DTIC ADA521116: Future Navies - Present Issues

0.18 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

ProfessorDaltonistheCharlesH.StocktonProfessorof
InternationalLawattheNavalWarCollege.Thisarticle
isbasedonherremarksforthe“FutureNavies”panelat
theNavalWarCollege’sJune2005Conferenceon“The
LawofWarinthe21stCentury:WeaponryandtheUse
of Force.” Professor Dalton lectures, researches, and
writesoninternationalandoperationallawwithanem-
phasisonlawofthesea,lawofarmedconflict,rulesof
engagement, and other legal issues of significance to
Navy, joint,and multinational military commanders.
Naval War College Review, Winter 2006, Vol. 59, No. 1
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
2006 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2006 to 00-00-2006
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Future Navies - Present Issues
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Naval War College,686 Cushing Road,Newport,RI,02841-1207 REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 25
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
FUTURE NAVIES—PRESENT ISSUES
Jane G.Dalton
T
he U.S.Navy is transforming itself to deal with a wider range of missions
thanthetraditionalblue-water,majorcombatoperationsthatithastradi-
tionallybeenequippedtohandle.1Thatemergingtransformationhasresulted
inanumberofnewprograms,technologies,andstrategiesthatraiseinteresting,
and sometimes complex, legal issues. Lawyers advising the Navy’s leadership
through this transformational process are analyzing these legal issues now,in
the present, to ensure that the future U.S. Navy is properly, and legally, orga-
nized,trained,andequipped.Thisarticlewilladdressfivetopicsofinterestfor
navalplannersandlegaladviserswhoarebuildingtheNavyofthefuture.
CIVILIAN MARINERS AND SEA BASING
The U.S.Navy currently maintains a force of approximately 550,000 full-time
employees,about35percentofwhomarecivilians.Atanygiventime,130-plus
oftheNavy’s283shipsareunderway,about45percentofthetotalshipinven-
tory.2In2004theChiefofNavalOperations(CNO),thenAdmiralVernClark,
directedtheNavytomaximizecapabilities,minimizepayroll,improveproduc-
tivity,andeliminateunnecessarybillets.3Onewaytomeetthosegoalsistore-
movesailorsfrombilletsthathavelittletodowithwarfightingandreplacethem
withcivilians.Atsea,forinstance,sailorscuthair,servemeals,maintaintheen-
gineering plant,chip paint—all tasks that civilians are equally capable of per-
forming, and in fact do perform at commands ashore. Placing civilians on
warships to perform those functions is a logical extension of the CNO’s guid-
anceandwouldfreesailorsforcombat-relatedactivities.
Accordingly,oneof theNavy’sanswerstotheCNO’schallengeisanexperi-
mentalprogramtoplacefederalcivil-servicemarinersonboardwarships.These
18 NAVALWARCOLLEGEREVIEW
marinersperformtasksnavalpersonnelhavetraditionallyperformedonboard
warshipsbutthatcivilianshaveperformedonboardnavalauxiliaryvesselsfor
decadesandonboardmerchantvesselsforcenturies—navigation,engineering,
and deck seamanship. For example, in early 2005 USS Mount Whitney (LCC/
JCC20)deployedtotheEuropeantheaterasthenewU.S.SixthFleetandNorth
AtlanticTreatyOrganization(NATO)commandship.4Oneofthemostsophis-
ticated command,control,communications,computer,and intelligence (C4I)
shipsevercommissioned,MountWhitneytodayismannedbyacompositecrew
of 157 U.S. Navy sailors and 143 civilian mariners employed by the Military
SealiftCommand.Thesethreehundredpersonnelrepresentareductionof276
fromthepreviousall-active-dutyNavycrew.“Bysupplementingthecrewwith
civilianmariners,”theSixthFleetPublicAffairsOfficereports,“theNavyisop-
eratingthecommandshipatareducedcostandemployingcaptureduniformed
personnel billets on forward combatant vessels.”5 Mount Whitney will be en-
gaged in NATO exercises and Standing Naval Forces Mediterranean maritime
operationsandwillbeavailableasacommandandcontrolshipforcombatop-
erationsifrequired.
