The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States federal law that provides for the promotion and maintenance of American merchant marine. Among other purposes, the law regulates maritime trade in US waters and between US ports. Section 27 of the Merchant Sea Act is known as the Jones Act and deals with cabotage (shore trading) and requires that all goods transported by water between US ports be carried on US-flagged vessels built in America United, which is owned by US citizens, and is inhabited by US citizens and US permanent residents. The action was introduced by Senator Wesley Jones. The law also defines the rights of certain seafarers.
The law is similar to the date of the Jones Act to the early days of the nation. At the First Congress, on September 1, 1789, Congress enacted Chapter XI, "An Act to Register and Clean Ships, Arrange for Shipping, and for Other Purposes", which limits domestic trade to American ships that meet certain requirements. The law serves the same purpose as - and is loosely based on - the English Navigation Act, which was eventually repealed in 1849.
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 has been revised several times; the latest revisions in 2006 included a recodification in the US Code. In early 2015, Senator John McCain submitted an amendment that would essentially invalidate the Act.
The Jones Act is not to be confused with the Death on the High Seas Act, a maritime law of the United States that does not apply to coastal waters and on land.
Video Merchant Marine Act of 1920
Goals and destinations
The purpose of the Congress is to ensure the maritime industry of the United States is alive and for national defense as stated in the opening of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920.
Opening
It is necessary for national defense and for the proper growth of its foreign and domestic trade that the United States must have the most complete and suitable merchant vessels of all types of vessels sufficient to carry the bulk of its trade and serve as an additional navy or military at the moment war or national emergency, will eventually be privately owned and operated by US citizens; and declared as US policy to do whatever it may be necessary to develop and encourage the maintenance of such merchant marines, and, to the extent possible inconsistent with the strict provisions of this Act, the Secretary of Transport shall, in the disposition of ships and property of delivery as given in advance, in the making of rules and regulations, and in the administration of shipping laws always always see these goals and objects as the main objectives to be achieved.
Maps Merchant Marine Act of 1920
Cabotage
Cabotage is the carriage of goods or passengers between two points in the same country, along coastal waters, by ship or aircraft registered in another country. Originally shipping terms, cabotage now also includes flights, trains, and road transport. Cabotage is "trade or navigation in coastal waters, or the exclusive right of a country to operate air traffic within its territory". In the context of "cabotage rights", cabotage refers to the right of a company from one country to trade in another. In flight terms, for example, is the right to operate within the domestic borders of other countries. Most countries enact cabotage laws for reasons of economic protection or national security.
The cabotage provisions related to the Jones Act restrict the transportation of goods or passengers between US ports to US-built and flagged ships. This has been codified as part of 46 U.S.C. Generally, the Jones Act prohibits any foreign, foreign-owned or foreign-flagged ships from engaging in coastal trade in the United States. A number of other laws affect coastal trade and should be consulted with the Jones Act. These include the Passenger Vessel Service Act, 46 U.S.C.Ã,§Ã, 289, which limits passenger coastal transport, and 46 U.S.C.Ã, 12108, which limits the use of foreign ships to catch or transport fish commercially in US waters. This provision also requires at least three quarters (75 percent) of crew members to be US citizens or permanent residents. In addition, foreign corrective steels working in the hull and superstructure of US-flagged ships are limited to ten per cent by weight. This restriction largely prevents the owners of the Jones Act from repairing their vessels in overseas shipyard.
Seamen Rights
The US Congress adopted the Merchant Sea Act in early June 1920, formerly 46 U.S.C.Ã,§ 688 and codified on October 6, 2006 as 46 U.S.C.Ã, 30104. This action formulated the rights of seafarers.
