International law in the collision of the Cuauhtémoc with the Brooklyn Bridge

It seems the United States is in a state of shock when it comes to bridges and ships. Barely a year and two months after the Dali container ship accident—which brought down one of Baltimore's main bridges —the Mexican training ship Cuauhtémoc lost all three of its masts when it collided with the iconic Brooklyn Bridge in New York. Two cadets died in the accident, and several were injured.

The collision occurred shortly after the ship departed from Pier 17 in Manhattan. The sailboat, built in 1981 at the Celaya Shipyards in Bilbao, had left the port of Acapulco on April 6 and was on a world tour. It was scheduled for a 254-day voyage, with stops in several countries.

Probable causes

The problem could have been in the height. Some point to avoidable human error . Specifically, a lack of calculation or prior verification by the captain or navigation officer. According to data from the New York Department of Transportation, the clear height of the underside of the Brooklyn Bridge is only 41.1 meters, while the Cuauhtémoc's masts were over 48 meters . A difference that, if confirmed, would have made the impact inevitable.

Other versions indicate that the vessel may have suffered a power loss—a blackout, similar to the one reported by the Dali in Baltimore—just as it left New York City. This would have left it at the mercy of the current, which, along with northeasterly winds, would have pushed the sailboat toward the bridge. However, these hypotheses have not yet been confirmed and will require the results of the investigation.

The Cuauhtémoc case is not the Dali case

A key difference between this case and that of the Dali is that the Cuauhtémoc is not a commercial vessel, but a military vessel, property of the Mexican Navy. Although it is a vessel used for training and diplomatic purposes—as it often participates in regattas and official visits—it is still officially considered a warship.

These types of vessels, being under the military flag, enjoy immunity from jurisdiction, a principle of customary international law —unwritten rules that are followed because their observance has become customary—based on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 of 1970, which prevents one State from being judged before the courts of another.

In other words, military vessels—precisely because of their official, non-commercial nature—cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of foreign courts (Article 32 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This means, in practice, that the possibilities of bringing the case before ordinary US courts are very limited.

Although the United States has not ratified UNCLOS—unlike Mexico, which has—U.S. law also supports this immunity through other provisions. For example, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) establishes that acts performed by foreign states in the exercise of sovereign functions, as well as military or state vessels, are beyond the reach of U.S. courts.

There is also case law on this matter. As early as 1812, in The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon , the Supreme Court established that when a warship of a friendly nation is authorized to enter a U.S. port, it also implies a tacit promise that it will not be subject to U.S. laws.

Could the US decide to ignore this immunity in the Cuauhtémoc case?

In practice, no. Doing so would set a very delicate legal and diplomatic precedent, jeopardizing the immunity of its own warships when in other countries' ports. Therefore, the United States has a strong interest in ensuring that this mutual protection is respected and maintained.

The United States will not be able to bring the matter before its domestic courts, neither to investigate possible criminal liability nor to seek compensation for damages. The Cuauhtémoc's immunity, as a warship, precludes any judicial action on U.S. soil.

The investigation into the accident will be the responsibility of the Mexican authorities and, presumably, the Navy itself will conduct it through an internal procedure within the military jurisdiction. Only Mexico will be able to determine whether there were errors or negligence on the part of the ship's command and what compensation should be given to both the victims and the damages caused.

And what about material damage?

Regarding the damage caused to the Brooklyn Bridge, the United States will not be able to seek compensation through legal channels. The only possible avenue will be diplomatic. Its judges will not be able to set amounts or impose payments on the Mexican government. Any possible compensation will depend exclusively on the will of the Mexican government and the outcome of any bilateral negotiations that may be initiated.

Ultimately, although the accident occurred on US soil, control of the case—and its consequences—will not be in the hands of the host country's courts. Unless Mexico decides to submit the matter to arbitration or another negotiated settlement mechanism, jurisdiction will be exclusively Mexican.