TheNavyissimultaneouslypursuingtheconceptof “seabasing”asatrans-
formationalinitiative.SeabasingistheNavy’sanswertotheconcernthataccess
tobasesinforeignterritorywillbelesspredictableandmoreadhocthaninthe
past.Thisconcernisnotanidleorspeculativeone,asevidencedbyTurkey’sre-
fusalduringOperationIRAQIFREEDOMtopermitthe4thInfantryDivisionto
crossTurkishterritoryintonorthernIraq.
Theseabaseisenvisionedasasystemofsystems—aflotillaofshipsserving
collectively as a staging and sustainment area from which ground forces can
launchattacksashoreinanonpermissiveenvironment—sometimesreferredto
as“forcibleentryoperations.”Thoughnooneknowsexactlywhattheseabase
will look like in any detail,it will probably consist of a “network of ships that
wouldprovideartilleryfire,airsupport,suppliesandasecurehomefortroops
fighting on land.”6 The primary components of the sea base could include the
MaritimePrepositioningForce–Future(MPF-F)cargoship,thenext-generation
destroyer(DDX),theLittoralCombatShip(LCS),andtheAmphibiousAssault
Ship (LHA-R), in conjunction with existing guided-missile cruisers and de-
stroyers,aircraftcarriers,andsubmarines.7
OfparticularinterestforthisdiscussionistheroleoftheMPF-Fcargoship.
TheMPF-Fisdesignedasthereplacementfortoday’slogistics-forcecargoships
and would act as a floating logistics center.One report notes that it would be
“nearlyaslargeasanaircraftcarrier”andwould“accommodateheavy-liftheli-
coptersandperhapscargoplanesaslargeastheAirForce’sC-130.Itwouldbe
abletomovesuppliesandequipmenttothoseaircraftandothershipswhileat
DALTON 19
sea.”8Anotherreport,however,depictsaroledirectlyinvolvedincombatopera-
tions.ItreferstotheMPF-Fasareplacementforthebig-deckTarawa-classam-
phibiousassaultships,describingitasa“fightinglogisticsshipwithaflightdeck
bigenoughtosendhundredsof MarinesashoreinrotorcraftandlaunchJoint
StrikeFighters.”9
IftheMPF-Fismannedasprepositioningshipsaretoday,itscrewwillconsist
entirelyofcivilianmariners.Thereisnolegalprohibitionagainstmanningna-
val auxiliaries, such as oilers, ammunition ships, supply ships, and pre-
positioning ships, with civilians. In fact, these seamen have a recognized status
undertheGenevaConventionsas
Civilians who assist in operating and main- “civiliansaccompanyingtheforce”
taining a warship engaged in international and are entitled to prisoner-of-
armed conflict might be viewed as having lost war status if captured.10 Issues
their protected status. arise, however, if the MPF-F is
indeed to become part of the
“assault echelon”—if Marines or soldiers actually launch from the ship into
combatoperationsashore.SimilarissueswillariseifUSSMountWhitney,with
itshybridcrew,isemployedasaC4Iplatforminanarmedconflict.
Theissuesthatarisearetwofold.First,underconventionalandcustomary
internationallaw,awarshipismannedbyacrewunderregulararmedforcesdis-
cipline.Second,civilianswhoassistinoperatingandmaintainingawarshipen-
gagedininternationalarmedconflictmightbeviewedasparticipatingactively
ordirectlyinhostilitiesandthusashavinglosttheirprotectedstatusascivilians
accompanyingtheforce.Thesetwoissueswillbeaddressedinturn.
