Le transport maritime canadien a subi divers bouleversements au cours des dernières années. Les événements du 11 septembre 2001 ont induit un processus de sécurisation qui a eu des conséquences sur le mode de gestion de la navigation et des infrastructures maritimes canadiennes. Le cadre en vertu duquel la sécurité de ces dernières est aujourd'hui conceptualisée s'est donc modifié radicalement. L'hypothèse défendue dans ce mémoire est que le Canada a intégré sa nouvelle perception des choses en matière de sécurité à une politique plus vaste qui englobe des dimensions de toute première importance pour le pays, notamment dans les domaines économique, industriel et commercial. Dans cette perspective, le cas de la Voie maritime du Saint-Laurent s'avère intéressant pour comprendre l'ampleur des changements sécuritaires sur l'ensemble de la gestion maritime canadienne. Nous l'analyserons à l'aide des travaux d'Ole Waever sur les processus de sécurisation. Ce mémoire est divisé en quatre parties. Tout d'abord, il présente le cadre théorique utilisé pour exposer les principaux aspects du processus de sécurisation du transport maritime canadien. Ensuite, il explique les priorités établies par les acteurs industriels et commerciaux avant le 11 septembre, soient le partenariat, l'environnement et la sécurité, la gestion et les perspectives d'avenir. Puis, il esquisse le portrait du processus de sécurisation induit par les événements du 11 septembre. Finalement, il reprend les préoccupations telles qu'expliquées précédemment pour déterminer leur situation et leur importance pour les intervenants politiques, industriels et commerciaux post-11 septembre. Cela va permettre de comprendre le contexte dans lequel s'est développé l'actuel processus de sécurisation et de présenter les conséquences qu'un tel changement a actuellement sur la gestion de la Voie maritime du Saint-Laurent pour le Canada. Trois grandes conclusions sont tirées de ce mémoire. Tout d'abord, la question économique reste au coeur des priorités canadiennes. Ensuite, l'influence américaine prend de l'ampleur dans les choix d'Ottawa. Finalement, le Canada développe sa propre vision de la sécurité, tout en s'adaptant à la nouvelle donne nord-américaine et internationale, grâce au travail des acteurs industriels et commerciaux. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : Saint-Laurent, Sécurité, Maritime, Canada, 11 septembre.

No description available.

This thesis compares the arrest-of-ship proceedings of the Republic of South Africa and the Federal Republic of Germany. In German law the more than a century old provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended) are applicable, in South Africa the major statute is the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act of 1 November 1983. South Africa has special Admiralty Courts having jurisdiction in arrest matters. When issuing the arrest in Germany, jurisdiction is vested in the court dealing with the principal matters, as well as in the Magistrate Court (Amtsgericht) in which district the property (such as the ship which is to be arrested) is located. Both German and South African law provide that a creditor who wishes to arrest a ship must have a "claim for an arrest." In South African law such a claim is called a "maritime claim." South African admiralty law contains some special and even unique provisions such as those regarding the arrest of an "associated ship." These provisions attempt to defeat the strategy against sister-ship-arrests and enable the courts to arrest ships owned by the person who was the owner of the ship concerned at the time the maritime claim arose. The court can also arrest a ship owned by a company in which the shares were controlled or owned by a person who then controlled or owned the shares in the company which owned the ship concerned. Ships will be deemed to be owned by the same Persons if all the shares in the ship are owned by the same persons. A person furthermore will be deemed to control a company if he has the power to control the company directly or indirectly. Deviating from common law principles which require the physical presence of the property to be arrested, the South African courts can order anticipated arrests of a ship not yet within the area of jurisdiction of the court at the time of application. Such an order may be brought into effect when the property (in this case, the ship) comes within the area of jurisdiction of the court. The same principle is applicable in German law and does not contravene para 482 HGB because this provision only prohibits placing a ship under distraint and not the order for an arrest. In German law an action in personam is only directed against a person whereas in south African law a res, eg a ship or her bunkers, is the object of the admiralty action in personam. The Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act of 1983 attempts at uniformity with international law as it is based on several existing laws and international conventions, for example the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Arrest of Seagoing Ships of 1952. Unlike Germany, South Africa is not, however, a signatory to the International Arrest Convention of 1952. When applying German law, it has to be noted that Germany has ratified the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in CiviI and Commercial Matters of 1968 (the EEC-Convention) - this is particularly so when trying to enforce the arrest of ships. Regulations Concerning the limitation of liability in South Africa can be found in ss 261 to 263 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1951. In German law limitation of liability is codified in paras 486 to 487e of the Commercial Code (HGB) with reference to the International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976 (the 1976 Convention). This thesis shows that in certain fields South African and German provisions do not deviate or are at least substantially similar. This fact makes the application of both laws easier for litigants and lawyers, either for South Africans in Germany or Germans in South Africa. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Natal, Durban, 1988.

