PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY

SAKSHI KUSHWAHA

20211BAL0056

Subject: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 18/05/24

TITLE 1: LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF ARRESTING A FOREIGN

VESSEL IN TERRITORIAL WATERS: A CASE STUDY

TITLE 2: TITLE: LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE ARREST OF A

FOREIGN VESSEL BY THE BOMBAY COAST GUARD
 TITLE 1: LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF ARRESTING A FOREIGN
VESSEL IN TERRITORIAL WATERS: A CASE STUDY

ABSTRACT

This research paper examines the legal framework and implications surrounding
the arrest of a foreign vessel carrying contraband gold within the territorial
waters of India. Using the case of vessel ‘A’ as a focal point, it explores the
interplay between international maritime law, Indian domestic law, and the
enforcement actions by the Bombay Police. The analysis includes relevant case
laws, statutes, and international conventions to assess the legality and
jurisdictional challenges of such enforcement actions.

INTRODUCTION

The incident involving the foreign vessel ‘A’, carrying contraband gold and
entering Indian territorial waters, presents a complex legal scenario. The vessel,
after delivering contraband to local smugglers near Bombay, was pursued by the
Bombay Police and ultimately captured in the territorial waters of a neighboring
state. This paper aims to analyze the legal principles governing such actions,
including issues of jurisdiction, enforcement, and international maritime law.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK

International Maritime Law-

International maritime law, governed by the United Nations Convention on the

Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), establishes the legal framework for maritime
activities, including the jurisdictional rights of coastal states over foreign
vessels.

• Territorial Waters: Under UNCLOS, territorial waters extend up to

12 nautical miles from the baseline of a coastal state. Within this zone, the
coastal state has sovereignty and can enforce its laws.

• High Seas: Beyond territorial waters, on the high seas, no state has
jurisdiction over foreign vessels except in specific circumstances, such as piracy
or under international agreements.

• Right of Hot Pursuit: Article 111 of UNCLOS allows coastal states

to pursue a foreign vessel beyond their territorial waters if the vessel is
suspected of violating laws within those waters, provided the pursuit is
continuous and uninterrupted.
Indian Domestic Law

Indian law, through the Customs Act, 1962, and the Maritime Zones Act, 1976,
provides the legal framework for dealing with contraband and enforcement
within its maritime zones.

• Customs Act, 1962: Empowers Indian authorities to prevent

smuggling and enforce customs regulations within its territorial waters.

• Maritime Zones Act, 1976: Defines India’s territorial waters,

contiguous zone, and exclusive economic zone, granting jurisdictional rights to
enforce laws within these zones.

CASE ANALYSIS

Facts of the Case-

• Vessel ‘A’ enters Indian territorial waters near Bombay.

• Delivers contraband gold to local smugglers.

• Bombay Police, upon receiving intelligence, attempts to apprehend the

Vessel.

• The vessel escapes and is eventually captured in the territorial waters of a

neighboring state.
• Crew members, including ‘A’, are arrested and brought back to Bombay
for adjudication.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Jurisdiction over Foreign Vessels: Whether the Bombay Police had

the jurisdiction to arrest ‘A’ and seize the vessel in the territorial waters of a
neighboring state.

2. Legality of Arrest and Seizure: Whether the arrest of ‘A’ and the
seizure of the vessel comply with both domestic and international law.

3. Right of Hot Pursuit: Whether the pursuit and subsequent capture

of the vessel were conducted in accordance with Article 111 of UNCLOS.

Relevant Case Laws

1. The M/V Saiga Case (No. 2): This case by the International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) established important principles
regarding hot pursuit and the rights of coastal states to enforce laws within their
exclusive economic zones.

2. R v. Anderson (1868): A British case that highlighted the limits of

national jurisdiction over foreign vessels beyond territorial waters.

3. The Lotus Case (France v. Turkey, 1927): A pivotal case by the

Permanent Court of International Justice that discussed the extent of a state’s
jurisdiction over foreign vessels on the high seas.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Jurisdiction-

The Bombay Police’s authority to enforce Indian law within territorial waters is
well-established under both international and domestic law. However, the
capture of the vessel in the territorial waters of a neighboring state raises
questions about extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Legality of Arrest and Seizure

Under the Customs Act and UNCLOS, India has the right to prevent smuggling
within its territorial waters. The continuous pursuit doctrine under UNCLOS
Article 111 would justify the chase and arrest if the pursuit was uninterrupted
from Indian territorial waters.

Right of Hot Pursuit

The concept of hot pursuit is crucial in this scenario. As long as the pursuit
started while the vessel was in Indian territorial waters and was not interrupted,
the capture in the neighboring state’s waters could be considered lawful.
CONCLUSION

The arrest of vessel ‘A’ and its crew by the Bombay Police, following the
delivery of contraband gold, highlights the intricate balance between
international maritime law and domestic enforcement rights. The pursuit and
capture were likely justified under the right of hot pursuit as per UNCLOS,
provided the pursuit remained continuous. This case underscores the importance
of adhering to international conventions while enforcing national laws in
territorial and contiguous waters.

References

1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),

2. The Customs Act, 1962 (India).

3. The Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (India).

4. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) decisions.

