Abstract
The two principal actors on the stage of worldwide standards for ships are the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and Classification Societies (Class). Their roles are inextricably entwined and are reflected in the regulatory regime that has evolved over the last two centuries. Flag State issues associated with the creation of an international body to represent shipping, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO)1 , are recalled. The role of Class in the safety of ships, both historical and topical, and their relationship with the IMO and flag States, is identified as a leading and contentious issue, as is the conflict arising from their private and public roles. The regulatory regime involving Classification Societies , which was codified by the IMO for flag State jurisdiction and control, is analysed to identify issues arising from that framework. The role of the port State, and the development of multilateral port State control initiatives to address the shortcomings of flag State control , is discussed. The evolving concerns of the IMO regarding flag State jurisdiction and the measures they have taken to address these concerns are summarised and analysed. The starting point is to recall development of the two UN agencies that oversee maritime safety and working and living conditions for seafarers, the IMO and ILO , and the commonality of membership of the these organisations and with the UN.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Yugoslavia. http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm
- 2.
Afghanistan, Iceland, Sweden, Thailand, Pakistan, Yemen, Myanmar.
- 3.
Israel, Indonesia, Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Laos (People’s Democratic Republic), Libya, Nepal, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sri Lanka, Japan, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, Ghana, Malaysia, Guinea. http://www.un.org/.
- 4.
“Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by becoming parties to the Convention in accordance with the provisions of Article 57”. IMCO Convention, Article 6.
- 5.
“States not members of the United Nations which have been invited to send representatives to the United Nations Maritime Conference convened in Geneva on 19 February 1948, may become Members by becoming parties to the Convention in accordance with the provisions of Article 57”. Ibid, Article 7; “Any State not entitled to become a Member under Article 6 or 7 may apply through the Secretary-General of the Organization to become a member and shall be admitted as a Member upon its becoming party to the Convention in accordance with the provisions of Article 57 provided that, upon recommendation of the Council, its application has been approved by two-thirds of the members other than Associate members.” Ibid, Article 8.
- 6.
Switzerland became the 191st Member State of the UN in 2002. http://www.un.org/.
- 7.
8 Original Member States of the IMCO were: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Myanmar, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States of America
- 8.
Ibid, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Japan, Liberia, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Russian Federation, Sweden and Turkey.
- 9.
The membership of the UN increased by 52 States between 1958 and 1973. http://www.un.org/overview/growth.htm/. 60 States became members of IMO between 1958 and 1973. http://www.imo.org/About/mainframe.asp?topic_id=315&doc_id=840.
- 10.
The Cook Islands became the 168th Member State of the IMO in July 2008.
- 11.
Associate members are Hong Kong, China; Macao, China; and the Faroe Islands, Denmark. http://imo.org/.
- 12.
IMO Member States with year of joining, IMO website at: http://www.imo.org/About/mainframe.asp?topic_id=315&doc_id=840.
- 13.
Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay, World Fleet Statistics 2005, pp. 21–27, lists 181 countries of registration for “the propelled sea-going merchant fleet of 100 GT and above. Many of these countries have very small numbers of ships registered and very small total tonnages such as Benin, 6 ships totalling 1,003 GT, Grenada, 11 ships totalling 2,821 GT, Haiti, 5 ships totalling 1,286 GT, Macao, 2 ships totalling 2,321 GT, Djibouti, 14 ships totalling 4,847 GT, Aruba, 2 ships totalling 400 GT, Slovenia, 5 ships totalling 1,130 GT, St Helena, 2 ships totalling 1,818 GT, Anguilla, 3 ships totalling 701 GT, Turks and Caicos Islands, 5 ships totalling 975 GT”.
- 14.
International Labour Organization Office (2006) Adoption of an instrument to consolidate maritime labour standards. Report I(1A), International Maritime Labour Conference, 94th Maritime Session. p. 4.
- 15.
This measure of flag State performance is analysed in Chap. 9.
- 16.
The Maritime Labour Convention 2006 enters into force 12 months after the date on which there have been registered ratifications by at least 30 Members with a total share in the world gross tonnage of ships of 33%. Liberia was the first Member State to ratify the MLC in June 2006. As at September 2008 the Marshall Islands and the Bahamas had also ratified the MLC 2006 (http://www.ilo.org/global/lang-en/index.htm, September 2008). These three large flag States collectively represent 20% of total world tonnage as at 31 December 2007. (Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay, World Fleet Statistics 2007 p. 12)
- 17.
