Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:56:57.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Limits on the Use of Force by Canadian Warships Engaged in Law Enforcement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

W.J. Fenrick
Get access

Extract

Warships are designed for fighting in war. In peacetime, the primary task of warships and of their crews is to prepare for war. At the same time, because they are a visible embodiment of force, they may, at the pleasure of the executive, be employed on other tasks where the display of force is useful, such as the protection of sovereignty or the enforcement of laws both domestic and international. Some countries — the United States is an example — as a matter of principle, do not use warships to assist in the enforcement of national laws. Others, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, do use warships for such tasks. As a matter of practice, however, Canadian warships are rarely used for law enforcement against Canadian vessels.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 18 , 1981 , pp. 113 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fidell, E.R., “Fisheries Legislation: Naval Enforcement,” (1976) 7 J. of Maritime Law and Commerce 351.Google Scholar

2 A number of articles discuss law enforcement in territorial seas and fishing zones. Generally speaking, they pay little heed to the specific issue of legal limits on the use of force. The normal practice is to refer briefly to the I’m Alone and the Red Crusader cases and then pass on to other matters. Some recent articles and books which discuss enforcement are: Stanford, G.B., “Canadian Perspectives on the Future Enforcement of the Exclusive Economic Zone: A Paper in Diplomacy and the Law of the Sea,” (1979) 5 Dalhousie L J. 73 Google Scholar; Wiegand, J.S., “Seizure of United States Fishing Vessels: The Status of the Wet War,” (1969) 6 San Diego L.R. 428 Google Scholar; Oliver, E.F., “Wet War — North Pacific,” (1971) 8 San Diego L.R. 621 Google Scholar; Johnson, B. and Middlemiss, D., “Canada’s 200-Mile Fishing Zone: The Problem of Compliance,” (1977) 4 Ocean Development and International L.J. 67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Middlemiss, D. W., “Canadian Maritime Enforcement Policies,” in Johnson, B. and Zacher, M.W., eds., Canadian Foreign Policy and the Law of the Sea 311 (Vancouver, 1977)Google Scholar; Tracy, N., The Enforcement of Canada’s Continental Maritime Jurisdiction (ORAE Report No. R44) (Ottawa, 1975)Google Scholar; Poulantzas, N.M., The Right of Hot Pursuit in International Law (Leyden, 1969).Google Scholar

3 For a more detailed discussion of rules of engagement, see the chapter on the subject in O’Connell, D. P., The Influence of Law on Sea Power 169 (Manchester, 1975)Google Scholar.

4 P.C. 1970–1512 of September 9, 1970.

5 Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, R.S.C. 1970, c.C–21.

6 SOR/77-62 of Januar1, 1972.

7 SS. 18 and 19, Coastal Fisheries Protection Regulations, c.413, C.R.C. 1978.

8 Northern Pacific Halibut Fisheries Convention Act, R.S.C. 1970 c.F-17. The Convention which this Act implements in domestic law has been amended to take account of the extended fisheries jurisdiction of both the United States and Canada. The Act has not been so amended.

9 North Pacific Fisheries Convention Act, R.S.C. 1970, c.F-16.

10 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act, R.S.C. 1970, c.F-18.

11 Customs Act, R.S.G. 1970, c.C-40.

12 24 Geo. III, c.XLVII; Masterson, W.E., Jurisdiction in Marginal Seas 85 (New York, 1929).Google Scholar

13 Customs Act of 1799, ibid., 190.

14 Fudge v. The King, [1941] 1 D.L.R. 313, 323.

15 National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1970, c.N-4. See also Zucker, S., “Extraterritoriality and Canadian Criminal Law,” (1974) 17 Crim. L.Q. 146.Google Scholar

16 P.C. 1976-1799 of July 13, 1976, amends QR&O Art. 22.01(2) as follows: (2) For the purpose of subparagraph (f) (ii) of the definition of "peace officer" in section 2 of the Criminal Code, it is hereby prescribed that any lawful duties performed as a result of a specific order or established military custom or practice, that are related to any of the following matters are of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and men performing them have the powers of peace officers :

  • (a)

    (a) the maintenance or restoration of law and order;

  • (b)

    (b) the protection of property;

  • (c)

    (c) the protection of persons;

  • (d)

    (d) the arrest or custody of persons;

  • (e)

    (e) the apprehension of persons who have escaped from lawful custody or confinement ;

  • (f)

    (f) the enforcement of warrants issued by the Minister pursuant to section 218 of the National Defence Act;

  • (g)

    (g) the enforcement of the Customs Act and regulations made thereunder; or

  • (h)

    (h) the enforcement of the Boating Restriction Regulations and the Small Vessel Regulations.

It must be conceded that this order is not unequivocal and an argument can be made that, since enforcement of other legislation is explicitly referred to in the order, personnel enforcing fisheries legislation are not peace officers.

