Ensuring safety on the water according to the Maritime Charter of 1720 and in accordance with the norms of modern Russian legislation

Stashkov Ruslan Sabitovich ORCID: 0000-0002-9919-6271 Postgraduate of St. Petersburg University of the State Fire Service of the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters, named after Hero of the Russian Federation Army General E.N. Zinichev 196105, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Moskovsky Prospekt, 149 fpkrus@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The name of Peter the Great is associated with one of the most ambitious transformations in Russia in the late XVII – early XVIII centuries. As you know, the emperor paid special attention to maritime affairs, being the founder of the Russian fleet of St. Petersburg and Kronstadt.

The transformations of Peter the Great aimed at the economic development of the country were initially not intense enough, which led to a lag in economic, military and cultural terms compared with other European countries. The Russian state was in danger of losing its economic and political independence and becoming a colony or semi-colony of more economically and militarily developed Western European powers. This situation was aggravated by the foreign policy conditions of the country, which was cut off from the main sea routes. Communication with Western European countries through the White Sea was very limited. It was possible to eliminate this danger only through the development of industry and trade ^{[1, p. 5]}. The solution to this problem lay, among other things, in the plane of the creation and organization of the Russian fleet, for which an organizational document was needed, which became the Charter of the Sea, hereinafter referred to by various authors in the modern manner as the Maritime Charter.

The first Russian Maritime Charter, which was developed for several years with the active participation of the emperor himself, was approved by Peter I on January 13 (24), 1720 ^{[2, p. 23]}.

The prerequisite for the creation of the Maritime Charter (hereinafter also referred to as the Maritime Charter) was the interest of the still young Peter in the maritime business. At the age of 16, the prince found an old boat in the village of Izmailovo and, restoring it, Peter Alekseevich became interested in building naval vessels. The prospect of creating a codified Russian document on maritime affairs was served by the naval legislation of foreign countries that had quite a lot of experience in such matters.

Six years before the creation of a single maritime legislative act, the sovereign instructed to study the necessary norms of England, Holland, Sweden and other states for the analysis and implementation of a domestic, more advanced document suitable for our fleet. Such a study was conducted under the direct supervision of Peter I personally. As M.O. Akishin notes, "In 1713-1714, the Tsar acted with the initiative and the concept of codification of naval legislation, organized work on finding and translating English, Dutch, Danish, French and Swedish naval legislation, and then, in 1718-1720, created a Commission to develop a Naval Charter, which he headed himself" ^{[3, p. 27]}.

The Charter of the Naval Peter I became the most important legislative document of the Russian navy, consisting of five volumes, each of which is devoted to a specific topic (on management in the fleet; on the seniority of officers, flags and pennants; on the position of the commander and other officers on the ship; issues of law enforcement; on fines). This document included the rules governing safety on ships, incidents that could occur on ships, as well as the responsibility borne by the servants of the warship.

Let's look at the individual articles of the Maritime Charter that regulated safety on the ship, comparing them with modern standards.

1. Chapter one of the third book "On the Captain" of the Charter in question regulated the actions of the captain at various various events taking place on the ship at that time. Multitasking and responsibility in the management of personnel and the operation of the vessel in daily activities obliged the captain to be prepared for such service requirements.

So, in article 59 of the first chapter, called "On the signal for damage to the ship in the campaign", it says: "If a patrol flows, or for some other case it is impossible to follow the fleet, then it is necessary to make an indicated signal, and serve as a fine in the ranks for one month. And then those who are closer to that guard, according to the above-described signal, should immediately come to him for a recollection, a rise in the belly, if the teacher is in trouble. And if the trouble is not the teacher, but some loss, then he will be fined with another cruel fine, according to the law, and this loss has to be corrected." ^{[4, ch. 1, V. 59]}. This means that in the event that a ship is damaged and cannot follow the fleet, then, by the decision of the captain, an established signal must follow from this ship, informing other ships that it is impossible to follow further due to a malfunction or accident. However, if these requirements are not met, the captain will be punished for inaction with a month's service in the ranks. The captain of the ship closest to the ship from which the distress signal was received, in turn, is obliged to come to the rescue as soon as possible, and the punishment for failure to fulfill such a duty is more severe – the death penalty (if the ship sank) or a "severe fine" (for losses incurred).

