The associated ship and the jurisdiction to arrest such a ship created in terms of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 is a unique legal institution in the world of maritime law and jurisdiction. The sister ship arrest envisaged by the Arrest Convention, 1952 is encompassed by the associated ship but the concept of an associated ship goes considerably further than the sister ship in going behind the separate corporate personality of ship-owning companies to their controlling interests and, on the basis of common control, providing that ships are associated. This status subjects them to arrest both in order to obtain security for court proceedings or arbitration, usually elsewhere than in South Africa, and arrest in actions in rem against the associated ship. This is in respect of claims arising in respect of other vessels in separate ownership. Although tentative consideration was given to a similar innovation when the Australian Law Commission undertook a review of admiralty law in Australia their legislation is confined to a surrogate ship arrest substantially along the lines of the sister ship arrest of the Arrest Convention. A proposal to introduce a similar institution by way of the revision of the Arrest Convention has not yet resulted in anything similar being introduced elsewhere. In South African maritime practice the associated ship jurisdiction has proved to be an important innovation, especially in conjunction with the power to arrest a ship for the purpose of obtaining security for proceedings in a foreign court or arbitration tribunal, and a substantial amount of maritime work involves associated ships. As an institution it has not hitherto been subjected to close scrutiny and the overall purpose of this work is to do that. It takes as a starting point the revision of South African admiralty procedure and jurisdiction leading to the enactment of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act and the introduction of the associated ship. This task has been undertaken against the background of the general development of maritime law, the attachment ad fundandam et confirmandam jurisdictionem under the Roman Dutch common law of South Africa and the action in rem available in South Africa under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890. The study reveals the common roots of these institutions in the Roman Law and the practice in maritime courts around Europe from the Middle Ages onwards and forms a part of the foundation for the proposition in the final analysis that South Africa has created an institution that is distinct from the English action in rem and having its own particular features derived from both its English and Roman Dutch forebears. The central analysis explores from a critical standpoint the justifications advanced at the time for the introduction of the associated ship jurisdiction and finds these wanting notwithstanding that they have tended to linger in statements in the judgments of the courts. Instead a policy-based justification is advanced that it is submitted provides a proper justification for the associated ship jurisdiction in the South African context. Being based upon policy considerations it is not suggested that this justification is universally applicable or demands the same response from all nations, as each will be influenced by different factors depending on the nature of the maritime interests of the country considering such an institution. This is likely to hamper attempts to obtain international agreement on a similar jurisdiction to arrest vessels going beyond the provisions of the Arrest Convention. In the light of the suggested justification of the associated ship jurisdiction the Act itself is analysed and various difficulties of interpretation are addressed. These include a critical analysis of certain controversial decisions and a consideration of the constitutional implications of the associated ship. Finally the different threads are brought together in an analysis of the nature and consequences of the arrest of an associated ship and the action in rem against the associated ship. The fact that the jurisdiction has been harnessed to two distinct purposes having entirely different features is highlighted. Although maritime law always has a significant international dimension the fact that the associated ship is a uniquely South African institution means that the analysis is largely driven by the underlying principles of South African law and principles. The view is taken that the statute is a South African statute governing matters of the jurisdiction of South African courts and as such falls to be construed in the light of South African legal principles. The too ready resort on questions of interpretation (as opposed to substantive law where it is mandated as being the / Thesis (LL. D.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2010.

No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2008.

No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Natal, Durban, 1994.

From a survey of media reports and other documentary sources, illicit drug trafficking and trade seems to be a prevalent problem in South Africa today. Drugs are being shipped undetected in containers, which poses a significant threat to maritime security. The drug trade is also having a negative impact upon one of South Africa's valuable resources, abalone. It appears that there is a substantial nexus between the poaching of abalone and the illicit drug trade in South Africa. Abalone is considered to be a delicacy in the East and research shows that a substantial amount of drugs in South Africa has originated from the illicit trade of abalone. v This dissertation will examine illicit drug trafficking and trade with particular reference to the maritime industry which facilitates this illicit trafficking and trade through ineffective security measures governing containerisation; and also through the abalone trade. A survey of media reports, articles, reviews, Institute for Security Studies papers, books and the World Drug Report 2012 set the scene of illicit drug trafficking and trade in South Africa as being prevalent and damaging to the country's security measures. A review of South Africa's domestic legislation and the international conventions to which it is party is necessary to determine whether the law governing illicit drug trafficking and trade is adequate to address the issues highlighted above. The focus of this dissertation will then shift to wards the issues surrounding implementation and enforcement of these laws. The enforcement and implementation of the law seems tainted by corruption, lack of skills and morale and inexperience and therefore these issues need to be addressed in order to fully combat illicit drug trafficking and trade in South Africa's maritime industry. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2012.

Modern maritime piracy is cause for major concern around the world. Although there have been preventative measures deployed by maritime nations to counter the crime, there is a need to develop an efficient regime to prosecute pirates. The general modus operandi that is employed by arresting-vessels is a 'catch-and-release' procedure, which means that there are no further steps taken to bring these pirates to account for their crimes. The purpose of this dissertation is to analyse the main challenges that face domestic judicial systems in prosecuting pirates of the high seas. Chapter 1 of this Dissertation sets out the parameters of the study, followed by Chapter 2 which will detail current international instruments that specifically relate to the crime of maritime piracy. This would include an examination of the successes and shortcomings of the piracy provisions of UNCLOS Articles 1 00 - 107, the recent UNSC Resolutions, SUA, and the IMO as well as discuss the 1MB PRC and other Regional Agreements in place to counter piracy and provide for the successful prosecution of suspected pirates. Chapter 3 will focus on the prosecutorial problems dealing with the crime of piracy that face judicial bodies around the world. The Chapter will highlight and discuss the various political and human rights issues that have discouraged the majority of states from prosecuting suspected offenders of this crime, as well as their reluctance to exercise universal jurisdiction over piracy. In addition, the recent Kenyan ad hoc piracy tribunal decisions will be discussed in order to assess the lack of uniformity in the interpretation and application of international law piracy provisions as against domestic law. Chapter 4 examines the South African Law and Policies in place that counterpiracy, and also considers whether South Africa could exercise jurisdiction over piratical matters. Thereafter, Chapter 5 proposes recommendations that may be employed in order to bring about a much needed uniform approach to the successful prosecution of suspected pirates. Lastly, Chapter 6, shall comment and conclude on the findings of the previous chapters. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2012.

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.

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

The legal nature of the bill of lading as a negotiable document of title has allowed it to provide the basis of a system in which bankers provide credit for the financing of international sales contracts on the strength of the security afforded by the goods represented in the bill. The sea waybill has appeared as a substitute for the bill of lading and, despite its nature as a nonnegotiable document, it can be employed in a manner which allows it to provide collateral security to banks. Multimodal transport documents which may be issued in negotiable or non-negotiable form assume the same legal role as the bill oflading or sea waybill respectively. The inclusion of specific articles in the 1993 Revision of the UCP relating to non-negotiable sea waybills and multimodal transport documents affirms their acceptability to banks financing international sales contracts under documentary letters of credit. / Law / LL.M.

The legal nature of the bill of lading as a negotiable document of title has allowed it to provide the basis of a system in which bankers provide credit for the financing of international sales contracts on the strength of the security afforded by the goods represented in the bill. The sea waybill has appeared as a substitute for the bill of lading and, despite its nature as a nonnegotiable document, it can be employed in a manner which allows it to provide collateral security to banks. Multimodal transport documents which may be issued in negotiable or non-negotiable form assume the same legal role as the bill oflading or sea waybill respectively. The inclusion of specific articles in the 1993 Revision of the UCP relating to non-negotiable sea waybills and multimodal transport documents affirms their acceptability to banks financing international sales contracts under documentary letters of credit. / Law / LL.M.