Laws of the Sea in a Stateless World

[MarxSchmarx]

Recently, this article prompted me to think about how something like this will be handled in a post-capitalist society:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18055087


Passengers said they spotted the castaways and alerted staff, but the firm said the captain was not informed.
Mr Vasquez's lawyer, Edna Ramos, said the lawsuit includes testimony from two cruise ship passengers who said they saw the boat and reported it to a member of staff.
One passenger, Judy Meredith, earlier told reporters she had informed a sales representative about the boat and had shown him it through a spotting telescope.
It's really a quite terrifying ordeal - being stranded onboard a ship and being so close to rescue without it being realized. Now there might be some weird shenanigans going on here with the cruise company, but let's suppose that there was simple human negligence. Or let's suppose that someones life really did depend on a single individual initiating a rescue process in a stateless society but for whatever reason, perhaps even let's say outright callousness, the guy on the boat is not rescued.

What recourse would they or their survivors have in a stateless society? How would such wrongs seek to be addressed? For once, this struck me as a clear case where sanctions for failing to rescue somebody could be useful. If a captain of a ship say has a delivery to make or the cargo will spoil, versus rescuing a castaway, I can see how having the threat of punitive retaliation for ignoring the castaway would be quite beneficial.

Anyway, under existing principles:




The duty to render assistance, under article 98, of the UN convention of the law of the sea (UNCLOS), is a well-established principle of international maritime law
It states that, insofar as it can be done without serious danger to the ship, the master is required "to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost; to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, insofar as such action may reasonably be expected of him"

What I want to know is how all of you people advocating a stateless society would deal with a captain that doesn't come to the rescue of a castaway. Here is a case quite distinct from the usual crimes of passion case or people of sordid mental states; it seems some sort of deterrent really may be beneficial in such situations, and a deterrent in the form of severe penalties should help tip the scale to anybody who thinks twice about "pretending they didn't see" the cries for help.

Moreover, there are jurisdictional issues when dealing with cargo at sea - again, how are those handled? Under the existing systems there are flags that ships fly that presumably govern their affairs. But what would happen in a stateless society?

Thoughts?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, I think that "standing" coast guards would be necessary to perform functions like these. Also, every country's merchant fleet is mandatorily organized into merchant marine, with command structures of sorts.

[Prometeo liberado]

Good question and I wish I had some input but will follow this thread.

[Psy]

The problem is how the ship is handled as a means of production, in a workers society the crew would actually have a say thus the entire crew would deciding what to do. Meaning it would be the responsibility of the crew as a team to make such calls not a Capitan.

So if the ship was run by workers it means as soon as one of the crew knew they would tell the rest of the crew and the crew would then come to a decision. Odds are the crew if making the decision they would help as from their point of view they would see the other boat as fellow sailors in peril thus act as if was one of their own was overboard.

[danyboy27]

Well, i personally think that regardless of borders, if you let someone die instead of helping him/her, you should be held accountable for your actions.

[Psy]

Well, i personally think that regardless of borders, if you let someone die instead of helping him/her, you should be held accountable for your actions.
True but the bigger question is why is the captain being informed relevant, why didn't the crew take initiative. The answer is class relations, the very fact the ship had a captain hindered the ships ability to provide assistance. Why should any crew need to ask permission from a master to rescue their fellow man?

[MarxSchmarx]

The problem is how the ship is handled as a means of production, in a workers society the crew would actually have a say thus the entire crew would deciding what to do. Meaning it would be the responsibility of the crew as a team to make such calls not a Capitan.

So if the ship was run by workers it means as soon as one of the crew knew they would tell the rest of the crew and the crew would then come to a decision. Odds are the crew if making the decision they would help as from their point of view they would see the other boat as fellow sailors in peril thus act as if was one of their own was overboard.

That's true if it's a large vessell with many people on board, but let's suppose it's a small sports fishing boat with say a singe person out for a good time that comes across a castaway. Suppose the person for whatever messed up reason decides not to help - I mean, if the castaway is killed, no one would be any the wiser; then what should happen to the fisherman if subsequently it comes to light they could have helped but didn't? Suppose it's a capitalist douche bag for instance who thinks "you didn't prepare, you knew the risks blah blah blah sucks to be you." Then what?


Well, i personally think that regardless of borders, if you let someone die instead of helping him/her, you should be held accountable for your actions.

I guess I'm curious precisely how the person would be held accountable. Who would be responsible for overseeing what goes on in the open seas? Who would enforce this? The castaway's village? And what sanctions would apply, when something takes place in the open seas?


Comrade, I think that "standing" coast guards would be necessary to perform functions like these. Also, every country's merchant fleet is mandatorily organized into merchant marine, with command structures of sorts.