5. Relevant case law and judicial decisions.

TITLE -2 LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE ARREST OF A FOREIGN

VESSEL BY THE BOMBAY COAST GUARD
Abstract

This research paper explores the legal implications of the Bombay Coast
Guard’s actions in pursuing and seizing a foreign commercial vessel involved in
a murder case within Indian territorial waters and later in the territorial waters
of a neighboring state. The analysis includes the examination of international
maritime law, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), and relevant Indian domestic law. The paper also considers the
legality of actions taken in different maritime zones and discusses whether these
actions would be permissible on the high seas.

Introduction

The case under review involves a foreign commercial vessel where a murder
was committed while docked in Bombay Harbour. The vessel subsequently left
for the high seas, pursued by the Bombay Coast Guard. The analysis examines
the jurisdictional and legal aspects of the Coast Guard’s actions under both
international and domestic law frameworks. Additionally, the paper explores the
impact of the crime’s location within various maritime zones and the state’s
rights to search and seize on the high seas.

Legal Framework

International Maritime Law

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides the
primary legal framework for maritime jurisdiction and enforcement.

• Territorial Waters: Coastal states have sovereignty up to 12 nautical

miles from their baseline, including jurisdiction over crimes committed within
this zone.

• Contiguous Zone: Extends from 12 to 24 nautical miles from the

baseline, where a state can enforce laws related to customs, immigration, and
sanitation.

• High Seas: Areas beyond national jurisdiction where no single state

has sovereignty. International law restricts the exercise of enforcement rights
except in specific cases such as piracy or under international agreements.

Indian Domestic Law

India’s legal framework for dealing with crimes committed on vessels within its
maritime zones includes the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Maritime Zones
Act, 1976.

• Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: Applies to crimes committed

within Indian territory, including its territorial waters.

• Maritime Zones Act, 1976: Defines India’s maritime zones and the
jurisdictional rights within them.

CASE ANALYSIS
Facts of the Case

• A murder occurs aboard a foreign commercial vessel docked in

Bombay Harbour.

• The vessel departs for the high seas and is pursued by the Bombay
Coast Guard.

• The vessel ignores signals to stop and enters the territorial waters
of a neighboring state.

• The Bombay Coast Guard continues pursuit, seizes the vessel, and
brings it back to Bombay for trial.

Legal Issues

1. Jurisdiction over Foreign Vessels: Whether Indian authorities have

the jurisdiction to pursue and arrest individuals on a foreign vessel within
different maritime zones.

2. Legality of Arrest and Seizure: Whether the actions of the Bombay

Coast Guard in seizing the vessel in a neighboring state’s territorial waters are
legal under international and domestic law.

3. Right of Hot Pursuit: Whether the principles of hot pursuit under

UNCLOS apply in this scenario.

4. Impact of Crime Location: Whether the location of the crime

within India’s territorial waters or contiguous zone affects the legality of the
Coast Guard’s actions.

5. Right of Search and Seizure on the High Seas: Whether a state can
exercise the right of search and seizure on the high seas.
Relevant Case Laws

1. The M/V Saiga Case (No. 2): Established principles regarding hot
pursuit and the enforcement rights of coastal states.

2. R v. Anderson (1868): Addressed the limits of national jurisdiction

over foreign vessels beyond territorial waters.

3. The Lotus Case (France v. Turkey, 1927): Discussed the extent of

state jurisdiction over foreign vessels on the high seas.

4. The I’m Alone Case (Canada v. United States, 1935): Analyzed the
legitimacy of hot pursuit leading into territorial waters of another state.

Analysis and Discussion

Jurisdiction Over Foreign Vessels

Under UNCLOS, India has jurisdiction over crimes committed within its
territorial waters, including those on foreign vessels. The Indian Penal Code
extends to crimes within this jurisdiction. The Bombay Coast Guard’s pursuit
and actions fall within this framework, provided the vessel was initially in
Indian territorial waters.

Legality of Arrest and Seizure

The arrest and seizure of the vessel in the territorial waters of a neighboring
state present a complex issue. According to UNCLOS Article 111, hot pursuit
must be continuous and start within the coastal state’s territorial waters. The
capture in another state’s territorial waters complicates legality unless agreed
upon under international cooperation or bilateral treaties.

Right of Hot Pursuit

Hot pursuit permits continued chase into international waters, but not typically
into the territorial waters of another state without permission. If the pursuit was
uninterrupted, it might be justified under UNCLOS. The I’m Alone Case
supports this interpretation, emphasizing the importance of continuous pursuit.

Impact of Crime Location

If the murder occurred within India’s contiguous zone, India could still assert
jurisdiction for enforcement actions related to security. However, enforcement
rights are stronger within territorial waters, making the initial scenario more
straightforward legally.

Right of Search and Seizure on the High Seas

On the high seas, enforcement rights are limited to piracy and specific
international crimes. Without such a classification, India’s Coast Guard would
have restricted rights to search and seize a vessel on the high seas.

CONCLUSION

The Bombay Coast Guard’s pursuit and seizure of the foreign vessel involved in
a murder case appear justified under the right of hot pursuit if continuous from
Indian territorial waters. The legal standing weakens if the capture occurs in
another state’s territorial waters without consent. The crime’s location impacts
jurisdictional claims, with stronger rights within territorial waters than the
contiguous zone. The right of search and seizure on the high seas remains
limited under international law, reinforcing the necessity for careful adherence
to maritime legal principles.

References

1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),.

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (India).

4. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) decisions.

5. Relevant case law and judicial decisions.