Church Vs. Auror Case Study

Church V. Hubbart Michael Floy CB 17 12.9.15 Facts: An American vessel named the Aurora was in waters reportedly “four to five” leagues off the Brazilian Coast. Portuguese officials seized the vessel, because they believed that ship unlawfully entered Portuguese territory and engaged in illicit and unauthorized trade. The ship’s owner sued on insurance claims to redeem the losses from the ships seizure but was denied as the insurance did not cover losses from illicit trade with Brazil. Issue: Is the insurance company liable for losses that occurred from the seizure of the Aurora? Holding: Yes. Rationale: A state is only able to regulate activities within their borders. This is includes territorial land boundaries and those in the sea. This authority is absolute as long as it does not go against treaties such as the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. In the ruling of the case it was affirmed that, “The seizure of a vessel, within the range of its cannon, by a foreign force, is an invasion of that territory, and is a hostile act which is its duty to repel.” Due to the fact that the Aurora was at least “within cannon range” the Portuguese had no reason to seize the vessel. Its location in the sea was not within Portuguese territory although it may have been near.
If such items were found then there a specific procedure and protocols that must be followed. During times of war, a government is lawfully allowed to search vessels for contraband that may be harmful to their wartime efforts. But even this has provisions. Unless the vessel is in territorial waters the vessel cannot be boarded. When Pain and England were engaged in war, the Spanish argued that they could do so to protect themselves but it was rules that they could not legally board any ship unless is was within a cannon’s range of their