Thesis--Hamburg. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 188-205).

Texte remanié de: Th. doct.--Droit--Paris 1, 1997. / Prix de la Fondation pour la promotion d'études européennes et de l'Association universitaire hellénique d'études européennes (1999). Notes bibliogr. Bibliogr. p. [271]-298. Index.

Th.--Hist. et archéol.--Paris 1, 1987.

The objective of this paper is to investigate the Rotterdam Rules, and to ascertain whether South Africa should accede to or ratify them. In order to accomplish this, South Africa's current maritime transport regime will be examined, and existing "problem areas" will be identified. This will be followed by a comparative analysis between the Rotterdam Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules, which South Africa applies as part of national law to regulate the carriage of goods by sea. As a new maritime Convention, the Rotterdam Rules have attracted widespread criticism and support, and whether such is justified will also be considered. Finally potential considerations South Africa should take into account in electing whether or not to accede or ratify the Rules have been assessed from a political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental standpoint as at 31 December 2011

Certains Etats pratiquent la libre immatriculation, également connue sous le terme péjoratif de « pavillons de complaisance » : ils enregistrent des navires chez eux sans considération de la nationalité ou de la résidence effective des propriétaires, et leur permettent ainsi d’échapper au cadre légal de leur pays d’origine. Aspect de la mondialisation, le phénomène qui a pris de l’ampleur dans les 30 dernières années est aujourd’hui largement répandu, voire universel.Au-delà des aspects juridiques (chaque Etat organise son droit à immatriculer les navires), la libre immatriculation a des conséquences économiques fortes car la législation de l’Etat d’immatriculation – dit « Etat du pavillon » – détermine certains coûts ou certaines facilités pour l’entreprise qui l’adopte.Le présent travail propose une lecture de la libre immatriculation des navires en tant qu’objet récent de la science économique et tente, à ce titre, de lever le voile sur la portée de cette activité sur les pays d’accueil, en prenant le cadre restreint de petites économies insulaires de la Caraïbe, berceau historique de cette activité et des centres financiers offshore.Sur la base de données économiques sur 30 ans concernant 7 pays de libre immatriculation de la Caraïbe (produits intérieurs bruts et éléments des balances des paiements), la recherche menée montre qu’hormis peut-être le cas à approfondir d’Antigua, aucune corrélation significative n’existe entre le nombre de navires immatriculés et les gains économiques dans les pays d’accueil. Ces résultats vont dans le sens des critiques de la libre immatriculation : cette activité ne présente pas, en soi, un gain pour les petites économies insulaires étudiées. / Some States host Open Registers (also known under the pejorative term of “flags of convenience”): ships are registered regardless of their actual owners’ nationality or residence, and thus States enable them to escape from their country of origin’s legal framework. By being an aspect of globalization, this phenomenon has been growing up for 30 years, and is nowadays widespread, or even universal. Because each State fixes the conditions for implementation of its right to register ships, the phenomenon is a legal one. But it has strong economic implications too. Indeed, the laws of the State of registration – namely “flag state” – determine certain costs or some advantages for the company that adopts it, and can be attractive or repellent as for them.This work proposes an economic reading of the open registers of ships as a recent object of economics and tries to highlight the contribution of this activity to small islands’ economies, especially through some Caribbean examples (the Caribbean is by the way the historical cradle of this activity and offshore financial centres).Based on data concerning the last 30 years and 7 open-registry countries of the Caribbean (Gross Domestic Products and some items of the balances of payments), the research conducted here shows that, except perhaps Antigua, no significant correlation exists in host countries between the fleets registered and the economic gains : the “open registration” is not, by itself, a gain for small island economies surveyed.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited / The Seamless Maritime Concept is the need to treat awareness, security, defense in a comprehensive, cohesive manner. Continuing discussion of maritime homeland security and defense capability requirements and resources allocation fails to recognize the unique requirements of the maritime domain. Enormous thought and resources have been put towards enhancing maritime homeland security and maritime homeland defense readiness. Unfortunately, the efforts to date treat "defense" and "security" disparately, ignoring the necessity to include all maritime domain partners. The Seamless Maritime Concept suggests that incremental changes to processes, boundaries, and markets have little chance to dramatically improve performance. The Seamless Maritime Concept suggests a new way of addressing the problem. The Coast Guard's motto is "Semper Paratus" or "Always Ready." It reflects the quality of the people; the people will not let any obstacle prevent them from accomplishing the mission. Admiral Loy's "dull knife" declares the desperate need to re-capitalize the Coast Guard cutter and air craft fleets. And the Coast Guard's long standing record of success all combine to demonstrate that given some resource support that the Coast Guard can get it (maritime security) done. Conversely, failure to recapitalize will drive the Coast Guard toward obsolescence and preclude an opportunity to enhance the security and defense readiness of the maritime domain. / Commander, United States Coast Guard