The Code of Merchant Shipping of the Russian Federation, as well as in tsarist times, contains a norm obliging the ship's captain to provide assistance to any person in distress at sea. For violation of this obligation, criminal liability is provided from a fine to "imprisonment for up to two years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities." At the same time, there is a significant clarification in the disposition of the criminal norm: liability occurs only in case of non-provision of assistance, if its provision did not seriously endanger its vessel, its crew and passengers. As you can see, the fairly wide scope of criminal punishment (which does not even provide for a minimum fine) does not depend on the degree of harm to people caused by inaction on the part of the ship's captain.

In our opinion, the criminal punishment for the failure of the ship's captain to help people in distress at sea or on another waterway should be legally differentiated depending on the degree of harm to human health or death. Moreover, it is necessary to establish minimum penalties, and as the maximum punishment in the event of the death of the victim from the inaction of the captain of the court, who did not provide assistance, provide for the possibility of imprisonment for up to 10 years.

2. The book of the fourth chapter of the first "On good behavior on ships" contained norms regulating measures to ensure fire safety" contains article 21: "Smoking tobacco is dangerous" sounds like this: "It is forbidden for everyone to smoke tobacco after sunset and before sunrise, even during the time when prayer is sent. And those who want to smoke during the allowed hours, those who smoke near the focus scale, or where the commander of the carabinieri determines. And they must bring a bucket of water with them to extinguish an unplanned fire, with a fine, according to the judgment of the commander." ^{[4, ch. 1, v. 21]}.

In other words, this norm established a time frame, prohibiting smoking on the ship at night; allowed smoking in specially designated places, near the foremast or places set by the commander at a regulated time; provided for the mandatory presence of a bucket of water necessary to extinguish a sudden fire.

In the Russian Federation, administrative liability has been established for violating the prohibition of smoking tobacco, consumption of nicotine-containing products or the use of hookahs in certain territories, premises and facilities, providing for the imposition of a fine in the amount of five hundred to one thousand five hundred rubles, which, in our opinion, is proportionate to this offense.

Interestingly, in accordance with the Federal Law "On the Protection of Citizens' Health from exposure to Ambient Tobacco Smoke, the effects of tobacco consumption or consumption of nicotine-containing products", tobacco smoking is allowed "in specially designated places outdoors or in isolated rooms that are equipped with ventilation systems and organized on ships on long voyages, when providing services for passenger transportation".

3. The fifth book "On Fines" of the Maritime Charter consisted of twenty chapters, which contained rather strict rules of disciplinary responsibility, which included various kinds of punishments for misconduct and crimes related, including ensuring water (marine) safety.

3.1. For example, in article 47 of Chapter IV, which is called "Who will break his ships aground, or burn", the following is recorded: "If there is a captain, or some officer of the navy, commanding the ship, will lose his ships at sea, will be exposed to a stone, or to the shore, or will burn down from the fire, he is guilty to be taken for arrest. And if it turns out that this gibel has become his neglect, and for that he will be executed by death, or exiled forever to galley work, depending on the importance of it." ^{[4, ch.4, v. 47]}.

This article clearly regulated the essence of the offense and the circle of persons responsible for the death of a naval vessel: either the captain of the ship or a naval officer. The article identifies the causes and circumstances under which a shipwreck may occur, namely: breaking on a rock or shore, or a fire. There were also two types of punishment for carelessness, carelessness, lack of diligence and laziness: either arrest or the death penalty ^{[5, p. 124]}.

In the modern understanding, the stated conditions for punishment are negligence, which is present in the modern criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. The punishment provided for negligence (taking into account the possibility of recovery of material damage from the perpetrators) corresponds to the severity of the crime committed.

3.2. Article 48 of Chapter IV, called "Who does not take care of another guard, will damage" provided that "If someone takes care of another guard for lack of supervision, he will suffer a loss, and on the other hand has a fine to be paid for that loss, and in addition he will receive a single month's salary. And if anyone makes such mistakes and other mistakes, then he will be punished. And if you study in the third, then there will be a lot of commands and a lot of orders" ^{[4, V. 48]}.

In modern terms, the norm sounds like this: if someone, while operating a ship due to his inattention, allows damage to the property of another ship, he will be fined an amount equal to the damage caused and deprived of salary for one month, in case of repeated damage to another ship, he will be punished even more severely, and if such a situation happens for the third time, he will be removed from the leadership of the ship and deprived of the right of command, and will also be demoted in rank. This article regulates financial and disciplinary liability in case of damage to another vessel. The penalty is quite harsh, given that the repair of damage that one vessel can cause to another, even in the event of a light collision, requires large material costs borne by the commander. It should be noted that the Maritime Charter provides for only three possible cases from the described ones, with the onset of each, the measure of responsibility becomes stricter, up to the deprivation of the right to control the ship, but does not provide for cases of injury or loss of life when the vessel is damaged.

