Brief Fact Summary. For the crime committed overseas, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. While within foreign waters, where the local sovereign has not asserted its jurisdiction, the United States (P) may define and punish offenses committed by its own citizens on its vessels.
In the absence of any controlling treaty provision, and any assertion of jurisdiction by the territorial sovereign, it is the duty of the courts of the United States to apply to offenses committed by its citizens on vessels flying its flag, its own statutes, interpreted in the light of recognized principles of international law.
View Full Point of LawIssue. While within foreign waters, where the local sovereign has not asserted its jurisdiction, can the United States (P) define and punish offenses committed by its own citizens on its vessels?
Held. (Stone, J) Yes. While within foreign waters, where the local sovereign has not asserted its jurisdiction, the United States (P) may define and punish offenses committed by its own citizens on its vessels. A merchant vessel is taken to be part of the territory whose flag it flies and does not lose that character when it navigates water within the territorial limits of another sovereignty. The onus now lies on the U.S. courts to apply its own statutes to the offenses committed by its citizens on vessels flying its own flag. These statutes are however interpreted in the light of recognized principles of international law. Reversed and remanded.
Discussion. According to the Court, the indictment charged an offense within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. The local authorities would have jurisdiction in the case of a serious crime if the local authorities claimed jurisdiction. The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction is based on the principles of international comity.