Minor Factual Error[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

New Zealand Operating under Maritime/Admiralty Law[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Section on Maritime Law Programs[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

==

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)Reply[reply]

Hague-Visby Rules[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

i'm not sure.

I screwed up this page-can you help[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

minor change[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Jurisdiction[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Titanic[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

United States[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Feedback Request[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Misuse of sources[edit]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

History[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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 ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Categories