ABSTRACT
Criminal accountability must be applied in the context of sovereign jurisdictions, both Flag and Port State. The principle of State sovereignty defines the supreme authority within that territory, which is managed by laws in which no other State has any legitimate right to interfere, either in the making or in the administration of those laws. The crucial point is that neither a government nor any non-government organisation has the power to interfere in the administration of the law of another sovereign State, which has so often been the cause of tensions leading to the criminalisation of the Master. Case studies offer clear illustrations of the basic principles, showing how criminal accountability in a Flag State can come into conflict with Port State prosecutions, giving rise to tensions between them, which leaves the seafarer caught in the middle. Most notably, this gives some insight into how strict liability, demanded by international law for environmental spills, has failed to serve the normative ethics of Port States to punish the Master, as a result of which they have abandoned the spirit of the Conventions.