17 See, for example, The King v. Smith (1907), 13 C.C.C. 326 and Maratzear v. C.P.R. (1920), 37 C.C.C. 297.

18 For stumbling policemen cases, see Robertson and Robertson v. Joyce (1948), 92 C.C.C. 382; Priestman v. Colangelo and Smythson (1959), 124 C.C.C. 1; and Beim v. Goyer (1965), 57 D.L.R. (2d) 253. For other cases on s. 25, see Woodward v. Begbie, [1962] O.R. 60, and Poupart v. Lafortune (1973), 41 D.L.R. (3d) 720. For a critique of s. 25(4), see McDonald, B. C., “Use of Force by Police to Effect Lawful Arrest,” (1966) 9 Crim. L.Q. 435.Google Scholar

19 Convention on the High Seas, Geneva, April 28, 1958, 450 U.N.T.S. 82.

20 The Ship North (1905–6), 37 S.C.R. 385, 395–96.

21 Unreported decision R. v. Tatsuya Ito, BCCA, 164/75.

22 1976 C.T.S. No. 4) 1976 C.T.S. No. 5) 1976 C.T.S. No. 7, 1976 C.T.S. No. 6.

23 1977 C.T.S. No. 28, 1977 C.T.S. No. 17, 1977 C.T.S. No. 30, 1978 C.T.S. No. 8, 1977 C.T.S. No. 21, 1978 C.T.S. No. 2.

24 ’953 C.T.S. No. 14 as amended by a Protocol ratified October 15, 1980.

25 1953 C.T.S. No. 3.

26 1979 C.T.S. No.11.

27 1950 C.T.S. No. 10, as amended by 1959 C.T.S. No. 4, 1966 C.T.S. No. 17, 1969 C.T.S. No. 34, 1971 C.T.S. No. 16, and 1974 C.T.S. No. 32.

28 Informal Composite Negotiating Text/Rev.2 A/Conf. 62/WP.10/Rev. 2, April 11, 1980, Arts. 55 to 75.

29 See Fulton, T.W., The Sovereignty of the Seas (London, 1911).Google Scholar

30 See North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, [1969] I.C.J. Rep., 3, 44-45 for a discussion of the transition from treaty to custom.

31 Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, [1974] I.C.J. Rep., 3, 23.

32 Note the comment in O’Connell, D.P., “International Law and Contemporary Naval Operations” (1970) 44 B.Y.I.L. 19, 73.Google Scholar While discussing fisheries zones, he states : “it is one thing to concede that the coastal State may require a foreign fishing vessel to leave the proclaimed zone, but it is another thing to say that it may arrest by force. It might be necessary to establish that the practice of states favoured this additional competence.”

33 For text of Convention, S.S. I’m Alone (1935), 3 R.I.I.A. 1609, 1611. For additional material, Claim of British Ship “I’m Alone” (Ottawa, 1935).

34 Para. 8 of U.S. Answering Brief, Claim of British Ship “I’m Alone” 63 (Ottawa, 1935).

35 The I’m Alone (1935), 7 I.L.R. 203, 205.

36 For support for this view, see Fitzmaurice, G.G., “The Case of the I’m Alone,” (1936) 17 B.Y.I.L. 82, 99.Google Scholar

37 The Red Crusader (1962), 35 I.L.R. 485, 497.

38 Ibid., 499.

39 Le Louis (1817), 2 Dods. 210, 3 B.I.L.C. 691.

40 Regina v. Serva and Nine Others (1845), 2 Car. & K.53, 3 B.I.L.C. 724.

41 Ibid., 3 B.I.L.C. 725.

42 For further discussion of the slave trade, see Lloyd, C., The Navy and the Slave Trade (London, 1949),Google Scholar and Wilson, H.H., “Some Principal Aspects of British Efforts to Crush the African Slave Trade, 1807–1839,” (1950) 44 Am. J. Int’l L. 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Extract from Report enclosed with Note from British Chargé d’Affaires to U.S. Secretary of State, June 19, 1923 contained in supra note 34, at 142.

44 Documents on Canadian External Relations, Vol. IV (1926–30), 467–82, (Ottawa, 1971 ).

45 Ibid., 479.

46 The Vinces (1927), 20 F. (2d) 164, 167.

47 Documents on Canadian External Relations, Vol. V (1931-35), 116-54 (Ottawa, 1973).

48 Nairn Molvan, Owner of MV “Asya” v. A.G. for Palestine, [1948] A.C. 351, 369–70. See also U.S. v. Dominguez (1979), 604 F. 2d 304.

49 Tracy, supra note 2, at 67.

50 (1964) 3 In’l Leg. Mat. 61–62.

51 Wiegand, supra note 2.

52 Kunz, J.L., “Continental Shelf and International Law: Confusion and Abuse,” (1956) 50 Am. J. Int’l L. 828, 837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 (1954) 51 U.S. Naval War College Studies in International Law 289–94.

54 Green, L.C., “Territorial Waters and the Onassis Case,” (1955) 11 The World Today 1.Google Scholar

55 U.S. v. Cadena et al. (1978), 585 F. (2d) 1252, 1256.