The Merchant Shipping (Mininum Standards) Convention, 1976 (ILO 147) and the protocol of 1996 are mandatory instruments under the Paris and Tokyo MOUs on port State control.
- 18.
The Republic of Moldova. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/country.htm.
- 19.
For example: the Joint IMO/ILO Ad Hoc Expert Working Group on the Fair Treatment of Seafarers in the Event of a Maritime Accident; the Joint IMO/ILO/BG Working Group on Ship Scrapping; the Joint IMO/ILO Ad Hoc Expert Working Group on Liability and Compensation regarding Claims for Death, Personal Injury and Abandonment of Seafarers; the UNEP/IItalyMO/ILO International programme on Chemical Safety; and the Joint ILO/IMO Working Group on Port Security.
- 20.
The Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels. Brussels, 23 September 1910; International Convention on the Safety of life at Sea. London, 31 May 1929; International Convention Respecting Load Lines. London, 5 July 1930; and the Convention Relating to the Tonnage Measurement of Merchant Ships. Warsaw, 1934.
- 21.
Focus on IMO: IMO 1948–1998: a process of change. International Maritime Organization, London, September 1998, pp. 1–2. The Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was founded only 41 years after the first powered flight by the Wright Brothers, in 1944. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was founded in 1945, and both the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1947.
- 22.
“The original members were Belgium, Canada, France (Exile Government), Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. In 1946, the following countries joined the group: Australia, Brazil, Chile, India, Yugoslavia, New Zealand, Sweden, and South Africa.” (Lampe 1983, p. 311)
- 23.
IMCO Convention, Article 1: (a) To provide machinery for co-operation among Governments in the field of governmental regulation and practices relating to technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping engaged in international trade, and to encourage the general adoption of the highest practical standards in matters concerning maritime safety and efficiency of navigation; (b) To encourage the removal of discriminatory action and unnecessary restrictions by Governments affecting shipping engaged in international trade so as to promote the availability of shipping services to the commerce of the world without discrimination; assistance and encouragement given by a Government for the development of its national shipping and for the purposes of security does not in itself constitute discrimination, provided that such assistance and encouragement is not based on measures designed to restrict the freedom of shipping of all flags to take part in international trade; (c) To provide for the consideration by the Organization of matters concerning unfair restrictive practices by shipping concerns in accordance with Part II; (d) To provide for the consideration by the Organization of any matters concerning shipping that may be referred to it by any organ or specialised agency of the United Nations; (e) To provide for the exchange of information among Governments on matters under consideration by the Organization.
- 24.
Article I (a) of the IMCO Convention was amended by Res. A.358 (IX) in 1975 to add the words “and the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships; and to deal with legal matters related to the purposes set out in this Article”.
- 25.
“It was no coincidence that all the Scandinavian countries made a statement – and an unusually strong one – to the effect that they would consider a renunciation of the Convention if IMCO were to assume competence in matters of the kind mentioned in Articles 1(b) and (c). The Scandinavian countries (led by Norway), as well as Greece, have always been strong supporters of the principle of the freedom of international shipping, which according to their philosophy, should be upheld through virtually unrestricted maritime shipping regulated by nothing but free and fair competition.” (Lampe 1983, p. 312)
- 26.
Focus on IMO: IMO 1948–1998: a process of change. International Maritime Organization, London, September 1998, p. 2. It is necessary for the IMO to convene a Diplomatic Conference in order to formally adopt or amend a draft Convention that has been approved by the Council and Assembly. Invitations to such conferences are sent to all member States of the Organization and also to all member States of the United Nations or any of its specialised agencies.
- 27.
IMCO Convention, Article IV: “When, in the opinion of the Organization, any matter concerning unfair restrictive practices by shipping concerns is incapable of settlement through the normal processes of international shipping business, or has in fact so proved, and provided it shall first have been the subject of direct negotiations between the Members concerned, the Organization shall, at the request of those Members, consider the matter.”
- 28.
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Myanmar, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America. http://www.imo.org/About/mainframe.asp?topic_id=315&doc_id=840.
- 29.
