WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 263–279 | Cite as

Safety, security, the environment and shipping: The problem of making effective policies



This paper examines where problems of shipping policy jurisdiction between international, supra-national and national levels have occurred. These range across the issues of public goods — safety, security and environment— and show up inadequacies in the current shipping policy-making processes. New frameworks — commonly termed “polycentric governance” and “multi-level governance”— sensitive to the complexities of the maritime industry and its associated political structure urgently need to be adopted. The paper is based upon research work recently carried out across the European Union supported by a number of publications and will include examples from Greece, the United Kingdom, Spain, France and also the new member states. Suggestions for improvements in policy-making structures will be made and recommendations put forward for consideration by policy-makers in the maritime sector at all jurisdictional levels


Governance Policy Jurisdictions Polycentric 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Australian Maritime Safety Agency. 2001.A Comparison of Single and Double Hull Tankers. Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  2. Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (eds). 2004.Multi-level Governance. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Farrell, S. 2001. If it ain’t bust, don’t fix it: the proposed EU directive on market access to port services.Maritime Policy and Management 28(3): 307–313 Pt1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hooghe, L. and G. Marks. 2003. Unravelling the central state, but how? Types of multilevel governance.American Political Science Review 97(2): 233–243.Google Scholar
  5. Intertanko. 2006. Spain bans single hull tankers.Intertanko Review. http://www.intertanko.com/templates/Page.aspx?id=35992.Google Scholar
  6. Lloyds List. 2004. BIMCO urges action to counter criminalisation of seafarers.Lloyds List. April 7th.Google Scholar
  7. Marks, G. 1993. Structural Policy and Multi-level Governance in the EC. In Cafruny A. and G. Rosenthal eds.The State of the European Community Vol. 2: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond. Longman: Harlow.Google Scholar
  8. Marks, G. and L. Hooghe. 2000. Optimality and authority; a critique of neo-classical theory.Journal of Common Market Studies 38: 795–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. —. 2004. Contrasting visions of multi-level governance. In Bache, I. and M. Flinders eds. 2004.Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Marks, G., L. Hooghe and K. Blank. 1996. European integration from the 1980s: state-centric v. multi-level governance.Journal of Common Market Studies 34(3): 341–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McGuinness, M.D. 2005. Costs and challenges of polycentric governance.Workshop on Analyzing Problems of Polycentric Governance in the Growing EU. Berlin: Humboldt University.Google Scholar
  12. McGuinness, M.D. ed. 1999a.Polycentric Governance and Development. Chicago: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  13. —. 1999b.Polycentricity and Local Public Economics. Chicago: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. —. 2000.Polycentric Games and Institutions. Chicago: University of Michigan Press. Ostrom, E. 2001. Vulnerability and polycentric governance systems.Newsletter of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, 3/2001.Google Scholar
  15. Picciotto, S. 1991. The internationalisation of the state.Capital and Class 43: 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Scharpf, F.W. 1997. Introduction: The problem-solving capacity of multi-level governance.Journal of European Public Policy 4(4): 520–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scholte, J. 2004. Globalisation and Governance; From Statism to Polycentrism.CS-GR Working Paper 130/04. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation: Warwick, UK.Google Scholar
  18. Skelcher, C. 2005. Jurisdictional integrity, polycentrism and the design of democratic governance.Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions 18(1): 89–110.Google Scholar
  19. Tsebelis, G. and G. Garrett. 2001. The institutional foundations of inter-governmentalism and supra-nationalism in the European Union.International Organisation 55(2): 357–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang, P. 2002. On the Viability of Polycentric Governance Theory and Approach to Contemporary China.Workshop on Political Theory and Analysis. Indiana University, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Maritime University 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PlymouthPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations