94 the relevant coastline of Cameroon … is not longer than that of Nigeria. Therefore, there is no reason to shift the equidistance line in favour of Cameroon on the ground….223
The Court accordingly decided after adequate consideration of relevant points raised by the parties,that the equidistance line represents an equitable result for the determination of the area in respect of which it has jurisdiction to give a ruling. As it relates to „relevant‟ circumstances that might call for a deviation from the equidistance line in order to achieve an „equitable result‟ as required in international law, in Cameroon v Nigeria the ICJidentified certain geographical features- the concave nature of a coastline, a lack of proportion between a State‟s coastline and the area of its jurisdictional zone and effect of Island and oil concession practice, but it finally did not find that any of these features required it to deviate from the equidistance on the fact.
95 primarily because, there is no right of innocent passage from which foreign ships may benefit. However, where the straight baselines encloses as internal waters what had previously been treated as territorial waters, there may exist right of innocent passage.226 3.6.1 Jurisdictions over Foreign Ship in Internal Waters
In international law, a coastal State may exercise its jurisdiction over foreign ships within its internal waters. However the judicial authorities of the flag State may equally operate where crimes occurred on board the ship. This concurrent jurisdiction is evident in at least two notable cases of R v Anderson227where the Court of Criminal Appeal in the UK maintained that an American national who committed manslaughter on board a British vessel in French internal waters was within the jurisdiction of the British courts, even though he was also subject to the jurisdiction of French justice and (as well as American justice by reason of his nationality), and thus could be correctly convicted under English law. Also, in the Wildenhus’Case,228the United States Supreme Court declared that the American courts had jurisdiction to try a crew member of a Belgian vessel for the murder of another Belgian nationalwhen the vessel was docked in Port of Jersey City in New York.
In practice, it seems to be the fundamental position that a merchant ship in a foreign port or in foreign international waters is automatically within/subject to the local jurisdiction of the coastal State, except there is an express provision/agreement to the contrary. However, in a case where purely disciplinarian issues relating to the ship‟s crew are involved, which do not bother on the maintenance of peace, and good order within the
226UNCLOS Art.8 (2); Geneva Convention Art.5 (2).
227(1868) Cox‟s Criminal Cases 198<www.ic.gc.ca/app/cc/srch/nvgt.do?lang=eng8prtl...>accessed on 31 January 2014.
228Supra.See also Armament Dieppe SA v United States (1968) 399 F. 2d 794.
96 territory of the coastal State, the matter would by courtesy be left to the authorities of the flag State to regulate.229
The coastal State may out of considerations of public policy elect/choose to forgo the exertion of its jurisdiction or to exert the same in only a limited way, but in all, this is a matter resting solely within its discretion. But, as was pointed out in the WildenhusCase, and gathering from experience, it has been found long ago that it would be beneficial to commerce if the coastal States would abstain from interfering with the internal discipline of the ship, and the general regulation of the rights and duties of the officers and crew toward the vessel or among themselves. Consequently, it became generally understood that:
all matters of discipline and all things done on board
which affected only the vessel or those belonging to her, and did not involve the peace or disunity of the country, or the tranquility of the port, should be left by the local government to be dealt with by the authorities of the nation to which the vessel belonged.230
In the other vein, if crimes are committed on board a foreign ship of a character to disturb the peace and tranquility of the coastal State, the perpetrators of such offences have never
229M. N. Shaw, op cit, p. 494.
230L.Henkinet al, op cit, p.1282. The Position was also reiterated in Lauritzen v Larsen (1953) 345 U.S. 571, 585 – 86, 73 s. ct. 921,930, 97.
97 by comity or usage been entitled to any exemption from the exercise of the coastal State laws for punishment, once the local tribunals deem it fit to assert authority.
However, an entirely different approach exists where foreign ship involved is a warship, in which case, the authorization of the captain or of the flag State must be sought and obtained before the coastal State may exercise its jurisdiction over the ship and its crew. The position is so because of the status of the warship as a direct arm of the sovereign of the flag State. But, if any of such refuses to comply with port regulations, it may be required to leave the port and the flag State may bear international responsibility for any damage caused.