MARITIME CONVENTIONS

David Wilcox
 Maritime Conventions
Treaties, Conventions, Protocols,
Statutes, Codes, Recommendations,
Resolutions and Notices or Marine
Orders all place restrictions on how
maritime business is conducted.
They may be:

compulsory in themselves;
compulsory because of associated instrument;
advisory.
 Treaties, Conventions,
Protocols, Statutes, Codes,
Recommendations,
Resolutions and Notices or
Marine Orders
An instrument may:
be restricted to a single nation state;
have parallel instruments in other states;
apply to a number of named states;
have universal application.

Instruments can be interdependent eg

international codes may be implemented in
nation states by statute, and promulgated by
notices or marine orders
 Treaties
Written agreements between two or
more states

Usually made under auspices of

international organisation (UN)

Binding on parties to the agreement

May be binding on other states where

already part of customary law
 Conventions
Treaties that have been adopted
internationally by defined
number of states.

Given effect when contracting

governments promulgate
required laws, decrees, orders or
regulations
 IMO Conventions
Must follow process involving discussion,
proposal, consideration by sub-committee,
reporting to council and assembly

Pre-determined conditions include:

number of accepting states
percentage of merchant shipping tonnage
represented by accepting states

tacit acceptance system introduced in 1974

 Protocols
Used when substantial amendments needed
to a convention after its adoption but before
its coming into force

Changes in response to pollution incidents

occurring before MARPOL 73 came into force
were included in the 1978 protocol so now
MARPOL 73/78
 Statutes

acts of parliament

regulations made under those acts

 Codes
Adopted by resolution of the assembly
or one of its committees

May be:

mandatory as when brought into

existence by a regulation under a
convention already in force

non-mandatory forming the basis on

which states can formulate their own codes
 Recommendations
May be used

to supplement conventions

to assist states in the

implementation of conventions
 Resolutions
Used to promulgate an agreement
reached by the assembly, or one of its
committees, on matters such as
amendments to conventions,
recommendations or guidelines

Resolutions may be used by member

states to formulate their own instruments

Eg Resolution A.949(23) Guidelines on

Places of Refuge for Ships in need of
Assistance
Notices or Marine Orders

Issued by maritime authorities in

member states to give effect to
and promulgate changes to
secondary legislation
The International Labour
Organisation (ILO)
Another source of instruments that
may impact on the maritime sector

are ratified by member states

acquire statutory status through

domestic legislation

enforced using flag and port state powers

 ILO Conventions
Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention 1976

Seafarers Hours of Work and Manning of Ships Convention

1996

Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) Convention 1987

Seafarers Annual Leave with Pay Convention 1976

Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention 1970

Seafarers Identity Documents Convention 1958

Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention 1946

Seamens Article of Agreement Convention 1929

 Other International
Regulatory Bodies
The World Health Organisation (WHO)

The International
Telecommunications Union (ITU)

May also set standards and produce

regulations that impact on the maritime
sector
 Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS) Convention
The most important of all
international conventions concerned
with the safety of merchant ships

Objective achieved by specifying

minimum standards for their
construction, equipment and
operation
 The history of SOLAS
Origins in the 1912 sinking of the Titanic

First adopted in 1914, with further versions in 1929,

1948, 1960, 1974

1960 Convention was the first major task of the

newly formed IMCO (became IMO in 1982). Brought
regulation of the industry into line with technical
development

Tacit acceptance introduced in 1974 Convention to

accelerate the existing protracted process
The origin of SOLAS
 SOLAS amendment
procedure
Route One
amendment proposed by a contracting
government
circulated for six months
considered by MSC (or one of its sub-
committees)
adopted by two-thirds majority vote of
contracting governments present
 SOLAS amendment
procedure
Route Two
conference requested by a contracting
government
request agreed by one-third of all
contracting governments
conference held and amendment
adopted by two-thirds majority vote of
contracting governments present
 SOLAS amendment
procedure
MSC route normally followed

Conference route followed if

amendments affect entire chapter(s) of
SOLAS, or urgent action required

Tacit acceptance procedure may be

followed in either case to speed up the
amendments coming into force
 Amendment time scale
Post 1974 Convention
6 months for circulation amongst contracting
governments
additional 12 months before tacit acceptance
presumed
further 6 months to allow contracting governments
time to pass necessary domestic legislation

