3 ms·
I'm not clear what Egypt's goal was by forcing this man to stay aboard the ship. Simply declaring him the guardian never made it so. He was never going to be ab
by sizzzzlerz 6y ago
I'm not clear what Egypt's goal was by forcing this man to stay aboard the ship. Simply declaring him the guardian never made it so. He was never going to be able to resolve the issues himself and it appears the owners have simply abandoned it and written it off. If Egypt can't get money from the owners, then, as owners of the canal, deny other of their ships passage through it.
- shadowgovt 6y agoIt's real hard to tell as a non-Egyptian trying to Google enough case law to understand it, but the best I can figure is that the precedent is based upon the assumption that the ship's owner has interest in how the ship fares while the ship is arrested. Ostensibly, the requirement of custodianship should be protecting the interests of the owner... But since the owner could sue Egypt if their ship is damaged while it is kept in the country's care, Egypt mandates someone the owner designates stand watch. ... but, of course, that whole arrangement is predicated on the assumption the owner cares, at all, about the fate of the ship or its crew. Which is, perhaps, a philosophical throwback to a time when ships were the entire livelihood of a town and not assets that multinational corporations own hundreds of.
- gowld 6y agoIn a state without civil rights, a hair to the side of a dictatorship, people don't have civil rights.