The Jones Act allows injured sailors to file claims and get compensation from their employers due to shipowner negligence, including many actions of captains or fellow crew members. It only operates by extending existing similar laws which allow for recovery by railroad workers and provided that this law also applies to seafarers. Its operative conditions are found in 46 U.S.C.Ã,§Ã, 30104, which provides:
"Any sailor who will suffer personal injury in his work may, in his election, retain acts for damages in law, with the right to be tried by a jury, and in acts such as all laws of the United States modify or extend the right or common-law law in personal injury cases to train employees will apply... "
This allows US seafarers to take action against shipowners based on claims of non-existence or negligence. This is a right which is not granted by general international maritime law.
United States Supreme Court, in the case of Chandris, Ã, Inc., Ã, v.Ã, Latsis , 515 U.S. 347, 115 S.Ct. 2172 (1995), has set a benchmark to determine the status of each employee as a seaman "Jones Act". Workers who spend less than 30 percent of their time in ship service in navigable waters are considered not to be seafarers under the Jones Act. The court ruled that every worker who spends more than 30 percent of his time serving a ship in navigable waters qualifies as a seaman under the law.
Actions under the Jones Act may be filed in US federal courts or in state courts. The right to file an action in state court is preserved by the clause "saving for applicants", 28 U.S.C. Ã,§ 1333. Seafarers are entitled to a jury trial, rights not granted in maritime law there is no law allowing it.
The US Congress adopted the Jones Act in 1920, formerly 46 USC Sec. 688 and codified on October 6, 2006 as 46 USC Sec. 3010. The Jones Act defines the rights of seafarers who have been recognized for centuries.
"Since the beginning of American civilization, the courts have protected the sailors described by the courts as 'unprotected and in need of counsel, because they are not thought and need pleasures, because they are easy to trust and obey and easy to defeat, they are empathetic admiralty wards.'"
Effects
The Jones Act prevents foreign flagged ships carrying cargo between mainland US and certain non-US parts, such as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam. Foreign ships entering with goods can not stop at any of these four locations, transporting goods, loading goods from the mainland, and continuing to the US mainland ports, although ships can lower cargo loads and continue to the US mainland without take additional cargo intended for delivery. to another US location. Typically, they head straight for the US mainland port, where the distributor breaks the bulk and then ships goods to US places from the mainland by a US-flagged vessel.
Arizona Senator John McCain called it "an ancient law that has for too long inhibited free trade, leaving the US industry less competitive and raising prices for American consumers." However, Congress consistently supports the Jones Act as vital to national security.
Some critics of the Jones Act have alleged that the Jones Act makes deliveries between US ports so expensive that some Hawaiian ranchers fly cattle to the mainland rather than having them loaded and shipped.
It has been argued that the modification of the Jones Act to allow US companies to purchase foreign-built vessels can reduce vehicular traffic on coastal highways, with deliveries that are much more efficient, safer and less polluting than transporting the same cargo as trucks.
Puerto Rico
A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York suggests that the Jones Act could hamper economic development in Puerto Rico.
In March 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study on the influence of the Jones Act in Puerto Rico stating "[f] the rate of return is set based on a number of supply and demand factors in the market, some of which are directly or indirectly influenced by the requirements Jones Act. "However, the report concludes that" since so many factors other than the Jones Act affect interest rates, it is difficult to isolate the extent to which shipping rates between the United States and Puerto Rico are affected by the Jones Act. " The report also discusses what will happen "under the full release of the Act, the rules and requirements that will apply to all operators need to be determined." The report goes on to say that "[w] initiators of this change are expecting increased competition and greater ship availability to meet the needs of shippers, as well as the reliability and other useful aspects of current services can be affected." The report concludes that "the GAO report confirms that previous estimates of the so-called 'cost' of the Jones Act can not be verified and can not be proven."