Article29oftheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSeaandarticle
8ofthe1958ConventionontheHighSeasidentifywarshipsbyfourcharacteris-
tics:theybelongtothearmedforcesofastate;theybearexternalmarksdistin-
guishing warships of their nationality; they are commanded by officers who
havebeendulycommissionedbythegovernmentofthestateandwhosenames
appear in the appropriate service lists or equivalents;and they are manned by
crewsunderregulararmedforcesdiscipline.11Thesecharacteristicsoriginated
inthe1856DeclarationofParis,whichabolishedprivateering,andHagueCon-
vention VII, which established the conditions for converting merchant ships
intowarships.12Therulesservedtodistinguishbonafidewarshipsfrompriva-
teers,whichoperatedfrommotivesofpersonalgain,byclearlyestablishingthat
thewarshipsoperateonbehalfofastate.Theyalsofurtheredtherequirementin
HagueVIIthatwarshipsaretoobservethelawsandcustomsofwar.Thesefour
characteristicsaresouniversallyidentifiedwithwarshipsthroughouttheworld
thattheymaybesaidtohaveattainedthestatusofcustomaryinternationallaw.
20 NAVALWARCOLLEGEREVIEW
Left undefined, however, is what the phrase “manned by a crew” actually
meansinpractice.ManyU.S.Navywarshipstodayhaveciviliansonboardina
varietyofcapacities—astechnicalrepresentatives,scienceadvisers,contractors.
Undercustomarypractice,warshipshavelongcarriedciviliansonboard.Inthe
War of 1812, for example, Commodore Stephen Decatur’s ship, the frigate
United States, embarked female contract nurses to care for the sick and
wounded.13Themerepresenceofsmallnumbersofciviliansclearlydoesnotde-
priveawarshipofitsstatusasawarship.Buttheissuetakesongreatermeaning
ifathirdorhalfofawarship’scomplementiscomposedofcivilianswho,though
subjecttoaciviliandisciplinarysystem,arenotsubjecttotheUniformCodeof
MilitaryJustice.14Thereisno“brightline”rulethatdetermineswhatpercentage
of a warship’s crew should be active-duty sailors, but it is fair to say that the
greaterthepercentageofciviliansonboardperformingfunctionstraditionally
accomplishedbysailors,thelesslikelythatthewarshipwillbeabletomaintain
swiftandeffectivedisciplineoveritsentirecomplement.Inabilitytodisciplinea
creweffectivelycallsintoquestiontheship’sabilityto“observethelawsandcus-
tomsofwar”asrequiredbyHagueVII.
The first issue concerning civilian mariners, then, implicates the warship’s
ability to meet its international obligation to observe the laws and customs of
warandtosatisfythecriteriaestablishedforwarshipsinconventionalandcus-
tomarylaw.Thesecondissueisrelatedtothecivilianmarinersthemselvesand
theirstatusiftheyarecaptured.Oneofthebasicprinciplesofthelawofarmed
conflictisthatof “distinction”—thatis,combatantsandnoncombatantsmust
bedistinguishedsoastosparenoncombatantsasmuchaspossiblefromtheexi-
genciesofwar.15Acorollaryofthebasicprincipleisthatnoncombatants(civil-
ians) enjoy protections under the law of armed conflict unless and until they
takeadirectoractivepartinhostilities.16Civiliansaccompanyingtheforcecer-
tainlyassumetheriskofbecomingcasualtiesofwarthroughproximitytomili-
tary operations. For example, civilian mariners manning oilers replenishing
warshipsatseaareawarethattheplatformsonwhichtheyservearelegitimate
military objectives. The mariners themselves, however, retain their status as
“persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members
thereof.”Theycarryidentificationcardsreflectingtheirauthoritytoaccompany
theforce,andasnoted,theyareentitledtoprisoner-of-warstatusifcaptured.17
However,questionscouldberaisedastotheirstatusiftheyareemployedon
boardawarshipengagedincombatoperations.Unfortunately,thereisnoau-
thoritativedefinitionof“direct”or“active”participationinhostilities.18Purely
collateral duties, such as cutting hair, running the ship’s store, or performing
otherhousekeepingfunctions,maycontributetothequalityoflifeonboardthe
warship,buttheyarenotnecessarytoitscombateffectiveness.Ontheotherend
DALTON 21
of the spectrum, firing weapons, maintaining weapons systems, or serving as
membersofboardingpartiesaremoreakintoactualparticipation.Runningthe
engineering plant, navigating the ship, and operating small boats or cranes
could be considered collateral functions, or they could be considered actual
participation.
