to strictly implement their maritime laws. Instead, these countries engage in activities that various schools of management typically associate with maritime law implementation. These activities include the protection of sea products, water resource development, production and distribution.
However, maritime laws deal with all operations done within all the bodies of water of a country or territory. Activities such as the management of maritime laws, the control of illegal entries, logistics and evaluations are often related with the implementation of maritime laws. A great deal of emphasis lies on the efficiency and effectiveness of these processes. Therefore, maritime laws include the analysis and management of internal processes.
The maritime laws of Australia and UK will be the model legal policies that will be used in this case study.
History of the development of the Federal and the NSW Parliaments
The Commonwealth of Australia is a constitutional monarchy and has a parliamentary system of government. There are three branches of government.
- The legislature: the Commonwealth Parliament, composed of the Queen, the Senate, and the House of Representatives
- The executive: the Federal Executive Council
- The judiciary: the High Court of Australia and other federal courts.
The Federal Executive Council is the legal entity holding executive authority under the Australian Constitution. The Executive Council is headed by the Governor-General of Australia, whose main role is to guide the Governor-General in the administration of the government. The Council is created through section 62 of the Constitution. Section 64 establishes that Ministers of State (the Cabinet) are members of the Council. Membership of the Council typically lasts for a lifetime, although in reality only government Ministers in power are invited to attend meetings (www.australia.com).
Did John violated the Safety Act 2008?
I think that since John is in the territory of Australia, the maritime laws of the country would have to be followed. He can be arrested for trespassing or illegal entry, and he can also be charged for violation of Safety Act 2008 even if he is a British citizen and they have a corresponding law (Ship Owners Rights Act 1870) which gives him the freedom to drink one cup of rum per day. It may be unfair for him to be charged without any knowledge of the Safety Act 2008 that supposedly exists in Australia which directly contradicts the Ship Owners Act 1870. But nevertheless, since he is in Australian borders, he has to be detained an can be liable for the violation of Safety Act 2008 of Australia.
Which law should be applied to John and why?
The state court of Australia which would hear this particular case would have no choice but to implement the existing Safety Act 2008, even if it conflicts with the Ship Owners Act 1870 of UK. This is under a principle commonly referred to as the “reverse-Erie doctrine.” The “Erie doctrine” states that federal courts hearing state actions must implement state law. The “reverse-Erie doctrine” on the other hand states that state courts hearing admiralty cases must implement federal admiralty law. In this case, the UK maritime law allows ship owners to drink at least one cup of rum per day, while the Australian laws do not. Therefore, the Australian court hearing this case would be required to follow the Safety Act 2008 even if it contradicts the Ship Owners Act 1870 of UK (Cohen, 1883).
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment