Pitcairn trial
Monday, October 25th, 2004 12:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
"The men's lawyers had also argued that the Bounty mutineers, who settled on the island, stopped being British subjects when they burnt the ship in 1789." BBC News
This argument intrigues me, and reminds me of various arguments (throughout nautical literature but primarily, I suspect, from O'Brian) re a captain losing his authority when his ship is wrecked. (Does it count if you destroy the ship yourself?)
Any legal weight to this argument? Is severing one's nationality as simple, and symbolic, as this?
This argument intrigues me, and reminds me of various arguments (throughout nautical literature but primarily, I suspect, from O'Brian) re a captain losing his authority when his ship is wrecked. (Does it count if you destroy the ship yourself?)
Any legal weight to this argument? Is severing one's nationality as simple, and symbolic, as this?
no subject
Date: Monday, October 25th, 2004 06:27 am (UTC)However, I don't think the nationality of the islanders is particularly relevant. The more significant issue is wheter the island's claim of independance is valid. The burning of the Bounty may go some way as a symbolic act, but if there has been any case of the island requesting British help, this would probably negate this. Also, as the islanders were originally British, it can be assumed that British laws would apply, unless they have taken steps to enact contradictory laws.
no subject
Date: Monday, October 25th, 2004 02:07 pm (UTC)