4.6 Requirement for Vessel to Have Priority
When two vessels are approaching one another, they must show their status regarding maneuverability. The COLREG impose the obligation to display the requisite
shapes or show lights when a vessel is limited in its maneuvering ability. If a vessel
does not show the prescribed lights or display the required shapes, the other vessel
may not know the status of the approaching vessel.
As mentioned above, it has been an issue as to whether a vessel with engine
trouble can be regarded as an NUC vessel regardless of whether or not the day or
night NUC signals have been displayed. In the Korean Supreme Court case
2000.11.28. Docket No. 2000chu43,
10 the Court accorded the vessel that did not
display the requisite shapes, the status of a vessel restricted in its maneuverability by
stating that the opposite vessel could have known that the fishing vessel was engaged
in fishing if proper shapes were displayed; and accordingly, priority could be given.
In the view of the present author, the exception should be given in a very limited
fashion. If it is given too widely, the vessel in violation may unduly escape the
relevant sanctions.
4.7 Legal Status of Cuttlefish-Catching Vessel
In one case, a general power-driven vessel collided with a cuttlefish-catching vessel.
As a matter of usual practice, the latter vessel used a sea anchor from the bow to
resist the displacing effect of the wind. As such, it was somewhat restricted in her
ability to take avoiding action. In this case, the Central KMST considered three
COLREG priorities for cuttlefish catching vessel: that of a “vessel engaged in
fishing” according to Rule 3(d); that of a “vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver” under Rule 3(g) and Rule 18; and that of a vessel bound by “the ordinary
seamanship” under Rule 2. On October 21, 2003, the Central KMST held that the
cuttlefish-catching vessel is not within the definition of a vessel engaged in fishing
under Rule 3(d) because the sea anchor is not regarded as a fishing apparatus”. It
decided that such a vessel should have priority as a vessel restricted in her ability to
maneuver under Rule 3(g) and Rule 18 because the vessel was actually restricted in
her ability to maneuver. It explained that the vessel could not move astern because
her sea anchor produced heavy tension at the bow and about 10 min would be
required to remove the sea anchor and to get the engine ready for effective action. In
conclusion, the Central KMST decided that the general power-driven vessel in this
case did not comply with Rule 18 when it did not avoid the cuttlefish catching vessel.
It seems to the author that the Central KMST gave maximum protection to the
cuttlefish-catching vessel because a vessel engaged in fishing under Rule 18 is
required to keep out of the way of such a cuttlefish catching vessel.
10 In the M/V Taeyoung Sun collision case, the KMST also rendered the decision the same as the
Korean Supreme Court (Central MST 2000.5.10. Docket No. 2000-3).
384
I. H. Kim
When two vessels are approaching one another, they must show their status regarding maneuverability. The COLREG impose the obligation to display the requisite
shapes or show lights when a vessel is limited in its maneuvering ability. If a vessel
does not show the prescribed lights or display the required shapes, the other vessel
may not know the status of the approaching vessel.
As mentioned above, it has been an issue as to whether a vessel with engine
trouble can be regarded as an NUC vessel regardless of whether or not the day or
night NUC signals have been displayed. In the Korean Supreme Court case
2000.11.28. Docket No. 2000chu43,
10 the Court accorded the vessel that did not
display the requisite shapes, the status of a vessel restricted in its maneuverability by
stating that the opposite vessel could have known that the fishing vessel was engaged
in fishing if proper shapes were displayed; and accordingly, priority could be given.
In the view of the present author, the exception should be given in a very limited
fashion. If it is given too widely, the vessel in violation may unduly escape the
relevant sanctions.
4.7 Legal Status of Cuttlefish-Catching Vessel
In one case, a general power-driven vessel collided with a cuttlefish-catching vessel.
As a matter of usual practice, the latter vessel used a sea anchor from the bow to
resist the displacing effect of the wind. As such, it was somewhat restricted in her
ability to take avoiding action. In this case, the Central KMST considered three
COLREG priorities for cuttlefish catching vessel: that of a “vessel engaged in
fishing” according to Rule 3(d); that of a “vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver” under Rule 3(g) and Rule 18; and that of a vessel bound by “the ordinary
seamanship” under Rule 2. On October 21, 2003, the Central KMST held that the
cuttlefish-catching vessel is not within the definition of a vessel engaged in fishing
under Rule 3(d) because the sea anchor is not regarded as a fishing apparatus”. It
decided that such a vessel should have priority as a vessel restricted in her ability to
maneuver under Rule 3(g) and Rule 18 because the vessel was actually restricted in
her ability to maneuver. It explained that the vessel could not move astern because
her sea anchor produced heavy tension at the bow and about 10 min would be
required to remove the sea anchor and to get the engine ready for effective action. In
conclusion, the Central KMST decided that the general power-driven vessel in this
case did not comply with Rule 18 when it did not avoid the cuttlefish catching vessel.
It seems to the author that the Central KMST gave maximum protection to the
cuttlefish-catching vessel because a vessel engaged in fishing under Rule 18 is
required to keep out of the way of such a cuttlefish catching vessel.
10 In the M/V Taeyoung Sun collision case, the KMST also rendered the decision the same as the
Korean Supreme Court (Central MST 2000.5.10. Docket No. 2000-3).
384
I. H. Kim