Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ship Nationality, Flag States and the Eradication of Substandard Ships: A Critical Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Maritime Law in Motion

Part of the book series: WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs ((WMUSTUD,volume 8))

Abstract

This chapter proposes to eliminate the notion of ship nationality and with it, the flag states responsibility of supervision and enforcement of ships to ensure that they are not substandard. It proposes that this can be achieved without sacrificing safe, secure and environmentally friendly shipping. Although it is a radical proposition, and it may be perceived to be impossible to achieve in practice, it is submitted that in theory at least, it is thought-provoking and may well have some merit. Several issues are discussed including an analysis of the interrelationship between ship nationality and registration. An examination of the notion of a substandard ship is presented and it is pointed out that it is not simply a matter of regulatory maritime law, but that there are important economic considerations as well. The discussion extends to an analysis of the regimes of flag state, port state and coastal state jurisdiction and their correlation in the context of substandard ships. In conclusion, it is asserted that by removing the notion of ship nationality, substandard ships can be eradicated by the use of other existing devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Mukherjee and Brownrigg (2013), p. 203.

  2. 2.

    The doctrine of mare liberum or freedom of the seas is attributed to the treatise of that name written in 1609 by the Dutch jurist Hugo de Groot or Grotius (Latin).

  3. 3.

    Stopford (2009).

  4. 4.

    1833 UNTS 3.

  5. 5.

    45 ILM 792.

  6. 6.

    Ready (1998), p. 1; UNCLOS 1833 UNTS 3, Article 92(2).

  7. 7.

    Gaskell et al. (1987), p. 19.

  8. 8.

    Ibid.

  9. 9.

    TheSteamship Lotus (1927) P.C.I.J. Series A, No. I0; 2 Hudson, W.C.R. 23.

  10. 10.

    Gaskell et al. (1987), p. 20.

  11. 11.

    International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 and its Protocol of 1978, 12 ILM 1319 (1973), 1340 UNTS 61; 17 ILM 546 (1978).

  12. 12.

    Mukherjee (2019).

  13. 13.

    See Oteri v. The Queen [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 105, at p. 108.

  14. 14.

    Gaskell et al. (1987), p. 20.

  15. 15.

    See United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s. 6(1).

  16. 16.

    The Asya (1947) 81 Ll.L.R 277 (P.C.).

  17. 17.

    Ready (1998), p. 2.

  18. 18.

    Lauterpacht (1955), p. 546.

  19. 19.

    Ready (1998), p. 2.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner (1860) 29 LJ Ch 827.

  22. 22.

    Ready (1998), p. 6.

  23. 23.

    Ibid, p. 7.

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    Ibid.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Oteri case, supra, note 13 at p. 105.

  28. 28.

    Ready (1998), p. 6.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    4 & 5 Eliz 2, 1995, c.21.

  31. 31.

    Mukherjee and Brownrigg (2013), pp. 204–205. See also Mukherjee (1993), p. 33.

  32. 32.

    In The Polzeath, [1916] P. 241, (CA), the ship in question was owned by a company incorporated in the UK. The chairman of the Board of Directors who owned the majority shares in the company resided in Hamburg and the company was controlled from there. The court held that “the principal place of business [is] that place from where the effective control was maintained" and ruled that in that case it was Hamburg, Germany and was therefore subject to forfeiture by the Crown. See also The Rewia [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 per Leggatt L.J. See discussion in Hill (1995), pp. 4–5.

  33. 33.

    Mukherjee and Brownrigg (2013), p. 205.

  34. 34.

    Ibid. pp. 205–206.

  35. 35.

    Ready (1998), p. 6.

  36. 36.

    Mukherjee and Brownrigg (2013), pp. 208–210.

  37. 37.

    Mukherjee and Brownrigg (2013), pp. 212–213.

  38. 38.

    Wiswall (1988).

  39. 39.

    See UNCLOS Article 92. See also Ademuni-Odeki (1998), p. 129.

  40. 40.

    See Mukherjee (1993), pp. 36–37. It seems civil law jurisdictions are generally more amenable to parallel registrations of bareboat chartered ships than are common law jurisdictions. Examples are those of Spain, Italy, Panama. Notably, Liberia and Cyprus also allow such registrations.

  41. 41.

    Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s.1 sets out the prerequisites for registration of a British ship. They incorporate the revisions made in Part l of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.

  42. 42.

    Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations 1993, regulation 2(3). See Hill (1995), p. 2.

  43. 43.

    Gold et al. (2003), p. 154; Coles and Ready (2002), p. 7.

  44. 44.

    Ready (1998), p. 4.

  45. 45.