Something like a much beefed up international coast guards, improved search and rescue technology etc... might be the only way to prevent this. Perhaps that would reduce the reliance on people's good will, but still, there would seem to be desirable to have osme socially mandated safety net that says if the coast guard misses you but another vessel does not, the other boat is responsible for rescuing you.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks for this thread, comrade! I really need to incorporate the material here into the argument against the "abolish the standing [insert state apparatus]" canard.

[Os Cangaceiros]

That's true if it's a large vessell with many people on board, but let's suppose it's a small sports fishing boat with say a singe person out for a good time that comes across a castaway. Suppose the person for whatever messed up reason decides not to help - I mean, if the castaway is killed, no one would be any the wiser; then what should happen to the fisherman if subsequently it comes to light they could have helped but didn't? Suppose it's a capitalist douche bag for instance who thinks "you didn't prepare, you knew the risks blah blah blah sucks to be you." Then what?

If the person who comes upon someone else floating in the ocean and doesn't even tell the coast guard about it via VHF, then that person has some sort of anti-social personality disorder, and I'm not sure what communism or modern medicine can do for them at this point.

[citizen of industry]

I'm going on negligence with the above scenario. I find it hard to believe it was reported to the captain of the vessel. The established principle is very old and largely followed, even in capitalist society. When an SOS goes out, all vessels within the vicinity help. It's a very old tradition and I'd assume most people are eager to help, regardless of their cargo. The only time I can see it not happening is if weather conditions endanger the vessel or if it is too far away. Hence the reason why this made the news - it is an exception.

It's arguable weather or not a captain will be necessary in a stateless society. For one, a ship without a captain goes against centuries of maritime tradition. And much like driving a car, if you are about to get into an accident, you don't have time to consult with the other passengers on the proper course of action. Though I imagine "captain" would be a trusted and experienced sailor elected by the crew, rather than the current "officers go to college/crews are uneducated" system where you often see experienced crew members with more knowledge and ability than junior officers.

I'd say if the captain intentionally violated one of the oldest maritime principles, he doesn't deserve to be captain. Also it needs to be discovered why if the captain wasn't notified, there was a breakdown in the chain of command. Or if the reason really was the company decided to violate maritime law and leave someone adrift just so as to not inconvenience their passengers for a short while.

As for the colors, ships fly various flags for different reasons, usually having nothing to do with the country of origin or the nationality of the crew. These reasons would no longer exist in a stateless society, so there wouldn't be any need for flags (maybe just one big red one:)) and ships would probably just adhere to an adjusted international law.

If you spend your life on the sea, you would likely rescue someone given the chance, because next time it very well could be you. And no amount of preparation can stop all accidents. I doubt the maritime traditions would be much different at all.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As something of a mariner myself, or at the very least someone who's lived around a lot of mariners, the idea that you don't give aid to another vessel that needs it is a very bizarre, pretty much unthinkable scenario...boats have been known to go out of their way by quite a bit, even into potentially treacherous seas, in order potentially give aid to another vessel if they hear a distress call go out on the radio and are in the same general area.

[dodger]

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=canibalism%20lifeboat&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CE8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FR_v_Dud ley_and_Stephens&ei=8WizT9-mLuOQiQLFg63GAg&usg=AFQjCNFSYXP3o_x6PY0pkBWbaUgNiESwLg

Above link gives a hint of how custom and practice, gets, enmeshed in common law--along with public opinion. No question, if a fellow mariner(s) is in peril or vessel, then such assistance as possible in circumstances must always be offered. Along with alerts over potential hazards-floating debris, etc.
There can only be one capt of a vessel.:tt2:

[Psy]

It's arguable weather or not a captain will be necessary in a stateless society. For one, a ship without a captain goes against centuries of maritime tradition. And much like driving a car, if you are about to get into an accident, you don't have time to consult with the other passengers on the proper course of action. Though I imagine "captain" would be a trusted and experienced sailor elected by the crew, rather than the current "officers go to college/crews are uneducated" system where you often see experienced crew members with more knowledge and ability than junior officers.

Yet the captain is not on the bridge at all times and even when on the bridge the captain is not steering the boat that is the job of the helmsman. So with having a captain the lookout has to communication spotting a contact with a distressed ship to the bridge then the bridge would have to find the captain and relay the captain orders back to the bridge, how is this faster then the lookout reporting the contact to the bridge and bridge as a collective making a decision?

[dodger]

Yet the captain is not on the bridge at all times and even when on the bridge the captain is not steering the boat that is the job of the helmsman. So with having a captain the lookout has to communication spotting a contact with a distressed ship to the bridge then the bridge would have to find the captain and relay the captain orders back to the bridge, how is this faster then the lookout reporting the contact to the bridge and bridge as a collective making a decision?