A sailor who needs a haircut can man the weapons systems or serve in a
boarding party; however, a ship that is not within its assigned Tomahawk
land-attackmissile“launchbasket”orisnotproperlyheadingintothewindfor
thelaunchof fighteraircraftcannotperformitscombatfunction.Further,the
warshipitselfisaweaponssystem,anditsfullcomplementisrequiredifthatsys-
temistobeeffective.Civilianengineersrunningthepropulsionplant,naviga-
torsplottingtheship’spositionandmovement,andtechniciansworkingonthe
missilesystemallcontributetowar-fightingeffectiveness.Itisdifficulttoargue
that any of these civilians are not contributing integrally to the combat func-
tions of the ship. It is conceivable that an opposing belligerent in an interna-
tional armed conflict could perceive them, particularly those engaged in
engineering,navigation,anddeckseamanship,astakingactiveanddirectparts
inhostilities.Thatsameenemybelligerentwouldbeunlikelytograntthecivil-
ian mariners combatant immunity and might choose to prosecute them for
murder,arson,orotherviolationsofthebelligerent’sdomesticlaw.
The above discussion posits the most extreme examples. To date, the only
warships manned with civilian mariners have been designated command and
controlplatforms,suchasUSSMountWhitney.TheMPF-Fshipsarestillinthe
planning stages,and it has not been determined exactly how they will be em-
ployedinthesea-basingconstruct.AstheNavycontinuesitstransformational
efforts,however,therewillnodoubtbecontinuedpressuretocontractout,or
seekciviliansubstitutionfor,moreandmoreadministrativeandsupportfunc-
tionsinordertofreeactive-dutysailorsforactualcombatduties.
To address both issues raised by the potential “civilianization” of warship
crews,theNavyhasproposedlegislationthatwouldcreateafive-yearpilotpro-
gramunderwhichcivilianmarinersemployedbytheNavywouldaffiliatewitha
specialreservecomponent.19If thelegislationisenacted,marinerswillremain
civilianfederalemployeesunlesstheirshipsareorderedintocombatoperations
ininternationalarmedconflict,atwhichtimetheywouldbeorderedtoactive
duty. In their active-duty status, the mariners will be subject to the Uniform
Code of Military Justice,thus making the entire crew subject to armed forces
discipline.Further,ifcaptured,theywouldbemembersoftheactive-dutyforce,
entitledassuchnotonlytoprisoner-of-warstatusbutalsotocombatantimmu-
nity for any belligerent acts in which the warship had engaged.There may be
otherwaystoapproachtheinternationallawconcernsraisedbyplacinghybrid
22 NAVALWARCOLLEGEREVIEW
crews on warships,but the proposed legislation is attractive in that it resolves
bothissuessatisfactorilyandprovidesthecivilianmarinerswiththehighestde-
greeofprotectionunderinternationallawintheeventtheyarecapturedduring
belligerentoperations.
UNMANNED AERIAL AND UNDERWATER SYSTEMS
InApril2005,GeneralJohnJumper,U.S.AirForce,reportedthattherewereover
750unmannedaerialvehiclesoperatinginIraq.20Ataboutthesametime,the
U.S.Navydeployeditsfirstoperationalunmannedunderseavehicle,theRemote
MinehuntingSystem(RMS),toidentifyandchartsuspiciousobjectsinKhwar
AbdAllahChannelattheIraqiportofUmmQasr.21Mostarefamiliartodaywith
theuseof thePredatorunmannedaerialvehicleasaprecisionweaponinIraq,
Afghanistan,andYemen.22Thereistalkofafutureunmannedaerialsystemthat
wouldtrackandengagetargetswithouta“manintheloop.”23Therelativelow
cost,easeoftransport,technologicalsophistication,andabilitytooperatewith-
outacrewcombinetomakeunmannedsystemsthesurveillanceplatformand
weaponofchoicefortheforeseeablefuture;24thisapproachmayextendevento
replacingF-16andKC-135aircraftintheAirForceinventory.25
The use of these unmanned systems, however, raises a primary legal issue:
Shouldthesesystemsbetreatedunderinternationallawliketheirmannedcoun-
terparts—airplanesandsubmarines?Forexample,dotheregimesof innocent
passage, straits-transit passage, and archipelagic sea lanes passage apply to
them? Are they required to comply with “ColRegs,”the International Regula-
tionsforthePreventionofCollisionsatSea?Dotheyenjoysovereignimmunity?