    UNCTAD press release, UNCTAD Information Unit, UN Doc. UNCTAD/INF/1770, 7 February 1986.

  46. 46.

    McConnell (1987), p. 7.

  47. 47.

    Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, 4 I.C.J. Rep, 1955.

  48. 48.

    Mukherjee (1993).

  49. 49.

    Brownlie (1998), p. 429 8.

  50. 50.

    Ibid.

  51. 51.

    1184 UNTS 3.

  52. 52.

    18 UST 1857, 640.

  53. 53.

    1050 UNTS 16; 28 UST 3459.

  54. 54.

    45 ILM 792.

  55. 55.

    1361 UNTS 190 and 1362 UNTS 190.

  56. 56.

    For detailed explanatory analysis of all these elements see Mukherjee and Liu (2015), pp. 39–42.

  57. 57.

    In McFadden v. Blue Star Line [1905] 1 K.B. 697, the standard was described at p. 706 as “that degree of fitness which an ordinary, careful and prudent owner would require his vessel to have at the commencement of her voyage having regard to all the probable circumstances of it.”

  58. 58.

    International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading, 1924, 412 UNTS 127 amended by its Visby Protocol, 1968 1412 UNTS 128.

  59. 59.

    [1969] 1 All E.R. p. 495.

  60. 60.

    [1959] A.C. 589.

  61. 61.

    The Roberta, (1938), 60 Ll. L.R. 85, 58 Ll. L.R. 159, 177.

  62. 62.

    See Gaskell et al. (1987), p. 186, in particular, footnote 13 at that page.

  63. 63.

    Thomas and Steel (1976), p. 130.

  64. 64.

    In s. 94 as the meaning of “dangerously unsafe” is elaborated as follows:

    (1)... a ship is “dangerously unsafe” if, having regard to the nature of the service for which it is intended, the ship is, by reason of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below, unfit to go to sea without serious danger to human life. (2) Those matters - (a) the condition, or the unsuitability for its purpose, o f- (i) the ship or its machinery or equipment; or (ii) any part of the ship or its machinery or equipment; (b) undermanning; (c) overloading or unsafe or improper loading; (d) any other matter relevant to the safety of the ship; and are referred to in those sections, in relation to any ship, as “the matters relevant to its safety”. Section 95 explains the circumstances in which a dangerously unsafe ship can be detained.

  65. 65.

    See Thomas and Steel (1976), p. 130.

  66. 66.

    International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 1990 30 ILM 733 (1991) and OPRC-HNS Protocol, 2000 HNS-OPRC/CONF/11/Rev.1.

  67. 67.

    Convention on the Prevention of Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972, 1046 UNTS 120 and its Protocol of 1996, 36 ILM 1.

  68. 68.

    International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 5 October 2001, IMO Doc. AFS/CONF/26, of 18 October 2001.

  69. 69.

    International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004, 1760 UNTS 142.

  70. 70.

    Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, 1989, 1833 UNTS 3, 1673 UNTS 126.

  71. 71.

    Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, 46 ILM 694 (2007).

  72. 72.

    Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009, (SR/CONF/45).

  73. 73.

    Mukherjee and Liu (2015), pp. 54–55.

  74. 74.

    1678 U.N.T.S. 22.

  75. 75.

    Mejia (2002).

  76. 76.

    See Bassiouni (1996), pp. 38–46.

  77. 77.

    Mukherjee and Liu (2015), pp. 60–61.

  78. 78.

    See United Kingdom Department of Transport, Marine Directorate (1991).

  79. 79.

    Eriksson and Mejia (2000).

  80. 80.

    45 ILM 792.

  81. 81.

    62/122, 21 ILM.

  82. 82.

    Mukherjee and Brownrigg (2013), p. 179.

  83. 83.

    970 UNTS 211.

  84. 84.

    Churchill and Lowe (1999), pp. 95–99.

  85. 85.

    Mukherjee and Brownrigg (2013), p. 179.

  86. 86.

    Mukherjee (2000), p. 114.

  87. 87.

    China and Vietnam, among others have classification societies that are government entities.

  88. 88.

    Mukherjee and Brownrigg (2013), p. 185.

  89. 89.

    International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, IMO Assembly Resolution A.741(18)—1993, Rev. 2015.

  90. 90.

    Appendix 1 to the Guidelines contains standards on ISM Code certification arrangements and Appendix 2 contains the forms for the Document of Compliance and the Safety Management Code.

  91. 91.

    The Voluntary IMO Member States Audit Scheme (VIMSAS), as the name implies, was originally a voluntary system which was later made mandatory and renamed the IMO Member State Audit Scheme (IMSAS).

  92. 92.

    Ready (1998), p. 22.