The Code of Merchant Shipping of the Russian Federation contains general rules governing the procedure for compensation of losses from ship collisions. Modern Russian legislation provides for criminal liability for violation of traffic safety rules and operation of marine and inland waterway transport in the event of serious harm to human health or major damage. The range of types of punishment under this article, depending, including on the degree of harm to human health, is set from a fine in the minimum amount of 100 thousand rubles to imprisonment for a period of eight to fifteen years (in the latter case, when the acts caused the death of two or more persons).

3.3. The following article – Article 49 of Chapter IV "If the carelessness of the guard is burned" reads: "If the carelessness of the guard is burned and burns, then the one who learns to lie will live. And if it is repaid, then on the one who has left, if an officer, or who has enough possessions, then add to the loss on him, which happened from that fire, and in addition deduct six months' wages, and this time serve in the ranks. And if you pay a loss for nothing, then serve him in the ranks without the salary of an officer, for the time being that loss will reward him with his salary, and at that time the salary will be only the salary of an ordinary. And if the rank and file is guilty, then he will be severely punished, and exiled to the galley forever or temporarily, as determined in the military court, if he pays for nothing" ^{[4, ch. 4, v. 49]}.

The stated norm is devoted to liability for the negligent attitude of a person who caused a fire on the ship or its complete destruction due to ignition. During the development of the Maritime Charter, responsibility for causing damage to a naval ship or its complete destruction due to a fire, namely due to a violation of fire safety, was separately highlighted. In case of complete destruction of the ship, regardless of position and rank, the culprit was executed. However, the responsibility of the guilty person will not be so severe, provided that the fire on the ship is eliminated and does not completely destroy the ship. At the same time, a more lenient punishment awaits the officers or a person who "has enough belongings" and "adds to the loss", that is, has a profit, revenue or any benefit, due to which he will compensate the loss caused to the ship ^{[6, p. 202; 7, p. 419]}. However, the Maritime Charter does not specify to what extent and in what way the funds and property allocated to repay the losses caused to the ship should have been assessed.

As you can see, there is a difference in the general position of an officer and a private, which depends on the ability of the perpetrator to compensate for damage to the ship. If the culprit of the fire is an officer, then he is obliged to compensate for the damage caused to the ship, and at the same time serve as a private, with the deprivation of six subsequent salaries, but nothing is said about his livelihood, which depended on the salary. If the culprit does not have the amount to compensate for the damage, he will serve in the ranks without an officer rank until he compensates for the losses, and will eat the same as other privates. The guilt of the private provided for liability in the form of cruel punishment: departure to the galley for a period determined by the military court, in the event that it would not be possible to pay compensation for the damage caused.

Russian legislation contains norms of administrative responsibility for violation of fire safety requirements, including on maritime and inland waterway transport, providing for the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of 1,500 rubles to 2,000 rubles, and on officials – from 4,000 to 5,000 rubles. Criminal liability has also been established in the case of destruction or damage to property by negligence committed by careless handling of fire. In this case, sanctions ranging from a fine to imprisonment for up to one year are provided for the perpetrator (depending on the severity of the crime).

Violation of fire safety requirements in transport, especially on water vessels, which lead to a fire, significantly increases the risk of causing damage to human health, and in some cases lead to death. The problems arising from non-compliance with fire safety requirements on sea or river vessels, especially in the absence of the possibility of obtaining outside help, are disproportionately large compared to the penalty for this offense. Therefore, it is proposed to increase the amount of the administrative fine imposed on citizens, setting a range from 3,000 to 5,000 rubles with a ban on the use of this type of transport for a period of one to three years, while at the same time setting a penalty for repeated offense, doubled.

Based on the above, it can be concluded that the need to form a navy during the reign of Peter the Great influenced the creation of a separate codified normative act – the Naval Charter of 1720. In particular, the norms of this Petrovsky document are of interest in terms of regulating liability for various violations in the field of ship safety.

A comparative legal analysis of the norms of the Maritime Charter of 1720 and modern legislation of the Russian Federation showed that, in particular, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for more lenient penalties for similar violations of rules or crimes, and the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses provides adequate penalties for similar offenses. This approach is explained by the development of legislation based on the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms, confirmed by the constitutional norm, according to which the observance and protection of human and civil rights and freedoms is the duty of the State.