In May 2016 at the Washington Times , Rep. Duncan Hunter talks about the need for the Jones Act and why it is not to blame for the island's debt crisis. "With or without such efforts, it is important not to relate the issues of Puerto Rico's debt and the unrelated Jones Act, and to fully understand the importance of ensuring safe transport of goods between American ports." There must be recognition of the consequences of exposing ports and channels water to foreign sailors. "
In the aftermath of Hurricane Irma and Maria in September 2017, the entire island of Puerto Rico was left without electricity. On September 28, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security suspended the Jones Act for ten days to facilitate the recovery effort. A week later, DHS claims that there is no need to abolish the Jones Act, as ships that comply with the Jones-Act standard are available to move cargo.
US shipyard
Because the Jones Act requires all transport between US ports to be made on board US-made vessels, the Jones Act supports the US shipbuilding industry domestically. Critics of action describe it as protectionist, harming the economy as a whole for narrow interests. Other critics argue that the Jones Act is an ineffective way to achieve this goal, claiming it boosts shipping costs, increases energy costs, impedes competition, and stifles innovation in the US shipping industry - but GAO reports have denied this claim.
National security
According to one think tank funded by defense contractors and shipping trade groups, the Jones Act is vital to national security and plays a key role in safeguarding America's borders. The Lexington Institute stated in its research in June 2016 that the Jones Act plays an important role in strengthening US border security and helping to prevent international terrorism. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), which has been praised by the US shipbuilding industry for its consistent support of their economic interests, has written that the Jones Act is important to protect America's national security.
A 2011 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found there are about 5 million crew of maritime vessels to the United States each year, and "the majority of seafarers entering the US port are aliens." The study also shows that 80% of the seafarers are working on passenger ships covered by the Passenger Ship Service Act of 1886 rather than the Jones Act. GAO says that while no examples are known of the involvement of foreign seafarers in terrorist attacks and there is no definitive evidence of extremists infiltrated the United States on seafarers' visas, "the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) considers illegal aliens through US ports with exploitation of maritime industry practices of concern main. "
One of the main drivers for the law was the situation that occurred during World War I when belligerent countries withdrew their trade fleets from commercial services to assist in the war effort. This leaves the US with insufficient vessels to conduct normal trade that impact on the economy. Then when the US joined the war, the ships were insufficient to transport the supply of war, materials, and eventually the army to Europe that resulted in the formation of the United States Shipping Council. The US is involved in large ship building efforts including building concrete vessels to cover US tonnage shortages. The Jones Act was passed to prevent the US from having inadequate maritime capacity in the war in the future.
Exceptions
The US Virgin Islands, in spite of US territory, excluded from the Act in addition to section 21 of which was ratified in 1936 stating "And gives further, That the coastal law of the United States will not extend to the US Virgin Islands until the President of the United States will, by proclamation, declare that such coastal laws will extend to the Virgin Islands and set a date to apply the same. "This does not include USVI from the US Customs territory.
Likewise, the American Samoa region and the Northern Mariana Islands commonwealth are excluded from US customs territory and thus released.
The coastal town of Hyder, Alaska was also partially exempt from the Act after the revision in 1947, because the Canadian flagged vessel (but not a ship from another country) was released.
The territory of Guam is partially exempt from the Act because certain foreign vessels built (excluding the requirements built by the US in the Act) are permitted to trade freely.
Criticism
The Jones Act is protectionist, and results in much higher costs for moving cargo between US ports.
Opponents of the Jones Act argue that the US shipbuilding industry has suffered as a result. This gives ship operators an incentive to keep veteran ships made in the US rather than replacing them with new vessels. In addition, US shipyards have adapted to build only the ships required by the Jones Act operators, with price tags reflecting their all-American workforce. As a result, it is claimed that US shipbuilders have long sacrificed themselves from the international market for merchant ships.
A 2001 US Department of Commerce study showed that the US shipyard only built 1 percent of the world's major commercial vessels. The report concludes that the lack of competitiveness of the United States comes from foreign subsidies, unfair trade practices, and lack of US productivity.
In addition, critics point out the lack of a US-flagged international shipping fleet. The Jones Act, their claim, makes it economically impossible for US-flagged ships, built, and dredged to compete internationally with ships built and registered in other countries with crews willing to work for a small wage of peers - their US counterpart. get it.