Whatisthelegalframeworkforattackinganunmannedsystem?Acompletede-
velopmentofthesequestionsisbeyondthescopeofthisarticle—eachcouldbe
the topic of a scholarly legal treatise—but some of the answers are fairly
intuitive.
Take,forexample,acarrierstrikegrouptransitingtheStraitofHormuzand
employing an unmanned Scan Eagle intelligence,surveillance,and reconnais-
sancevehiclefora“channelsweep”mission.26TheStraitofHormuz,asaninter-
national strait connecting the Arabian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the
ArabianSea,is,alongwithitsapproaches,subjecttotheregimeofstraits-transit
passagethroughoutthestrait.27Underthatregime,therightofallstatestonavi-
gationandoverflightsolelyforthepurposeofcontinuousandexpeditioustran-
sit of the strait is unimpeded.28 While exercising the right of transit passage,
however,shipsandaircraft“shallrefrainfromanyactivitiesotherthanthosein-
cidenttotheirnormalmodesofcontinuousandexpeditioustransit.”29
Accordingly,inanalyzingwhetheracarrierstrikegroupmayemployarecon-
naissancevehicleduringstraits-transitpassage,thequestionisnotwhether
DALTON 23
the vehicle is manned or unmanned but whether it is consistent with the
strike group’s “continuous and expeditious transit”in its “normal mode”of
operation.30TheCommander’sHandbookontheLawofNavalOperationspro-
videsthatthenormalmodeofoperationforsurfaceshipsincludes“transitina
mannerconsistentwithsoundnavigationalpracticesandthesecurityoftheforce,
includingformationsteamingandthelaunchingandrecoveryofaircraft.”31The
San Remo Manual holds, in connection with straits-transit passage during
armedconflict,thatbelligerents“arepermittedtotakedefensivemeasurescon-
sistentwiththeirsecurity,includinglaunchingandrecoveryof aircraft,screen
formationsteaming,andacousticandelectronicsurveillance.”32
A Scan Eagle “channel sweep”is a surveillance mission for force protection
and navigational safety—normal operational concerns for all Navy vessels
wherevertheyaretransitingandwhetherthetransitisinpeacetime,inaperiod
of heightened tensions, or during an armed conflict. The need for defensive,
force-protection measures
is particularly acute when
Should unmanned systems be treated under
transiting in proximity to
international law like their manned counterparts?
landandinhigh-trafficareas,
such as straits, where an
“asymmetric”enemy (such as a terrorist) could strike without warning.33 Ac-
cordingly, employment of the Scan Eagle in a force-protection and safety-of-
navigationsurveillanceandreconnaissancemodeiscompletelyconsistentwith
theregimeofstraits-transitpassage.Thevehiclemaybelaunchedfromtheair-
craftcarrieroranothersurfaceplatform.Anunmannedunderseavehiclecould
operateforthesamepurposessubmerged,if thatisconsistentwithitsnormal
modeofoperation.Thesamewouldapplyifthestrikegroupwereoperatingin
archipelagic-sea-lanestransitthroughanarchipelagicnation.
Itmustbenoted,however,thattheScanEagleisalsoanintelligence-gathering
platform.Therulesconcerningstraits-transitpassageprovidethatpassagemust
be,aswehaveseen,“solelyforthepurposeofcontinuousandexpeditioustran-
sit of the strait”;34 further,states are to “refrain from any activities other than
thoseincidenttotheirnormalmodesofcontinuousandexpeditioustransitun-
lessrenderednecessarybyforcemajeureorbydistress.”35Statesarealsotorefrain
from “the threat or use of force against the sovereignty,territorial integrity or
politicalindependenceofStatesborderingthestrait,orinanyothermannerin
violationof theprinciplesof internationallawembodiedintheCharterof the
United Nations.”36 Importantly, unlike the rules governing innocent passage
through territorial seas,intelligence gathering is not identified as inconsistent
withstraits-transitpassage.Indeed,someamountofphotographicorelectronic
intelligence gathering may inevitably occur incidental to the “channel sweep”
24 NAVALWARCOLLEGEREVIEW
mission.Thatwouldnotbeinconsistentwiththeregimeoftransitpassagesince
themissionisrelatedtosafetyofnavigationandsecurityoftheforce.37
Compare the transit-passage regime with that of innocent passage through
territorialseas.Whenengagedininnocentpassage,submarinesarerequired
to operate on the surface,and ships may not launch or recover aircraft or any
militarydevice;further,anyactaimedatcollectinginformationtotheprejudice
ofthedefenseorsecurityofthecoastalstateisconsideredinconsistentwiththe
innocentpassageregime.38Accordingly,acarrierstrikegroupengagedininno-
centpassagecouldnotlaunchorrecovertheScanEagleortheRemoteMinehunt-
ingSystemunderwatervehicle.Sincethereisnorightofinnocentpassagethrough
anation’sterritorialairspace,anunmannedaircraftlaunchedoutsidetheterrito-
rial sea would not be entitled to innocent passage over the territorial sea.
Consider,though,whetheranunmannedunderseavehiclelaunchedpriorto
entry into the territorial sea is entitled to innocent passage on the surface, as
othersubmarinesare.TheLawoftheSeaConventionprovidesthat“shipsofall
States...enjoytherightofinnocentpassagethroughtheterritorialsea.”39The
convention does not define “ship,”but it does define “warship”as “a ship be-
longingtothearmedforcesofaStatebearingtheexternalmarksdistinguishing
such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commis-
sionedbythegovernmentoftheStateandwhosenameappearsintheappropri-
ateservicelistoritsequivalent,andmannedbyacrewwhichisunderregular
armedforcesdiscipline.”40Arguably,theRMSvehiclefitsthisdefinitionif one
considersthatthecommandingofficeroftheshipfromwhichitislaunchedisin
“command”of theRMSandtheteamremotelyoperatingthevehicleis“man-
ning”it.Inanyevent,theRMSdoesnothavetobeawarshiptobeentitledtoin-
nocent passage,since the right applies to “ships”of all states.Webster’s II New
Riverside University Dictionary (1988) distinguishes between “ships”—rather
large vessels adapted for deep-water navigation—and “boats,” comparatively
small,usuallyopen,craft.ButWebster’salsonotesthatforlegalpurposes,aship
is“avesselintendedformarinetransportation,withoutregardtoform,rigor
means of propulsion.”Arguably, then, an unmanned undersea vehicle, if it is
considered a ship, could engage in continuous, expeditious innocent passage,
providedittransitedonthesurface,showeditsflag,anddidnotengageinintel-
ligencecollectiontotheprejudiceofthedefenseorsecurityofthecoastalstate.
A related issue is whether unmanned systems like the RMS are “vessels”that
mustcomplywiththeRegulationsforPreventionofCollisionsatSea.TheColRegs
applyto“allvesselsonthehighseas,”andtheydefine“vessel”asincluding“everyde-
scriptionofwatercraft,includingnondisplacementcraftandseaplanes,usedorca-
pable of being used as a means of transportation on water.”41 The ColRegs
definitionisalsofoundinAmericanstatutesandisgenerallyacceptedinadmiralty