“Several used identical wording stating that ‘it is in the field of technical and nautical matters that the Organization can make its contribution towards the development of shipping and seaborne trade throughout the world. If the Organization were to extend its activities to matters of a purely commercial or economic nature, a situation might arise where the Government (of the country concerned) would have to consider resorting to the provisions regarding withdrawal’.” Focus on IMO: IMO 1948–1998: a process of change. International Maritime Organization, London, September 1998, p. 4
- 30.
Ibid, p. 5. The IMCO Convention entered into force on 17 March 1958 when Egypt became the 19th State to accept the Convention.
- 31.
IMCO Convention, Article 28 (a). In force until 1968.
- 32.
Ibid, Article 17 (a). In force until 1967.
- 33.
Convention on the High Seas, Geneva, 29 April 1958, Article 5(1): “… there must exist a genuine link between the State and the ship”
- 34.
ICJ, Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee, Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, 1960. I.C.J 150, Communique No 60/15, June 8 1960. For further information see International Organizations, Spring 1960 (Vol 14, No2) p. 329.
- 35.
Ibid. “The court has to give an ‘advisory opinion’ in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations. The Assembly acted in accordance with Article 56 of the IMCO Convention, according to which the ICJ should decide upon legal points in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the IMCO Convention.” See IMCO Res.A.12(1) (1959) First Assembly Resolutions, London, 1959.
- 36.
In coming to this decision the Court took into account repeated use of the term “registered tonnage” as the criteria for matters such as the entry into force of Convention amendments and as a basis for apportionment of member State contributions to IMCO.
- 37.
IMO document MSC84/INF.13 Percentages as at 29 February 2008 were: SOLAS 74, 98.8%; Load Line 66, 98.77%; STCW 78, 98.77%; Tonnage 69, 98.80%; COLREG 72, 98.05%.
- 38.
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1960; Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL) 1965; International Convention on Load Lines (LL) 1966; International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution casualties (INTERVENTION) 1969; International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC) 1969; International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (TONNAGE) 1969; Special Trade Passenger Ships Agreement (STP) 1971; Convention Relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Material (NUCLEAR) 1971; International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND) 1971; International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC) 1972; Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG) 1972; Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (LC) 1972; International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78); Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (PAL) 1974; International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974; Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organization, 1976; Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels (SFV) 1977; International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) 1978; International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) 1979.
- 39.
The British-registered ro-ro passenger ferry Herald of Free Enterprise capsized off Zeebruge harbour in 1988 with the loss of 198 lives.
- 40.
The Philippines-registered passenger ferry Dona Paz, trading internally in the Philippines archipelago, caught fire and sank after a collision with a small tanker. It is estimated that 4300 persons were lost.
- 41.
The American-registered oil tanker Exxon Valdez grounded in Alaska and spilt 37,000 tons of oil.
- 42.
The Bahamas-registered ro-ro passenger ferry Scandinavian Star caught fire in the Baltic in 1990 with the loss of 160 lives.
- 43.
Edward Lloyd established a coffee house in Tower Street, London, in 1689. Bell JD, The Role of Classification in Maritime Safety. 9th Chua Chor Teck Annual Memorial Lecture, Singapore, 13 January 1995, IMO Library.
- 44.
Ibid: The New Register of Shipping or the Red Book.
- 45.
Ibid, “63 surveyors were employed in the first year and by 1840 15,000 vessels had been surveyed in accordance with the Rules.”
- 46.
Jenkins WE, The OCIMF view of recent classification society progress. Paper to the International Seminar on Tanker Safety, Pollution Prevention, Spill Response and Compensation, Hong Kong, 06 November 2002. The stated purpose of BV was: ‘to be of use [for] all maritime professions including ship owners, charterers and mariners, but above all to the insurers by…preserving them from the underwriting risks of bad ships.’
- 47.
For example Registro Italiano Navale (RINA) in 1861, established by mutual insurance clubs in Italy.
- 48.
Bell JD, The Role of Classification in Maritime Safety. 9th Chua Chor Teck Annual Memorial Lecture, Singapore, 13 July 1995, p. 5. “It was only in 1877 the first Lloyd’s register engineering surveyor was appointed and in 1880 the survey of ‘machinery installed’ began and was considered a part of classification”.
- 49.
Hidaka M, Chairman (2001) IACS, The Role of Class in Meeting the Safety Challenge. Seatrade Safe Shipping Conference, 10 April. http://www.iacs.org.uk/seatrade.htm: “Information obtained when performing a class survey or statutory survey on behalf of a flag administration belongs to the person to whom the information is being provided. The Classification Society has a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of that information. It cannot be passed on to any third party, except in response to a legally based order (with legal authority) from the flag State, or a court order, or the owner’s consent.”
- 50.
Ibid, p. 7 A Fairplay editorial commented that “Secrecy breeds suspicion, and there has always been too much of it in our industry. There are instances where it is both necessary and justified, but not half as many as some would have us believe. Take the case of class. Is there any good reason why it should not be public knowledge whether a ship is in class or not, and with whom?”
- 51.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Competitive Advantages obtained by some Shipowners as a result of Non-observance of Applicable International Rules and Standards. OECD/GD(96)4, Paris 1996, p. 20. “They [Class] are contracturally bound to the shipowner only in the implementation of their rules and regulations and are only required to survey those parts of the vessel that they are requested to look at. Classification Societies cannot board a vessel without the owner’s permission.”
- 52.
Hidaka M, Chairman, IACS, The Role of Class in Meeting the Safety Challenge. Seatrade Safe Shipping Conference, 10 April 2001, http://www.iacs.org.uk/seatrade.htm, p. 3: “There is a common misunderstanding concerning the function of the Classification Society as an RO. While the authority to carry out statutory surveys and inspections on behalf of the flag administrations may be delegated, the RO’s powers of enforcement are more limited. In essence, when required repairs or corrective actions are not carried out or a survey is not passed satisfactorily, practically speaking, ROs do not have the police powers needed to detain the ship. The most that the RO can do is attempt to withdraw the statutory certificates, or declare them invalid, and notify the ship’s flag State and the port State where the vessel happens to be located of the situation for their further action.” See SOLAS 1/6(c).
- 53.
For detailed statistics on delegation of statutory functions by flag States to ROs see Chap. 9.
- 54.
Members of IACS (2007) are: American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Bureau Veritas (BV), China Classification Society (CCS), Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Germanischer Lloyd (GL), Korean Register of Shipping (KR), Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (LR), Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (Class NK), Registro Italiano Navale (RINA), Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (RS).
- 55.
Payer HG, Past-Chairman IACS, The Role of Classification Societies: Is it changing? September 2000, p. 2: “But we have to remind ourselves that altogether there are only about 5 to 8% of the world tonnage outside IACS.” http://www.iacs.org.uk/role.htm.
- 56.
See Chap. 9 for detailed statistics on delegation of flag State statutory functions to Recognized Organizations.
- 57.
See also Lloyd’s List, Do we need more class distinction? 9 October 1979, p. 9.
- 58.
See also, Sporie P, Clubs keep an eye on ship standards, Lloyd’s List, 2 March 1982, p. 8; Norman K, P&I surveys promote shipboard safety, Safety at Sea, December 1982, p. 34.
- 59.
See also Lloyd’s List (1982) Exxon attacks classification surveys rules, 8 November, p. 1.
- 60.
The initial results of these inspections have proved them to be well worthwhile. Shell found that 20% of the oil fleet was substandard (in respect of cargo worthiness). For BP, the proportion was 30%, and for Mobil it was 35%. See also Shell International Marine, May 1992, A study of standards in the oil tanker industry; and Guest A, Lloyd’s List, 2 February 1993, Big Oil versus tanker owner.
- 61.
See also, Prescott J (1987) Underwriter in attack on class conflicts. Lloyd’s List, 24 September; and Prescott J (1987) An unanswerable conflict of interest. Lloyd’s List, 15 October, p. 2
- 62.
The Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation of the IMO is currently working on acceptance of IACS transfer of Class rules as a standard for transfer between all classification societies, both IACS and non-IACS.
- 63.