"The Jones Act steals jobs from American sailors who can work on ships and coastal feeders." Rob Quartel, president of Jones' Reform Coalition.
Support
The supporters of the Jones Act argue that the law is a strategic economic and strategic war for the United States. The action, they say, protects the nation's sealift ability and its ability to produce commercial vessels. In addition, such action is seen as an important factor in helping to retain a trained workforce of trafficked merchant sailors for trafficking and national emergencies. Furthermore, the Jones Act, say supporters, protects seafarers from the sad living and working conditions that are often found on foreign flag ships.
Some supporters make the case that allowing foreign-flagged vessels to engage in trade in American domestic sea lanes would be like allowing foreign carmakers to set up factories in the US that do not have to pay salaries, taxes, or meet national safety or environmental standards.
Exemptions
Requests for the waiver of the Act and its provisions are reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security on a case by case basis, and can only be granted on the basis of national defense interests. Historically, relief was only granted in national emergency cases or at the request of the Minister of Defense.
In the midst of Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Minister Michael Chertoff temporarily freed coastal law for foreign ships carrying oil and natural gas from September 1 to 19, 2005.
In order to make an emergency dispatch of gasoline from Port of Holland, Alaska, to Nome in January 2012, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was granted a waiver to the Russian ice-class sea tankers Lda.
The Secretary of Homeland Security issued a conditional waiver of the Jones Act for oil product shipments, stock and additive mixing from the Gulf Coast Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADD 3) to New England and the Central Atlantic Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADDs 1 a and 1 b, respectively) for 12 days from 2 to 13 November 2012, following the widespread fuel shortage caused by Hurricane Sandy.
On September 8, 2017, the Jones Act was simultaneously suspended for both Hurricane Harvey, which struck Texas fourteen days earlier, and Hurricane Irma, who struck Florida that day. In the same month, the Act was abolished, after two days of debate, to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.
The waiver of the Jones Act
Requests for the waiver of certain provisions of such action are reviewed by the United States Maritime Administration on a case by case basis. Waivers have been given for example, in national emergency cases or in the case of strategic interests. For example, a decline in oil production prompted MARAD to grant a waiver to a 512-foot Chinese ship operator Tai An Kou to withdraw oil rigs from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska. The jackup rig will be under a two-year contract for drilling at Cook Inlet Basin Alaska. The neglect of Chinese vessels is said to be the first of its kind given to independent oil and gas companies.
The pressure provided by 21 farming groups, including the Federation of American Agricultural Bureaus, failed to secure the abandonment of the Jones Act after Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico. The groups argue that farmers will be adversely affected without additional shipping options to transport grain and oil seeds.
See also
- Flag of convenience
- The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 similar law concerns the transportation of passengers between US ports.
- The seafarers' status in admiralty laws of the United States
References
Further reading
- Beer, P. (1986). "Following the Jones Act". Tulane Law Review . 61 : 379.
- Bess, H. David; Farris, Martin T. (1981). US. Maritime Policy: History and Prospects . New York: Praeger. ISBN: 0-03-059419-7.
- Reeves, Jesse S. (1921). "The Jones Act and the Denunciation of Treaties". American Journal of International Law . 15 (1): 33-38. doi: 10.2307/2187934.
- "The Merchant Marine Act of 1920: Impact on American Labor" (PDF) . 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 26, 2007. Ã,
- The Research Service Report of the Congress RS21566 The Jones Act: An Overview .
- Sethi, Arjun, The Merchant Marine Act of 1920: Impact on American Labor (2005). Online Version
External links
- The text of the 1920 (Jones Act) Sea Law Act
- The University of Virginia Law Library, The Shipping Act, and the Merchant Marine Act 1920
- Witness by Deputy Marine Administrator on 15 September 1998 at the Support of the Jones Act
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments