Rechtenmedia.nl - Juridische Online Uitgeverij  Rechtennieuws.nl | Jure.nl | Maxius.nl | Parlis.nl | Rechtenforum.nl | Vacatures | MijnWetten.nl | AdvocatenZoeken.nl | Rechtentotaal.nl
» Energiewijzer « advertorial
Bespaar geld en stap over!
Energiewijzer.nl, eerlijk over energie.

Juridische vacatures

Meer vacatures | Plaats vacature

Powered by Jbmatch.nl

Inhoudsopgave
Nr. I
Nr. II
SPEAKING NOTE
Nr. I
Nr. II
Juridisch advies nodig?
Heeft u een juridisch probleem of een zaak die u wilt voorleggen aan een gespecialiseerde jurist of advocaat ?
Neemt u dan gerust contact met ons op en laat uw zaak vrijblijvend beoordelen.

Stel uw vraag
Geschiedenis

Geschiedenis-overzicht

Artikel speakingnote Briefwisseling tussen de Regering van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Regering van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika houdende een overeenkomst inzake jurisdictie over Nederlandse schepen die gebruik maken van de Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, Washington, 16-03-1981

Bwb-id:
Officiele titel:
Citeertitel:
Ook bekend als:
Soort regeling:
Wetsfamilies:
Eerst verantwoordelijk ministerie:

Geldigheidsdatum:
Ingangsdatum:
(authentiek: en)
The agreement between our two countries entered into today by exchange of Notes relates to jurisdiction governing the use of the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port by vessels registered in or flying the flag of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the personnel on board such vessels.
This port is the first oil terminal to be licensed under the US Deepwater Port Act of 1974. As you are aware, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom have already exchanged similar diplomatic Notes on the subject.
Although the text of the Notes states that jurisdiction in the deepwater port shall be exercised "on the same basis" as when in coastal ports of the United States, I should mention that during the discussions between representatives of our two Governments, the Netherlands delegation referred to the right to contest, under international law, individual provisions of United States laws in the same way that this could be done in relation to United States coastal ports. Specifically the Netherlands delegation recalled that, in connection with the ports in the territory of the United States where it fully recognised the jurisdiction of the United States under international law, the Netherlands might nevertheless wish to raise objection to certain aspects of the enactment or application of United States law on the grounds that it was not justified by international law, by an agreement binding on the two parties or by the relevant decisions of international organisations binding on the parties. This was true in every case where one state lawfully exercised jurisdiction over the vessel of another state. It appeared to the Netherlands delegation that the same would be true in the case of the jurisdiction specifically recognised by this agreement in favour of the United States in the case of vessels calling at or otherwise utilising United States deepwater ports. I understand that the United States delegation confirmed during the discussions that the understanding of the Netherlands delegation on this point was correct. The conclusion of this agreement is therefor without prejudice to the attitude of the Netherlands Government towards jurisdictional questions relating to other maritime matters.