For example, see Bell JD, The Role of Classification in Maritime Safety. 9th Chua Chor Teck Annual Memorial Lecture, Singapore, 13 July 1995, p. 4: “… there was a Lloyd’s Rule as far back as 1835 when the Committee decided that there should be ‘a freeboard of 3 inches for foot of depth of hold’. This ‘rule of thumb’ apparently provided an adequate means of gauging the Loadline until the early 1870’s when there was trouble over awning decks being closed in without scuppers by shipowners trying to secure additional cargo capacity in their ships. Two years later Lloyd’s Register stated their ‘right to enforce those standards it believes desirable’ and produced an early form of Loadline mark. … By 1882 Lloyd’s Register had developed Rules on behalf of the Board of Trade who accepted as valid all freeboard certificates issued by Lloyd’s register. A year later Samuel Plimsoll was instrumental in the passing of the famous Merchant Shipping Act which gave the Board of Trade power to detain overladen ships as unseaworthy.”
- 64.
SOLAS, Chapter XI, Special measures to enhance maritime safety, Regulation 1, Authorization of recognized organization: “Organizations referred to in regulation I/6 shall comply with the guidelines adopted by the Organization by resolution A.739(18), as may be amended by the Organization, and the specifications adopted by the Organization by resolution A.789(19), as may be amended by the Organization, provided that such amendments are adopted, brought into force and take effect in accordance with the provisions of article VIII of the present Convention concerning the amendment procedures applicable to the annex other than Chap. 1.”
- 65.
For analysis of SOLAS XI/1 and Resolution A.739(19) see under Recognized Organizations, Chap. 8.
- 66.
The term “Recognized Organization” is used in IMO Resolution A.739(18), Guidelines for the Authorization of Organizations Acting on behalf of the Administration, to denote those survey and classification society organizations “acting on behalf of the Administration (flag State) to perform statutory work on its behalf”.
- 67.
The Tokyo MOU Port State Control Manual, in Section 5, lists codes for 65 Recognized Organizations (RO). Provision is made for a code (999) for other ROs that do not have prescribed codes. In a report (DBM14/WP.3) to the Fourteenth Meeting of Database Managers of the Tokyo MOU in November 2005, a total of 106 names of ROs recorded under code 999 were recorded by port State control officers between January and September 2005.
- 68.
Barchue LD, Making a case for the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme, October 2005, p. 1: “Under various treaties, governments/flag States are ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with the provision of such treaties. However, some of these treaties provide unrestrained powers to flag States to delegate statutory work. They also provide additional latitude for States to determine their own shipping standards through the phrase ‘to the satisfaction of the Administration’ and equivalency and exemption provisions. As a result, national laws to implement international shipping treaties vary considerably and this leads to: partial or full delegation of statutory work to non-State parties; different degrees of implementation and enforcement; ship registration becoming an attractive and legitimate business in the absence of State accountability; and, some shipowners enjoying considerable economic advantage due to lack of uniform flag State enforcement.” www.imo.org/home.asp.
- 69.
Marten-Castex B, The Work of the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation: An Overview, (2003 – up to and including FSI 11), 19 January 2004, p. 8. From FSI 12 in 2003 the committee has extended its terms of reference to include environmental aspects, maritime security, accident investigation, and UN classification of States.
- 70.
For example, the original proposed name of the Sub-Committee was Flag State Compliance. This was unacceptable to the Member States of IMO and the word Implementation replaced Compliance.
- 71.
Through reference in the Resolution to the provisions of regulation I/6 of SOLAS 74; article 13 of Load Lines 66; regulation 4 of Annex I and regulation 10 of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78; and article 6 of Tonnage 69.
- 72.
See for example SOLAS I/19 on acceptance of certificates.
- 73.
SOLAS 74; LOAD LINES 66; MARPOL 73/78; STCW 78/95; TONNAGE 69.
- 74.
Resolutions A.739(18) and A.789(19).
- 75.
SOLAS Chapter 1, Part B, Surveys and certificates, Regulation 6 (b)(ii), Inspection and survey: “The Administration shall notify the Organization of the specific responsibilities and conditions of the authority delegated to nominated surveyors or recognized organizations.”
- 76.
SSY Consultancy & Research Ltd, The cost to users of substandard shipping, OECD Maritime Transport Committee, January 2001, p. 35: “Some flag States disregard their responsibilities to the principle of safe shipping because these, too, are not sufficiently exposed to real liabilities. To some degree, they are able to offload the notional responsibility of enforcing standards by engaging classification societies to perform their ship certification duties. However, there is no guarantee that the societies to which these duites are entrusted are those with the greatest commitment to rigorous enforcement of international requirements.”
- 77.
Due to the inadequacy of some work being carried out by part-time employees of Recognized Organizations (non-exclusive surveyors) the Guidelines were amended to allow only full-time surveyors and auditors to perform certification functions of a statutory nature. See IMO Circular letter No 2630. New paragraph 2–1 to be added after the existing paragraph 2. “2–1 The organisation should perform survey and certification functions of a statutory nature by the use of only exclusive surveyors and auditors, being persons solely employed by the organisation, duly qualified, trained and authorised to execute all duties and activities incumbent upon their employer, within their level of work responsibility. While still remaining responsible for the certification on behalf of the flag State, the organisation may subcontract radio surveys to non-exclusive surveyors in accordance with the relevant provisions of resolution A.788(19).”
- 78.
MSC/Circ.710 – MEPC/Circ.307 – Model agreement for the authorisation of organizations acting on behalf of the Administration. See Appendix II.
- 79.
MSC/Circ.788 – MEPC/Circ.325 – Authorization of recognized organizations acting on behalf of administrations, incorporating resolutions A.739(18) and A.739(19) and MSC/Circ.710 – MEPC/Circ.307 – Communication of information on the authorization of recognized organizations (ROs)
- 80.
Paper FSI 14/INF.8IMO Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation, 14th Session, June 2006. The Blacklists of the Paris and Tokyo MOUs on Port State Control, and the USCG, are based upon the detention rate of vessels under a particular flagged on a three-year rolling average.
- 81.
Letter of 25 February 2003 from the International Ship Registry of Cambodia to the Director of Maritime Safety, Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand.
- 82.
Resolution A.740(18) was revoked in November 1997 by Resolution A.847(20) to take account of some requirements of the 1995 STCW amendments.
- 83.
Also approved at the 18th Assembly of the IMO in late 1993 out of the work of FSI 1 were: A.741(18), International Management Code for the Safe operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management (ISM) Code); A.742(18) Procedures for the control of operational requirements related to the safety of ships and pollution prevention; A.744(18), Guidelines on the enhanced programme of inspections during surveys of bulk carriers and oil tankers; and A.746(18), Survey guidelines under the harmonised system for survey and certification.
- 84.
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. London, 01 December 1978. As amended 1995. # 1984 UKTS 50.
- 85.
MSC/Circ.889-MEPC/Circ.353, Self Assessment of Flag State Performance.
- 86.
Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme, http://www.imo.org/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=841.
- 87.
This situation is analogous to the banning of single hulled tankers to American ports after the Exxon Valdez disaster under the 1990 Oil Pollution Act (OPA), and to current EU initiatives after the Erika and Prestige oil pollution incidents.
- 88.
Sasamura Y, Development of Audit Scheme in ICAO and IMO. Seminar on Model Audit Scheme, London, 27 May 2003, p. 5. At this time ICAO had 188 Contracting States.
- 89.
Resolution A.847(20), Guidelines to assist flag States in the implementation of IMO instruments.
- 90.
A.973(24) revokes resolution A.847(20), Guidelines to assist flag States in the implementation of IMO instruments; the basis for the self assessment scheme.
- 91.
IMO Member States audited in the pilot scheme were Cyprus, the Marshall Islands, the United Kingdom, France, Iran, and Singapore.
- 92.
The IMO Secretariat reported to the 100th Session of the the IMO Council in June 2008 that 21 audits had been completed, another 21 countries had offered thenselves up for audit, and that a further eight audits were planned for 2008.
- 93.
IMO Resolution A.787(19); SOLAS 1/19 as modified by the SOLAS Protocol 1988; SOLAS IX/6 and XI/4; article 21 of Load Lines 1966 as modified by the Load Line Protocol 1988; articles 5 and 6, regulation 15 of Annex II, regulation 8 of Annex III and regulation 8 of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78; article X of STCW 78; and article 12 of TONNAGE 69 provide for control procedures to be followed by a Party to a relevant convention with regard to foreign ships visiting their ports. The administrations of port States should make effective use of these provisions for the purposes of identifying deficiencies, if any, in such a ship which may render them substandard, and ensuring that remedial measures are taken.
- 94.
