NCJ Number
162144
Journal
Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law Volume: 19 Issue: 119 Dated: (1989) Pages: 119-147
Date Published
1989
Length
29 pages
Annotation
Past and current United States law of jurisdiction over drug traffickers on the high seas is examined, with emphasis on the legislative and judicial developments that led to the 1986 Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, as well as judicial decisions since the 1986 law.
Abstract
The analysis concludes that certain applications of section 1903(d) of the law would not withstand a Fifth Amendment challenge on the grounds of due process. In addition, the United States has used a circular, boot-strap process to expand its extraterritorial jurisdiction. As a result, the United States engages in a practice that contravenes international law and that Congress and the courts justify by citing one another. The United States has been able to unilaterally expand its extraterritorial jurisdiction in the western hemisphere because of its power relative to Central and South American countries and the general desire among countries to stop illegal drug trafficking. However, whether it is wise to expand jurisdiction in contravention of customary international law is debatable. Finally, the United States practice of exercising jurisdiction over crew members of stateless vessels where no nexus is present and of using informal communications to obtain flag country consent are in apparent contravention of customary international law. Thus, the United States is placing its national concerns above the need for an effective international regime capable of solving many problems and is establishing a dangerous precedent for other countries. Although the exact extent to which United States practices conflict with international law remains to be decided, the effectiveness of international law, international organizations, and international drug interdiction efforts would improve if the United States took the time and effort to expand jurisdiction without creating real or apparent conflicts with international law. Footnotes