Post 1994 Resolution

tacit acceptance period reduced to 6 months for
those amendments following conference route
 Enforcing SOLAS
IMO has influence, but no power to enforce
SOLAS

Flag States are responsible for ensuring

compliance by their ships

Port States are allowed to inspect ships of

other Contracting States if they have clear
grounds for suspecting non-compliance
 Contents of SOLAS
Chapter I General provisions surveys, documents
Chapter II-1 Construction
Chapter II-2 Fire Protection
Chapter III Life-saving Appliances
Chapter IV Radiocommunications
Chapter V Safety of Navigation
Chapter VI Carriage of Cargoes
Chapter VII Carriage of Dangerous Goods
Chapter VIII Nuclear Ships
Chapter IX Management for Safe Operation of Ships
Chapter X Safety Measures for High Speed Craft
Chapter XI-1 Special Measures to enhance Maritime Safety
Chapter XI-2 Special Measures to enhance Maritime
Security
Chapter XII Additional Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers
 SOLAS limitations
SOLAS had its origins in response to a
maritime disaster

Today IMO and SOLAS still receives criticism

for being reactive, rather than proactive

Consider some of the more recent

amendments and discuss this criticism

Is it possible for IMO/SOLAS to become

proactive?
 The International
Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (MARPOL)
 The History of MARPOL
The first international convention
concerning marine pollution (OILPOL) was
developed in London in 1954 and entered
into force in 1958.

At this time marine pollution was not

considered a major problem tankers still
pumped their tank cleanings overboard
so long as they were sufficiently far from
land
 The History of MARPOL
On 18 March 1967 the 'Torrey Canyon,
carrying a cargo of 120,000 tons of oil,
struck Pollard's Rock in the Seven
Stones reef between the Scilly Isles
and Land's End. The resulting oil spill
had a long term environmental effect
on the coasts of England and France

MARPOL was born

Torrey
Canyo
n
 The History of MARPOL
MARPOL was adopted on 02 Nov 1973, requiring
ratification of annexes I & II by 15 states representing
50% of world shipping before it could enter into force.

By 1976 only 3 countries representing less than 1%

of world tonnage had ratified it.

Further tanker incidents in 1976/7 resulted in

adoption of further measures by protocol in 1978.

MARPOL 73/78, annexes I & II finally entered into

force in 1983 but annex II was not to become
binding for a further three years.
 Some major oil spills
Position
since 1967
Shipname Year Location
Spill Size
(tonnes)

1 Atlantic Empress 1979 Off Tobago, West Indies 287,000

2 ABT Summer 1991 700 nautical miles off Angola 260,000

3 Castillo de Bellver 1983 Off Saldanha Bay, South Africa 252,000

4 Amoco Cadiz 1978 Off Brittany, France 223,000

5 Haven 1991 Genoa, Italy 144,000

6 Odyssey 1988 700 nautical miles off Nova Scotia, Canada 132,000

7 Torrey Canyon 1967 Scilly Isles, UK 119,000

8 Sea Star 1972 Gulf of Oman 115,000

9 Irenes Serenade 1980 Navarino Bay, Greece 100,000

10 Urquiola 1976 La Coruna, Spain 100,000

11 Hawaiian Patriot 1977 300 nautical miles off Honolulu 95,000

12 Independenta 1979 Bosphorus, Turkey 95,000

13 Jakob Maersk 1975 Oporto, Portugal 88,000

14 Braer 1993 Shetland Islands, UK 85,000

120 nautical miles off Atlantic coast of

15 Khark 5 1989 80,000
Morocco

16 Aegean Sea 1992 La Coruna, Spain 74,000

17 Sea Empress 1996 Milford Haven, UK 72,000

18 Katina P 1992 Off Maputo, Mozambique 72,000

19 Nova 1985 Off Kharg Island, Gulf of Iran 70,000

20 Prestige 2002 Off the Spanish coast 63,000

35 Exxon Valdez 1989 Prince William Sound, Alaska, USA 37,000

 Current status of
MARPOL
Annex I Pollution by oil in force 1983
Annex II Pollution by noxious liquid substances
in force (but not binding) in 1983
Annex III Pollution by harmful substances in
packaged form in force 1992
Annex IV Pollution by sewage in force 2003
Annex V Pollution by garbage from ships in
force 1988
Annex VI Air pollution from ships in force 2005

All parties must accept annexes I & II all others

are voluntary
 Enforcement
Violation of MARPOL is punishable either
under law of coastal/port state where it
occurs, or under the law of the flag state.