Paris MOU, 1982; Acuerdo de Vina del Mar, 1992; Tokyo MOU, 1993; Caribbean MOU, 1996; Mediterranean MOU, 1997; Indian Ocean MOU, 1998; West and Central African MOU, 1999; Black Sea MOU, 2000; Riyadh MOU, 2004. The United States of America operates a unilateral PSC regime.
- 95.
SOLAS 1/19; Resolution A.787(19) chapter 1.6.3 Detention: “Intervention action taken by a port State when the condition of the ship or its crew do not correspond substantially with the applicable conventions to ensure that the ship will not sail until it can proceed to sea without presenting a danger to the ship or persons on board, or without presenting an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment, whether or not such action will affect the normal schedule of the departure of the ship.”
- 96.
For example New Zealand’s Maritime Transport Act 1994, s.56/398.
- 97.
Tokyo MOU Annual Report 2007 (detention rate 5.46%) and Paris MOU Annual Report 2007 (detention rate 5.62%).
- 98.
Detentions rates in both the Paris and Tokyo MOU regions decreased steadily over the past decade from highs of 9.5% (2000) and 8.49% (2003) respectively to lows of 4.67% (2005) and 5.40% (2006) respectively. There has been a slight increase in detention rates in both regions since 2005–06.
- 99.
SOLAS 1/19(b): “Such certificates, if valid, shall be accepted unless there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or of its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of any of the certificates or that the ship and its equipment are not in compliance with the provisions of regulation 11(a) and (b).”
- 100.
An obligation which is, for example, reflected in New Zealand through the Maritime Transport Act 1994, s.41.
- 101.
Ibid, s.9. It was not clear what entitlement a New Zealand citizen would have to retain the Panamanian registration
References
Barchue LD (2005) Making a case for the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme. October. http://www.imo.org/home.asp.
Boisson P (1994) Classification societies and safety at sea: Back to the basics to prepare for the future. Marine Policy. Vol 18, Issue 5
Hidaka M, Chairman (2001) IACS : The Role of Class in Meeting the Safety Challenge. Seatrade Safe Shipping Conference, 10 April. http://www.iacs.org.uk/seatrade.htm.
Hoppe H (2000) IMO: The Work of the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation – An Overview. http://www.imo.org/InfoResource/mainframe.asp?topic_id=406&doc_id=1080
IACS Briefing (1997) IACS and IMO, The Essential Relationship. No 4. February. International Association of Classification Societies Ltd.
IMO (1998) Focus on IMO. IMO 1948–1998: a process of change. International Maritime Organization, London
IMO (2008) Delegate’s Report to Maritime New Zealand on the 100th Session of the IMO Council
Lampe WH (1983) The “New” International Maritime Organization And Its Place In Development of International Maritime Law. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce. Vol 14, No 3
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping. A Brief History. http://www.lr.org/corporate_information/brief_history.htm.
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping – Fairplay (2005) Opinion. 18 August
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping – Fairplay (2005) 25 Years Ago in Fairplay. 13 October
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping – Fairplay (2005) November
Marten-Castex B (2004) The Work of the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation: An Overview, (2003 – up to and including FSI 11). 19 January. http://www.imo.org/home.asp.
O’Neill W (2001) Raising the Safety Bar – Improving Marine Safety in the 21st Century. Speech to the Seatrade Safe Shipping Conference, Royal College of Surgeons, London, 10 April. http://www.imo.org.org/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=82&doc_id=703.
Sasamura Y (2003) Development of Audit Scheme in ICAO and IMO. Seminar on Model Audit Scheme. London, 27 May
Documents
IMO (2003) IMO: Committed people working for Safe, Secure and Clean Seas. Paper J/8351, World Maritime Day 2003, Background paper
IMO (2005) MSC/MEPC.5/Circ.2. Survey and Certification-related Matters, Guidelines for Administrations to ensure the adequacy of transfer of class-related matters between recognized organizations. 26 September.
IMO (2007) Circular letter No.2830. 6 December
International Labour Organization Office (2006) International Labour Conference, 94th (Maritime) Session. Report I(1A), Adoption of an instrument to consolidate maritime labour standards. International Labour Office, Geneva
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mansell, J.N. (2009). The Regulatory Regime for Discharge of Flag State Duties: The Role of Classification Societies . In: Flag State Responsibility. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92933-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92933-8_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-92932-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-92933-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)