The capt is indeed not in command at all times, when not, he gives command of the ship to another. At sea it is indeed a collective endeavour whether a crew of 2 or hundreds. There has to be a chain of command for the safe running of the boat its cargo passengers if any and other ships. Accountability. Responsibility. If anyone refused assistance to a stricken vessel or persons they would be liable to a whole raft of legislation, national and international. Boards of enquiry. Public disgust. Owners might find themselves liable. Any incident can be reported and action taken...anonymity.
possible fear of blacklisting. The point is no reckless decision can be assured of secrecy, all are aware of its consequence both human and material.
.

[citizen of industry]

Yet the captain is not on the bridge at all times and even when on the bridge the captain is not steering the boat that is the job of the helmsman. So with having a captain the lookout has to communication spotting a contact with a distressed ship to the bridge then the bridge would have to find the captain and relay the captain orders back to the bridge, how is this faster then the lookout reporting the contact to the bridge and bridge as a collective making a decision?

If the captain is not on the bridge the OOD makes the call. And the helmsman is exactly that. He doesn't make any decisions about where to steer the ship, he follows orders. Same goes with the throttleman in the engine room regarding speed.

[Psy]

If the captain is not on the bridge the OOD makes the call. And the helmsman is exactly that. He doesn't make any decisions about where to steer the ship, he follows orders. Same goes with the throttleman in the engine room regarding speed.
This just add delays to reaction time, and in a emergency it gets stupid as the OOD becomes overloaded as crew has to confirm the bloody obvious with the ODD. For example Costa Concodia where crew didn't simply ignore the stupid orders from the captain and simply handle to energy themselves with a peer-to-peer command structure. For example why does the radio operator need the captain's permission to radio for help if the ship is sinking? Why does the helmsman need the captain's permission to head towards ships that can give aid? Why does damage teams need the captain's permission to start repairs?

[citizen of industry]

This just add delays to reaction time, and in a emergency it gets stupid as the OOD becomes overloaded as crew has to confirm the bloody obvious with the ODD. For example Costa Concodia where crew didn't simply ignore the stupid orders from the captain and simply handle to energy themselves with a peer-to-peer command structure. For example why does the radio operator need the captain's permission to radio for help if the ship is sinking? Why does the helmsman need the captain's permission to head towards ships that can give aid? Why does damage teams need the captain's permission to start repairs?

Fair enough. But what if your damage control teams disagree with the engineers? What if the helmsman disagrees with the navigator? What if there is a debate on the need to radio for help or not? What about simple, daily decisions? If your watchstanders are on 6 and 6 hour watches and all exhausted, do they want to have a part in making decisions, or would they rather be left alone and sleep?

Plus, your peer-to-peer command structure already implies a chain of command, eg; damage control teams. You don't need a captain to steer. But for example what if you want a particular speed and have to coordinate that speed from four different engine rooms, where the engineers are in the bowels of the ship? Someone has to coordinate that. So you've taken the decision making power from the captain and given it to the helsman. He is now defacto captain, except in addition he is stuck to the helm.

Me personally, I don't think ther eis anything inherently wrong with the idea of "captain." I'd just like the democratic ability to elect and recall the captain if he or she is incompetent.


Why does damage teams need the captain's permission to start repairs?[/
In this situation, for example, what if you need to make repairs to one boiler, and the repair process involves isolating a particular system, for example if you have to shut down another boiler to make repairs to the first? This affects the potential speed and maneuverability of the ship, so the decision cannot be made by the engineers alone, but has to be run by navigation, etc. as well. There is potential for disagreement there, so who makes the decision?

[Psy]

Fair enough. But what if your damage control teams disagree with the engineers?

The task of damage control teams is to keep the ship afloat that takes priority of keeping power to the ship.



What if the helmsman disagrees with the navigator?

The navigator plots the course the helmsman follows that course in a safe manner.



What if there is a debate on the need to radio for help or not?

Why would someone object to radioing for help?



What about simple, daily decisions? If your watchstanders are on 6 and 6 hour watches and all exhausted, do they want to have a part in making decisions, or would they rather be left alone and sleep?

What simple daily decisions? Ships mostly operate on repetition.



Plus, your peer-to-peer command structure already implies a chain of command, eg; damage control teams. You don't need a captain to steer. But for example what if you want a particular speed and have to coordinate that speed from four different engine rooms, where the engineers are in the bowels of the ship?

Modern ships have computer control meaning the helmsman can coordinate the engines via the computer that controls the engine, i.e if the helmsman want one propeller forward, the other in reverse to increase turning radius he just tells the computers to do that.




Someone has to coordinate that. So you've taken the decision making power from the captain and given it to the helsman. He is now defacto captain, except in addition he is stuck to the helm.

The ship computer coordinate relaying status and commands.



Me personally, I don't think ther eis anything inherently wrong with the idea of "captain." I'd just like the democratic ability to elect and recall the captain if he or she is incompetent.
The problem with the idea of a captain is you are rolling up all the functions of ship operation into one person and remove initiative.