En transport maritime international de marchandises, le contrat de transport maritime de marchandises est la convention conclue entre le chargeur et le transporteur. Mais, conjonctif, il n’inclut pas que ces deux opérateurs. Le destinataire bénéficiaire est contractant de droit parce que bénéficiaire de fait du contrat de transport. À partir d’un certain moment, c’est lui qui est le maître de la marchandise et qui commande l’exécution du contrat. En cas de dommage, il doit demander réparation au transporteur.Toutefois, pour éviter toute éventuelle condamnation, l’auteur du dommage peut, pour s’exonérer, faire appel à l’un des cas exceptés. Mais, ces cas restent largement discutables tant au niveau de leur nombre que de leur consistance. La solution est d’en réduire au maximum le nombre car plus brève est la liste des cas exceptés, plus la responsabilité est intégralement objective. Cette solution peut être rendue effective par l’adoption d’un système de responsabilité ne retenant que les causes d’exonération les plus graves seulement, qui ne peuvent pas être imputées au transporteur maritime et qui s’imposent logiquement à savoir le cas fortuit et la force majeure, l’état de la marchandise, le fait du chargeur et/ou du destinataire et le fait du tiers.Cependant, pour pouvoir demander réparation d’un dommage il faut d’abord le prouver. Il suffit au demandeur de prouver la production du dommage et le moment de sa survenance. Ce qui veut dire qu’il lui suffit seulement de prouver le dommage et que ce dommage s’est produit lorsque les marchandises étaient sous la garde du transporteur entre le moment de leur appréhension et celui de leur livraison, à destination, à son ayant droit telles que décrites dans le document de transport. En résumé, il doit prouver la réalité et l’importance du dommage subi à cause de la manière dont le transporteur maritime s’est acquitté de son devoir contractuel, en premier satisfaire à son obligation fondamentale et primordiale de fournir un navire en état de navigabilité et de maintenir cet état jusqu’à ce que le résultat promis soit atteint. Si le résultat promis n’est pas atteint, il demeure, en cas de dommage, responsable.La navigabilité est la condition primaire pour un navire. Elle serait au navire ce que la pensée est à l’homme. On pourrait soutenir qu’une personne avec des capacités mentales perturbées ou fonctionnant mal est un sujet à risques pouvant être atteint d’un dysfonctionnement quelconque et peut même perdre l’orientation. Cette personne sera, certainement, à l’origine de plusieurs litiges et affaires devant les tribunaux. Pareillement, pour un navire dont l’état de navigabilité est compromis. / In international transportation of the goods by sea, the contract of transport of goods is the act concluded between the charger and the carrier. But, conjunctively, it does not include only these operators. The beneficiary is contracting party of right because he is, in fact, the beneficiary of the contract of transport. From certain moment, it is him who is the commander of the goods and who commands (orders) the execution of the contract. In case of damage, he has to ask for reparation to the carrier. However, to avoid any eventual condemnation, the author of the damage can, to exempt, appeal to one of the excepted perils. But, these cases remain widely debatable both at the level of their number and their consistence. The solution is of reducing at most the number because the briefer is the list of the excepted perils, the more the responsibility is in full objectivism. This solution can be made effective by the adoption of a system of responsibility retaining only the gravest causes of exemption only, which cannot be imputed to the shipping company and which make logically it a rule to know the coincidence and the major forces, the state of the goods, the fact of the charger and\or the addresser and the fact of someone else (third party). However, to be able to ask for repair of damage it is necessary at first to avoid it is enough for the plaintiff (applicant) to prove the production of the damage and the moment of its emergence. What means that he just has only to prove the damage and that this damage occurred when the goods were under the guarding (nurse) of the carrier between the moment of their apprehension and that of their delivery, in destination, in his (her) legal successor such as described in the document of transport. In summary, he has to prove the reality and the importance of the damage undergone because of the way the shipping company settled its contractual duty, in the first one to satisfy its obligation (bond) fundamental and essential to supply a ship with seaworthiness and to maintain this state until the promised result (profit) is reached (affected). If the promised result (profit) is not reached (affected), he (it) lives, in case of damage, responsible. The seaworthiness is the primary condition for a ship. It would be in the ship that the thought belongs to the man. We could support that a person with disrupted mental capacities or working badly is a subject of risks that can be affected by some dysfunction and can even lose the cap. This person will be, certainly; originally at the origin of several disputes and affairs before courts. In the same way, for a ship, the seaworthiness of which is compromised.