  93. 93.

    https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/Proceedings%20Magazine/Archive/2012/Vol69_No2_Sum2012.pdf?ver=2017-05-31-120748-633.

  94. 94.

    Mukherjee and Brownrigg (2013), p. 199.

  95. 95.

    Mukherjee (2000), p. 111.

References

Books and Articles

  • Ademuni-Odeki (1998) Bareboat Charter (Ship) registration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC (1996) The sources and content of international criminal law: a theoretical framework. In: Bassiouni MC (ed) International criminal law. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1998) Principles of public international law, 5th edn. University of Oxford Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill RR, Lowe AV (1999) The law of the sea, 3rd edn. Juris Publishing, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Coles R, Ready N (eds) (2002) Ship registration law and practice. Lloyd’s of London Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombos GJ (1967) International law of the sea, 6th edn. Longmans, London, p 285. quoting Westlake International Law - 2nd Edition, Vol. I

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson P, Mejia M (2000) IMO’s work on the human element in maritime safety. Lund University Centre for Risk Analysis and Management, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell NJJ, Debattista C, Swatton RJ (1987) Chorley and Giles’ shipping law, 8th edn. Pitman Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold E, Chircop A, Hugh K (2003) Maritime law. Irwin Law, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill C (1995) Maritime law, 8th edn. Lloyd’s of London Press Limited, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (1955) Oppenheim’s international law, vol 1, 6th edn. Longman’s Green and Co, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell ML (1987) Business as usual: an evaluation of the 1986 United Nations Convention on conditions for registration of ship. J Maritime Law Commerce 18(3 July):435

    Google Scholar 

  • Mejia M (2002) Defining maritime violence and maritime security. In: Mukherjee PK, Mejia MQ, Gauci GM (eds) Maritime violence and other security issues at sea. WMU, Publications, Malmo

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee PK (1993) Flagging options: Legal and other considerations. Mariner J Master Mariners Soc Pakistan 4:31–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee PK (2000) New horizons for flag states. Maritime Rev:110–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee PK (2019) Maritime conflict of laws: zonal and jurisdictional issues in perspective. In: Chuah J (ed) Research handbook on maritime law. Edward Elgar Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee PK, Brownrigg M (2013) Farthing on international shipping. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee PK, Liu H (2015) Safety and security in shipping: International, common law and chinese liability perspectives. In: Tavidze A (ed) Progress in economics research, vol 33. Nova Science Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ready NP (1998) Ship registration. LLP Reference Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stopford M (2009) Maritime economics, 3rd edn. Routledge, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas M, Steel D (1976) Temperley’s merchant shipping acts. In: British shipping laws, vol 11, 7th edn. Stevens & Sons, London

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD Information Unit, UN Doc. UNCTAD/INF/1770, 7 February 1986

    Google Scholar 

  • United Kingdom Department of Transport, Marine Directorate (1991) The human element in shipping casualties. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiswall F (ed) (1988) Bareboat charter registration, legal issues and commercial benefits. International Chamber of Commerce, Paris

    Google Scholar 

Cases

  • Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, 4 I.C.J. Rep, 1955

    Google Scholar 

  • Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner (1860) 29 LJ Ch 827

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxine Footwear Company Ltd. v. Canadian Government Merchant Marine [1959] A.C. 589

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden v. Blue Star Line [1905] 1 K.B. 697

    Google Scholar 

  • Naim Molvan v. Attorney General for Palestine (The Asya) (1947), 81 Ll.L.R 277 (P.C.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oteri v. The Queen [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 105, at p. 108

    Google Scholar 

  • Polzeath, The [1916] P. 241, (CA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rewia, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325

    Google Scholar 

  • Riverstone Meat Company Pty Ltd. v. Lancashire Shipping Company Ltd. (The Muncaster Castle) [1969] 1 All E.R. p. 495

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberta, The (1938), 60 Ll. L.R. 85, 58 Ll. L.R. 159, 177

    Google Scholar 

  • Steamship Lotus, The (1927) P.C.I.J. Series A, No. I0; 2 Hudson, W.C.R. 23

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Legal Division, Powys Council, Brecon, Wales, UK

    Reshmi Mukherjee

Authors
  1. Reshmi Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China

    Proshanto K. Mukherjee

  2. Maritime Law and Policy, World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden

    Maximo Q. Mejia Jr.

  3. Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

    Jingjing Xu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mukherjee, R. (2020). Ship Nationality, Flag States and the Eradication of Substandard Ships: A Critical Analysis. In: Mukherjee, P.K., Mejia, M.Q., Xu, J. (eds) Maritime Law in Motion. WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_27

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31748-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31749-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation