Tulane Law Review
  • Main
  • Issues
    • All Volumes
    • Volume 87
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5 & 6
    • Volume 86
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Volume 85
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5&6
    • Volume 84
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Admiralty Law Institute
      • 2013
      • 2011
      • 2009
      • 2007
      • 2005
      • 2003
      • 2001
      • 1999
      • 1995
      • 1994
      • 1991
      • 1989
      • 1988
      • 1985
      • 1983
  • Events
  • Masthead
  • History
  • Purpose
  • Submissions
  • Order
    • Subscribe
    • Back Issues
  • Contact
Tulane Law Review
RSSTwitterFacebook
All Volumes | Admiralty Law Institute | 1999

Arrest, Attachment, and Related Maritime Law Procedures

William Tetley, Q.C. | Symposium

This Article traces the Admiralty action in rem back to its civilian roots in medieval Europe and shows how the action in England gradually diverged from the Continental model, beginning in the sixteenth century. The action in rem and the arrest of ships in the contemporary law of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada are outlined and compared to the civilian saisie conservatoire and its counterpart, the U.S. maritime attachment. Two relatively new procedures employed in modern maritime law in the U.K. and British Commonwealth countries–the Mareva injunction and the Anton Piller order–are also discussed. The author concludes [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Uniformity of Maritime Law, History, and Perspective from the U.S. Point of View

Howard M. McCormack | Symposium

This overview of uniformity in maritime law history and perspective from the U.S. point of view reflects the writings and thoughts of historians, constitutional scholars, and Supreme Court Justices, as seen in the early decisions of the Court on this topic as well as substantive commentaries from law professors and practicing attorneys. This overview is intended to explore substantive aspects of the law of uniformity in the United States as articulated in specific elements of the law that have been developed over the years, in an attempt to coordinate and harmonize the somewhat dissonant voices that have appeared in recent [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Maritime Personal Injury and Death

Robert B. Acomb, Jr. | Symposium

A short historical background reviews the jurisdiction of the maritime courts and/or compensation statutes that may be applicable. The classification of the maritime worker involving the worker’s status as a possible seaman and the classification of the vessel is important to determine under which venue the claim should be processed. The Article covers the damages that may be recovered; compensation when it is available; and the general maritime law rights to maintenance, cure, and unearned wages, together with a discussion of changes in the law that may occur in the millennium.

 

 

[Continue Reading...]

The International Safety Management (ISM) Code: A New Level of Uniformity

Antonio J. Rodriguez; Mary Campbell Hubbard | Symposium

Development of the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (known as the ISM Code) by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) reflects growing worldwide recognition of the need for uniform standards of safety on ships. The ISM Code contains the most far-reaching worldwide mandatory set of shipping regulations undertaken to date. For the first time, the responsibilities of shore-based management and shipboard personnel are integrated in a system designed to eliminate accidents caused by human error.

The authors explain the provisions of the code and examine its history, development and implementation, as well as [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Carriage of Goods and Charter Parties

Chester D. Hooper | Symposium

This Article describes the reasons that one of the drafters of the proposal by The Maritime Law Association of the United States to amend COGSA wanted to do so. It describes areas in which the interpretation of the present COGSA by the courts of the United States have differed from the interpretation by the courts of other nations. It also describes some of the proposed changes to COGSA.

The Article should assist practitioners to understand the need for the proposal and the proposal itself. It will explain why the proposal should form the first step in a two-step process by [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Managing Lawyers’ Risk at the Millenium

John A. Edginton | Symposium

This Article approaches the Admiralty Institute’s ethics component in a somewhat different fashion than the usual substantive discussion. The focus is on law-firm risk management. It is one thing to know what constitutes improper lawyer conduct, whether it be unethical conduct or malpractice. It is another thing to understand how to approach these concerns within the context of a law-firm to prevent them and to avoid the liabilities which may result from professional liability or disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, this Article first identifies prevalent areas of risk, discusses techniques of minimizing potential liabilities which can flow from such risks, and, most [...]

[Continue Reading...]

The Law of Salvage: A Time for Change? “No Cure-No Pay” No Good?

Geoffrey Brice, Q.C. | Symposium

Traditionally, salvage law in the United States and other maritime jurisdictions has proceeded on the basis of “no cure-no pay.” The means that a salvor receives no reward whatever his exertions or expenditures unless he preserves property having value. Given the cost of maintaining salvage facilities at instant readiness and given the frequent threats of environmental pollution, the traditional system may be found lacking. To maintain a system of salvage, commercially interested representatives have devised a new system known as SCOPIC. This system guarantees remuneration to salvors, under Lloyd’s Form, on a tariff basis in certain circumstances. This was an [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Recreational Boating

Daniel F. Knox | Symposium

This Article addresses the manner in which recreational boating cases have affected U.S. maritime law, particularly in the last two or three decades. The Article focuses on modification of case law concerning admiralty jurisdiction and preemption issues, the latter as it has affected the law of damages. The Article also covers the incorporation of the “reasonable care” standard in recreational cases, particularly those involving passenger claims, and briefly discusses expanded federal regulation of recreational boats and boating.

 

 

[Continue Reading...]

Federal and State Preemption Regarding Vessel Construction and Operation

Robert H. Nicholas, Jr. | Symposium

The usurpation of one body of law by another is not new to admiralty and maritime law. This battle was waged in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries between the common law and admiralty courts, and was not finally settled until well into the present millennium with enactment by Parliament of the Administration of Justice Act, 1970. In the latter half of the twentieth century, the United States experienced a similar phenomenon. Instead of a battle between the common-law and admiralty courts over areas of jurisdiction, however, the battle is between what has become to be known as the [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Third-Party Liability Under Opa 90: Have The Courts Veered Off Course?

John M. Woods | Symposium

Judicial expansion of liability under oil-pollution liability statutes is an historical fact. It is particularly evident with respect to third-party liability for oil pollution response costs and damages. In the 1970s and 1980s numerous cases under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act defined and redefined third-party liability in ways unanticipated by the maritime industry. Often these decisions appeared to be based on little more than a desire to assign maximum liability and responsibility to parties viewed as culpable or having the deepest pockets. Judicial modification of the statutory scheme was often aided, or caused, by a lack of coherent legislative history [...]

[Continue Reading...]
  • ← Previous Entries
  • Directory

    • Admiralty Law Institute
      • 2013
      • 2011
      • 2009
      • 2007
      • 2005
      • 2003
      • 2001
      • 1999
      • 1995
      • 1994
      • 1991
      • 1989
      • 1988
      • 1985
      • 1983

Contact

Tulane Law Review
Tulane University Law School
6329 Freret Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-6231
Telephone: (504) 865-5973 or (504) 865-5974
Facsimile: (504) 862-8858
E-mail: lawjournals@tulane.edu

Return to the Tulane website.

© 2012 Tulane Law Review

Search

Topics

Administrative Law Admiralty Jurisdiction Admiralty Law Antiassignment Clauses Antitrust Law Arbitration Child Custody Choice of Law Civil Law Civil Procedure Community Property Comparative Law Constitutional Law Contract Law Corporate Law Criminal Law Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Employment Law Energy Law Environmental Law Family Law Federalism and Preemption Federal Preemption of State Law Fourth Amendment Health Care Law Insurance Law Intellectual Property Intercollegiate Athletics International Law Judicial Review Law and Economics Local Government Localism Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act Mixed Jurisdictions Municipal Government Piracy Preemption of State Tort Law Property Law Right to Counsel Roman Law Software Transactions Sports Law Tax Law Tort Law