Enforcement Quandary in Maritime Crimes: Espousing the Tangle of Prescriptive Jurisdiction

Abstrak

It is inconceivable to have crimes without laws that prescribe or enforce them. There must also be an accompanying authority, either a state or an institution, endowed with the capacity to enforce these laws. For crimes occurring on land, it is generally straightforward to identify the entity with the legal authority to prescribe and enforce such laws. Through both qualitative and quantitative analysis, this research argues that for crimes occurring at sea—whether in territorial waters, internal waters, or the high seas—determining the state with jurisdiction is less clear. This complexity arises from the potential for multiple states to claim rights to prescribe, adjudicate, and enforce criminal laws regarding a given offense. Consequently, it is crucial to examine these competing or concurrent rights of states. This research also investigates whether, under international law, these rights are indeed concurrent or if one is superior to the others. Furthermore, the research assesses how states exercise these concurrent rights and resolve conflicts when they arise. The findings suggest that, in practical terms, one set of rights should be superior to the others rather than remaining concurrent.