Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I don't understand what value there is here in assigning it to the crew member who apparently can't decline? Even if he could manage the ship, a random crew member is highly unlikely to have resources to care for a ship like that... what value is there in assigning him this responsibility? They just punishing someone for the sake of it?
> Yeah I don't understand what value there is here in assigning it to the crew member who apparently can't decline? The article doesn't state it really explicitly but I believe he was able to decline but maybe not aware of when that decision would need to be made - specifically this passage here: > "I can't force a judge to remove the legal guardianship," a representative [of the shipping company] told us. "And I can…
Why? Then there would be someone else stuck in that situation. The problem is almost entirely with the Egyptian authorities. Such a situation shouldn't even be possible to develop. The first mate in the article might not have understood the ramifications of what he signed, but the Egyptian court certainly did.
There are all kinds of reasons for why a shipping company would be unable to help. That doesn't mean it should leave a person in a legal limbo. That's on the country rather than the company.
I'm surprised the guy didn't just leave. A country whose laws don't respect you doesn't deserve respect in return.