Talk:Maritime law

Minor Factual Error

In the section on salvage of treasure ships, the USS Monitor was listed as being sunk in the Chesapeake Bay, which is in error. The CSS Virginia was sunk by damage caused by the USS Monitor in the Chesapeake, however the USS Monitor sank off Cape Hatteras, NC shortly after the battle at Hampton Roads. The segment was changed to reflect that the Virginia is in the Chesapeake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.171.59 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Operating under Maritime/Admiralty Law

New Zealand has a clever system of law the the government is built around. It uses maritime law. This can be seen when you look at the layout and terminology used in New Zealand court proceedings. This suggests the New Zealand Government is a business and that the citizens of New Zealand are contractors to the business. Glass men shine (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Section on Maritime Law Programs

This section is really messed up. Wikipedia should not be offer "suggestions" on particular schools. Nor is the mention of Tulane appropriate. I've edited the section to try to fix some of the problems, but it still needs work. Arcolz (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that wikipedia shouldn't offer these sorts of suggestions, however I don't think there's anything wrong with listing where specific programs exist. An LLM in admiralty is unique (it's different from a J.D.) and that could be worth mention. That said, I'm not sure the whole section is relevant enough for inclusion here.LH (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

==

Should this article be the redirect for "Law of the Sea". I argue no. The UN law of the sea treaty (as negotiatied by Tommy Koh et al) is a separate but related article, IMHO. Other opinions? User:magicmike

Concur. I took a one-semester course in admiralty law and the Law of the Sea Treaty was never mentioned. The L.O.S.T. falls more in the catergory of international law. Ellsworth

the whole section on the history of admiralty law in England looks completely wrong as well. Francis Davey 29 June 2005 20:43 (UTC)

The United Nations LAW OF THE SEA is fully discussed at links below http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm .

==

Admiralty Law, as I understand it, is not properly considered a subset of international law. It's just another area of domestic law that every nation has, along with criminal law, tort law, property law, contract law, etc. The Law of the Sea, on the other hand, is international law. So I agree that Law of the Sea should not redirect here, and furthermore, I don't think this article should be part of the international law wikiproject. CoramVobis 20:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hague-Visby Rules

Can this article be really complete without more on the Hague-Visby Rules? Should there be a separate article on the Hague-Visby Rules? Legis 11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

i'm not sure.

I screwed up this page-can you help

I added material to this page which resulted, I assume, in the page getting too long and chopping off the end of the article.

I wasn't able to fix it myself. Can someone help?

By the way, the previous commentator is correct. The Hague-Visby Rules are important and need to be referenced in this article, and a separate article written about them. Rod Sullivan 11:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like TigerShark has fixed it. --Matthew K 23:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

minor change

Under Personal injuries to passengers, I changed the first sentence to "Shipowners owe a duty of reasonable care to passengers (for a broad overview of this theory in law, see negligence)." I feel that the link to Breach of duty in English law is useful; I am not as certain about how I linked negligence here. Anyone have a preference for a different method of pointing to negligence? --Matthew K 23:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a settled question of law. Kermarac was the Supreme Court case which applied a "duty of reasonable care" to a business invitee aboard a ship. Passengers are not "business invitees" and under the common law were and are owed the highest degree of care, since cruise ships are also common carriers. Rod Sullivan (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

There are a number of factual errors with the jurisdiction section of this article. I haven't examined other parts. As I attempt to correct some of these, please let me know if my changes are inaccurate. If this is the case, or there is disagreement, please let me know so we can find the sources so that we can verify the right answers.LH (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

While federal jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime claims is original, it is not "exclusive" except in the five categories of cases set forth in the article. In all other cases, jurisdiction is concurrent. I have made those changes, omitting the word "concurrent" since it might not be familiar to the average reader. [Contrib: Rod Sullivan] August 22, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod Sullivan (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at United States admiralty law as well. I think your changes are good. LH (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Titanic

In the Titanic, it mentions changes to maritime law(linking to the attached article, but no mention of what the changes were is mentioned here (or on the titanic article). I think this should be researched. Ultra two (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

United States

While I realize that the primary users of this service are mostly from the United States, the article might be better served by having a little more information on Admirality Law in other countries- it is an international law system, right? Perhaps reducing the US section and including some other info might be helpful- otherwise we're going to start looking like older editions of the World Book Encyclopedia or something. Caspiankilkelly (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have imported the U.S. specific text into a U.S. specific article. I have not removed it from this article because I think some discussion is required before removal. I believe the U.S. specific material should be merely summarized here, and then expanded upon in the new, U.S. specific article (United States admiralty law). LH (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have also restructured the article. I created a country specific heading and moved the general admiralty law material above it to the section "Features of admiralty law." This change should make it easier and much more organized to add country specific information as CapsianKilkelly has suggested. No substantive text was removed or modified during these edits. These changes roughly parallel the structure used in the Bankruptcy set of articles. They feature a primary article outlining the general principles on the topic, and then provide short summaries of more specific bodies of law and provide links to those articles. LH (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's called 'Admiralty Law' because most of modern day maritime law was first codified and spread to other parts of the world by the Admiralty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.99 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Feedback Request

I'm looking for feedback on the related page regarding Seaman (Seaman (Admiralty Law)) Any help would be greatly appreciated. Want2bsailing (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of . Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 5 edits by Jagged 85 in March 2010. Tobby72 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. Tobby72 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

History

I think the customs of Hanseatic league coudn't be one out of the earlier maritime laws.
In fact the Hansa was founded during the XIII century. In this period the major medieval maritime laws were already written: the Ordinamenta of Trani and the Tabulas of Amalfi, in the mediterranean sea had been written in the XI century; while the Role of Oleron in Northern Europe had been written in the subsequent century.
Previously, you have missed the roman Lex Rhodia de Jactu (included in Justinian's Digest), which is different from the greek Nomos Rhodion nautikon.
You've also omitted the Consulate of the Sea of Barcelona, the most complete maritime law of mediterranean Middle Age (1494).
Finally, you have missed the Ordonnance de la Marine of France (1681).
I think all these have been milestones in the evolution of Maritime law more than the Hanseatic customs. I regard the Pardessus's Collection des lois maritimes as the best compilation of historical maritime laws, still today. Check it!
Lele giannoni (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Admiralty law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add Template:Tlx after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add Template:Tlx to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120309181839/http://www.rotterdamrules.com/en/interpretation/ to http://www.rotterdamrules.com/en/interpretation/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613120809/http://docs.law.gwu.edu/stdg/gwlr/issues/pdf/Oliveri-76-5.pdf to http://docs.law.gwu.edu/stdg/gwlr/issues/pdf/Oliveri-76-5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Admiralty law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110319234559/http://www.admiraltylaw.com/papers/Dalspeech.htm to http://www.admiraltylaw.com/papers/Dalspeech.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304113652/http://www.u-paris2.fr/1230/0/fiche___cours/%26RH%3DMASTER1 to http://www.u-paris2.fr/1230/0/fiche___cours/%26RH%3DMASTER1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Admiralty law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120624013150/http://formations.univ-brest.fr/fiche/FR_RNE_0290346U_PROG20213/presentation to http://formations.univ-brest.fr/fiche/FR_RNE_0290346U_PROG20213/presentation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. A compelling case was presented that "maritime law" is the WP:COMMONNAME. There does exist some outstanding debate over whether "maritime law" or "admiralty and maritime law" would be a preferable title, but given the long duration and low participation of this RM, that question does not seem to be headed toward consensus. Instead, noting the COMMONNAME argument and the widespread desire for a title that mentions maritime law somewhere, I believe the discussion justifies a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close in favor of "maritime law". (Accordingly, no prejudice against further RMs seeking to move the article to "admiralty and maritime law".) (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Admiralty law → Maritime lawMaritime law – Per WP:COMMONNAME. According to Google Ngram, "Maritime law" has been used more frequently than "Admiralty law" since 1800. While the issue may be that of British vs. American English, even the UK govt. refers to it as maritime law. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 13:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• I am tempted to say that admiralty law is effectively a specific subset of maritime law. BD2412 T 01:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If admiralty law is a subset of maritime law, then Maritime law should be the article title and admiralty law should be a redirect, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Is one a subset of the other, or are they closely related and sometimes used interchangeably? Britannica says maritime law is "also known as: admiralty, admiralty law". The article says maritime law and admiralty are sometimes used synonymously but differ in their strict definitions. Wex Law's entry for maritime law points to the entry for law of admiralty, which seems to define maritime law, admiralty law, and law of admiralty as synonymous (and they do have a separate admiralty law entry). I'm out of my depth here, but it does at least seem appropriate to cover both topics in a single article. Ngram also shows a long standing preference for maritime law in British English, FWIW. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Support for Admiralty and maritime law, put simply, it's like immigration and nationality law, where both are similarly intertwined areas of law that are not exactly synonymous, so it would be better to combine them in the title.

On a deeper level, in this instance, the matters here go back to the Roman law legal difference between the notion of ius as compared to lex, where the ius (as embodied by admiralty) is broad informal principles that would include things like the concept of hostis humani generis, a term of art for 'enemies of mankind', deemed beyond legal protection, whereas the lex (as embodied by maritime) is specific formal policies that would include concrete things like Title 46 of the United States Code.

In this fashion during its time as the Thirteen Colonies, the United States had admiralty courts, which guided by admiralty principles, applied maritime law, and had chancery courts, which guided by equitable principles, applied civil law. Thus, these distinctions in this dispute here are more aptly compared with the relationship between the law of nations and international law, which appear upon cursory examination as though they were but mere synonyms of the same thing.

Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.