All ships on international voyages must carry

valid international certificates as prima facie
evidence of compliance.

Ship may be detained where there are clear

grounds for believing non compliance with
particulars of certificate (or no valid
certificate).
Amendments to MARPOL
Amendments usually adopted by
IMOs Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) or by conference
of parties to the convention.

Tacit acceptance procedure applies

 International Convention on
Civil Liability for Oil Pollution
Damage (CLC) 1969 and 1992
First of a number of conventions that attempt to ensure
adequate compensation for those suffering damage as a result
of pollution incidents

CLC 1969 came into force in 1975

Changes to measures for monetary liability made in 1976

Further changes proposed in 1984 but never came into force

due to lack of support from US

Changes made by protocol in 1992 were able to come into

force in 1996 by reducing acceptance requirements

Further amendments by tacit acceptance in 2003

 CLC details
Liability for pollution damage caused by persistent
hydrocarbon oil placed on ship owner.

Liability can be limited except in cases of actual fault.

Covers cargo and bunkers from laden tankers only.

Liability nominated in SDRs but ranges from approx US $6

million to US $115 million

Owners must maintain security or insurance

Ships carry certificate of compliance

 The International Convention on the
Establishment of an International Fund
for Compensation for Oil Pollution
Damage The Fund Convention
The original 1971 Convention was replaced by 1992 Protocol
now known as 1992 Fund Convention.

1971 Convention came into force in 1978 as with CLC, a 1984

Protocol failed.

1992 Fund Convention provides a second tier of funding from all

persons who receive oil by sea in contracting states.

Provides extra compensation where CLC is inadequate.

Total combined compensation per incident now US $260 US

$386 million.

Indemnifies shipowner for proportion of liability if not at fault

 Oil Pollution
Supplementary Fund
2003 Protocol to the Fund Convention
entered into force in 2005.

Provides third tier of compensation.

Contributions made by large oil importing

countries (those receiving more than one
million tonnes per annum).

Compensation from all three tiers can

amount to US $1000 million.
 The International Convention on
Civil Liability for Bunker Oil
Pollution Damage 2001
Total annual sales of bunker fuel near 150 million
tonnes per annum.

Pollution from bunker fuel (except on loaded tankers)

not covered by other conventions.

Adopted in 2001 and came into force on 21

November 2008

Mirrors CLC Convention except definition of

shipowner is broader
 The International Convention on
Liability and Compensation for Damage
in Connection with the Carriage of
Hazardous and Noxious Substances by
Sea HNS 1996
Another two-tier system. Shipowners and importers.

Covers fire, explosion, loss of life or personal injury in addition to

pollution damage.

Covers oils, other noxious liquids, liquefied gases, hazardous and

harmful materials in packaged and bulk form.

Compensation up to US $320 million.

Strict liability for shipowner - compulsory insurance.

Not yet in force (2009).

 The Oil Pollution Act 1990
(OPA90)
Protocols to CLC and Fund Conventions initially failed due to lack
of US support previously offered.

Grounding of Exxon Valdez in Alaska in 1989 resulted in final cost

estimated at US 4.5 billion.

Recovering of such costs would have been impossible from

smaller, or non US company.

CLC and Fund Conventions would have been inadequate.

Changes to International Conventions would take too long

Existing US legislation (Clean Water Act, Deepwater Act, Outer

Continental Shelf Act etc) also inadequate

Outcome was OPA90

 The Oil Pollution Act 1990
(OPA90)
Covers tankers and non-tankers.

Limitation of liability (normally greater of US $10

million or $1200 per gross ton) lost if
infringement of any federal safety regulations.

Pre-existing legislation not repealed.

State legislation still applies.

Total liability therefore uncertain

 Other Major IMO
Conventions
International Convention on Load Lines (LL) 1966
Convention on the International Regulations for
Preventing Collision at Sea (COLREG)1972
International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC)
1972
Convention on the International Maritime Satellite
Organisation (INMARSAT) 1976
International Convention on Maritime Search and
Rescue (SAR) 1979
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) 1982
International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) 1995