[citizen of industry]

The task of damage control teams is to keep the ship afloat that takes priority of keeping power to the ship. .

So what is going to power their pumps and their hoses, give them light to work in, maneuver the ship to take advantage of wind if their are fires, etc.?



The navigator plots the course the helmsman follows that course in a safe manner .

So your navigator is the captain now? What if a situation arises where they have to deviate from the course, e.g; an emergency like we are discussing?



What simple daily decisions? Ships mostly operate on repetition.

Supply and repairs some to mind.



Modern ships have computer control meaning the helmsman can coordinate the engines via the computer that controls the engine, i.e if the helmsman want one propeller forward, the other in reverse to increase turning radius he just tells the computers to do that.

Good idea, let's depend completely on computers. They never have any problems.



The ship computer coordinate relaying status and commands.

See above.



The problem with the idea of a captain is you are rolling up all the functions of ship operation into one person and remove initiative.

But don't ships operate on repitition? Anyway, you are just proposing giving those functions to a computer or navigator/helmsman.

[citizen of industry]

Anyway, in a communist, stateless society, if we don't like the captain we can just mutiny and make him walk the plank.

[Psy]

So what is going to power their pumps and their hoses, give them light to work in, maneuver the ship to take advantage of wind if their are fires, etc.?

Which is line with damage teams, unless the damage team view is to stop leaks and focus on stabilizing the ship and just be dead in the water and partially flooded rather then capsized and going down.



So your navigator is the captain now? What if a situation arises where they have to deviate from the course, e.g; an emergency like we are discussing?

That is within the helmsman role, the navigator doesn't draw an exact course and would be away of such deviation and be able to warn the helsman of dangers on the maps for the new heading.



Supply and repairs some to mind.

Mostly done in port and planned well in advanced.



Good idea, let's depend completely on computers. They never have any problems.

See above.

You do know astronauts depend completely on their computers and all space related accidents were not caused by computer error but mechanical and human error.



But don't ships operate on repitition? Anyway, you are just proposing giving those functions to a computer or navigator/helmsman.
No I'm proposing giving those functions to the stations and the computer allow for interactions between the stations.

[citizen of industry]

Okay, you've convinced me. Still, no skipper? Can't we just have a symbolic one, like a mascot? We'll have to ditch our spiffy uniforms:thumbdown:

[ckaihatsu]

As much as it's making me cry on the inside just a little to see comrades bicker over trifles (grin), this kind of scenario is actually a good premise in which to examine the social conditions of today and for a potential socialist society. It invariably helps to use specific examples which are either emergencies or emergency-like, for the sake of their importance and immediacy-ness.

Certainly nothing is ignorable when out at sea, so this scenario contains the precariousness that makes for good clinical lab conditions, so to speak. The voyage of a vessel is realistic, both as an example of production *and* as a metaphor.

What's at stake here is hierarchy versus consensus, as usual. Should we prefer to have a recallable designated representative, the captain, or would a flat-level array of cooperative roles be better? There are strengths and weaknesses to each -- arguably a single decision-maker *could* respond more quickly if a decisive decision is needed, but it may just beg the question and collapse back into general political contention anyway if the issue sustains heated controversy.

Standard work roles and procedures could be fine for the day-to-day, but an exceptionally severe deadlock could not be overcome unless a solution was improvised on-the-spot, without a hierarchical command designated in advance.

I'll leave off here since I don't have much else to say on the topic... yet.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think I would like to travel on a large ship without some sort of command structure in place for emergencies. There are tons of environments that would work well in a committee structure but Ships, passenger jets, nuclear power plants etc. are not some of them in my opinion.

[Psy]

I don't think I would like to travel on a large ship without some sort of command structure in place for emergencies. There are tons of environments that would work well in a committee structure but Ships, passenger jets, nuclear power plants etc. are not some of them in my opinion.
The Costa Concodia had a captain yet that fact didn't organize the crew better.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The Costa Concodia had a captain yet that fact didn't organize the crew better.

That's true, but unfortunately I don't think communism will rid us of stupid people. The command structure would be elected, presumably from the most competent members of the crew, not appointed by absentee authority.

[ckaihatsu]

Oh, yeah, remembered now why I jumped onto this thread....

The solution -- for this, as for anything political -- is *policy*. While the current system encourages the *commodification* of personages, as for political intrigue, careers, etc., a post-capitalist political economy would allow us to focus on the *objective* matters-at-hand so that we don't *have* to get so caught up in people and personages.

So now that I've written some words here I think that gives me full license to post another #$&*@%! diagram, which is why I'm on earth after all, because I heard from God Himself that I should, yadda-yadda....

= )


universal context

http://postimage.org/image/fn8hqaxrh/


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://postimage.org/image/35hop84dg/