Admiralty and maritime practice in the United States is governed by the so-called “Supplemental Admiralty Rules”1. There are six of them, A through F. These Rules have the force and effect of statutes in that they are promulgated by the Supreme Court of the U.S. pursuant to statutory authority, and come into effect upon the failure of Congress to exercise its statutory veto power.

The original Supplemental Rules were promulgated in 1966. On 1 August 1985, important amendments effecting maritime arrest and attachment came into effect2. Considering the large amount of maritime litigation in the U.S. courts, much of which originates abroad, the writer presumes that there will be international interest in the new Rules. It is desirable preliminarily to analyze arrest and attachment under American maritime law. With respect to arrest, this in turn mandates an analysis of its foundation, the maritime lien. The pecularities of this fundamental concept may be highlighted by a brief comparison of the law of maritime liens in the U.S. and in the United Kingdom3. The dissimilarities are numerous and significant.

There is a noticeable difference between the attitude toward maritime liens of U.S. admiralty lawyers and judges on the one hand, and those of the U.K. on the other. It is fair to say that those in the U.S. who deal professionally with maritime liens like them4. Maritime liens are quite numerous in the American system, particularly those granted to suppliers, repairers, and other “necessaries-men”, and to shippers and consignees for damage to cargo, all of which are unknown in the U.K. The maritime lien is considered to be a simple, practical, straightforward, problem-solving device.