Please Follow Directions Or I Will Dispute Will Be Checked F
Please Follow Directions Or I Will Disputewill Be Checked For Plagiari
Please follow directions or I will dispute will be checked for plagiarism. Select at least five peer-reviewed articles from a university library dealing with Section 27 and Section 27a of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the Jones Act. Prepare a 5-page paper (main body) that presents a case for either:
- a) repealing the Act, or parts of it;
- b) keeping the Jones Act in full force and effect.
The presentation should be in APA format citing appropriate sources. Remember that as with all papers, this too needs a separate title and reference page. This assignment will be graded on content, grammar, and format. Keep your submissions concise, focused, and succinct. Quality is preferred, not quantity of verbiage. Submit the paper in APA format with at least five supporting peer-reviewed references.
Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
The Jones Act, officially known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, specifically sections 27 and 27a, remains one of the most contentious maritime policies in U.S. law. Enacted in the aftermath of World War I, it aims to promote the development of a robust maritime industry, ensure national security, and support the U.S. maritime workforce (Hilbruner & Forman, 2008). However, in recent decades, its economic, strategic, and legal implications have sparked debates over whether the Act should be repealed or upheld in its entirety. This paper constructs an argument in favor of the repeal of the Jones Act, examining its economic inefficiencies, protectionist nature, and adverse effects on domestic consumers and industries. Conversely, it also considers arguments supporting the retention of the Act, emphasizing national security and maritime employment.
The Historical Context and Purpose of the Jones Act
The Jones Act mandates that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports must be carried on ships that are U.S.-flagged, owned, crewed, and built (Hilbruner & Forman, 2008). Its primary purposes include fostering a strong U.S.-flag maritime industry, ensuring maritime safety, and promoting national security by maintaining a capable merchant fleet. Proponents argue that the Act is vital for safeguarding maritime jobs, reducing dependency on foreign vessels, and protecting national interests in times of conflict (Hufbauer & Schott, 2016).
Economic and Logistical Criticisms of the Jones Act
Despite its intended benefits, economic analyses reveal significant drawbacks associated with the Jones Act. It effectively creates a protected market, shielding domestic shipping companies from foreign competition, which results in elevated shipping costs (Mosquera, 2019). Specifically, the requirement to build ships domestically inflates vessel construction costs, leading to higher freight rates (Hufbauer & Schott, 2016). Empirical studies show that these increased costs are passed onto consumers, raising prices for goods transported between U.S. ports—particularly impacting remote and insular regions such as Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska (Mosquera, 2019). For instance, shipping costs for essential commodities like fuel and food in Puerto Rico are significantly higher, affecting affordability and economic stability (Seale & Kruse, 2014).
Moreover, the protective nature of the Jones Act stifles competition and innovation within the U.S. maritime industry. Without foreign competition, domestic shipping firms face little pressure to modernize fleets or reduce operational costs. This results in outdated vessels and inefficient operations, undermining the maritime industry's global competitiveness (Hufbauer & Schott, 2016). The economic inefficiencies extend beyond direct shipping costs, impacting broader supply chains and economic resilience.
Legal and International Implications
The Jones Act also raises issues within the context of international trade law, particularly relating to the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. Critics argue that its protectionist policies violate international trade commitments, leading to disputes and potential retaliations that can harm broader U.S. economic interests (Mosquera, 2019). Furthermore, the Act creates legal complications, especially regarding conflicts with international maritime laws and treaties (Hufbauer & Schott, 2016). These legal tensions have the potential to undermine American credibility in global trade negotiations and diminish the nation's reputation as a supporter of free trade principles.
National Security and Defense Considerations
Supporters of the Jones Act emphasize its strategic importance. Maintaining a fleet of U.S.-built and crewed ships is viewed as critical for national defense readiness. A robust merchant fleet ensures that the U.S. can rapidly mobilize commercial ships during wartime, providing logistical support for military operations (Hufbauer & Schott, 2016). Historically, the U.S. Navy has relied on the domestic maritime industry for auxiliary vessels and logistical support during conflicts like World War II. Therefore, repealing the Act could jeopardize this posture by reducing the number of operational U.S.-flagged vessels and maritime personnel.
However, critics note that the current U.S. fleet's size and modernization are insufficient to meet contemporary defense needs. They argue that military preparedness does not necessarily depend solely on legislative protections but can be achieved through targeted funding, strategic partnerships, and alternative policies (Hilbruner & Forman, 2008). Moreover, some suggest that international alliances and commercial shipping deficits weaken the strategic value of the Jones Act as a defense tool.
The Case for Repeal
Considering the economic inefficiencies, legal issues, and the global shift towards free trade, there is a compelling case for repealing or at least reformulating the Jones Act. Repealing the Act would open the domestic maritime industry to international competition, potentially reducing shipping costs, stimulating innovation, and expanding market efficiency (Mosquera, 2019). Lower freight rates could benefit consumers and industries in isolated regions, enhancing economic growth and resilience.
Additionally, removing protectionist barriers would align U.S. maritime policies with international trade commitments, reducing legal disputes and fostering better trade relations (Hufbauer & Schott, 2016). Repeal could also prompt modernization within the U.S. maritime fleet, encouraging investment in newer, environmentally friendly vessels and technologies. Such reforms could balance the need for a strategic maritime industry with economic efficiency.
Nevertheless, critics argue that premature repeal might threaten maritime employment and national security objectives. As such, phased reforms, coupled with targeted investments in maritime infrastructure and workforce development, could serve as a middle ground that preserves strategic interests while alleviating economic burdens.
Conclusion
The Jones Act, while rooted in a noble intent to bolster U.S. maritime security and employment, presents significant economic, legal, and strategic challenges in its current form. Evidence suggests that the Act's protectionist policies lead to higher costs, reduced competitiveness, and legal complications within international trade frameworks. Conversely, arguments for maintaining the Act emphasize national security and employment considerations. Ultimately, a balanced approach—reforming the Act to reduce unnecessary protections while safeguarding strategic and employment objectives—is advisable. Repealing it entirely may achieve economic efficiencies but risks eroding maritime security and industry stability. Therefore, policymakers should consider targeted reforms that harmonize economic realities with national security needs.