| |
| | Capri Marine Ltd. V. Chief State Prosecutor - Science - RedOrbit (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-27) |
 | | In considering the question of Sweden's jurisdiction-as a matter of international law-to impose the pollution fees, the Supreme Court noted that, under Article 217(4) of the LOS Convention, it is the flag state that initially has the responsibility for investigating violations by its vessels and, if appropriate, for instituting proceedings. |
 | | The Court also noted, however, that under Article 220, it is possible for a coastal state-albeit with due regard to the basic right to free navigation-to act against a foreign vessel for a violation in the EEZ causing or threatening significant environmental damage. |
 | | According to the Court, the law's requirement of charging the owner or operator of the ship- instead of charging the person who is actually responsible for the discharge-supports the conclusion that actual contact with, and inspection or detention of, the vessel in the EEZ is not necessary for imposing a water pollution fee. |
| www.redorbit.com /news/display?id=184270&source=r_science (2989 words) |
|