Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flags of Convenience and Port State Control

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Seaports in International Law

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

Abstract

Globalization had a strong impact not only on seaports, but also on national merchant fleets.

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 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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.

    Chapter 3.

  2. 2.

    The International Transport Workers’ Federation, a major transnational trade union which is very active in the maritime and port sectors, lists as States and territories keeping convenience registers Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Burma, Cambodia, Cayman Islands, Comoros, Cyprus, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Gibraltar, Honduras, Jamaica, Lebanon, Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Netherlands Antilles, North Korea, Panama, Sao Tome and Principe, Sri Lanka, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tonga and Vanuatu, but also Germany and France for their additional registers (International Transport Workers’ Federation 2016). The most well-known convenience registers are the Panama (BBC 2014) and the Liberia one (LISCR 2016).

  3. 3.

    See Chap. 11.

  4. 4.

    Art. 94, par. 3–4.

  5. 5.

    Art. 247, par. 1.

  6. 6.

    Chapter 8.

  7. 7.

    Dotinga and Kwiatkowska (editors) (2001), p. 40; FAO (2002), Chap. 4; Sands (2012), p. 410; Zwinge (2011).

  8. 8.

    The Panama Maritime Authority claims that “the Panama Registry is in charge of managing the world’s largest ship registry, with over 8000 registered vessels which accounts for 218 million GT [gross tonns], representing 18% of the world fleet” (Panama Maritime Authority 2015).

  9. 9.

    International Maritime Organization (2016).

  10. 10.

    International Chamber of Shipping (2016).

  11. 11.

    The tanker Amoco Cadiz ran aground off the coast of Britanny on March 16, 1978 (The International Tankers Owners Pollution Federation Limited 2014). Brittany was so unlucky to be affected also by the sinking of the tanker Erika on December 12, 1999 (Euronews 2012). Finally, the tanker prestige sank off the Spanish Bay of Biscay on November 19, 2002 (BBC 2002). All the three ships were flying a flag of convenience, and the Erika had also been certified by the prestigious Italian corporation RINA (RINA Services s.p.a., 2016), despite its old age (Chrisafis 2008).

  12. 12.

    Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom West Germany. Since 1991 Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Russia, and Slovenia also adhered.

  13. 13.

    Paris MoU (2016a).

  14. 14.

    International Maritime Organization (1991).

  15. 15.

    Argentine Naval Prefecture (2012). The Parties to the Viña del Mar Agreement are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

  16. 16.

    Tokyo MOU (2016). The Parties to the Tokyo MoU are Australia, Canada, Chile, China (including Hong Kong), Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Thailand, South Korea, Vanuatu, and Vietnam. Given the traffic volumes of the Asian seaports (see above, Chap. 11), the Tokyo MoU is probably the most important one in practical terms.

  17. 17.

    CMOU (2010). The Parties to the Caribbean MoU are Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, the Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Bermuda, Dominica, Great Britain (for the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands), Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, the Netherlands (including Curaçao), Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

  18. 18.

    Mediterranean MoU (2014). The Parties to the Mediterranean MoU are Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey and the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine (as Palestinian Authority).

  19. 19.

    Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (2014).

  20. 20.

    Abuja MoU (2012). The Parties to the Abuja MoU are Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Senegal, South Africa, and Togo.

  21. 21.

    Black Sea MOU (2016). The Parties to the Black Sea MoU are Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine.

  22. 22.

    Riyadh MoU on PSC (2015). The Parties to the Riyadh MoU are Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait.

  23. 23.

    United States Coast Guard (2016).

  24. 24.

    Setting aside all the other oddities detected in PSC MoUs, the prevailing doctrine holds that executive agreements are pleno jure international agreements, which should be registered with the United Nations: Brandon (1953), p. 52; Elias (1974), pp. 222ff.; McNair (1961), p. 181, albeit with some limitations; Rosenne (1970), pp. 402ff.

  25. 25.

    See Chap. 11.

  26. 26.

    The issue of the exact nature and definition of international comity—a term which is used with very different meaning, some of which related to private international law—cannot be dealt with here.

  27. 27.

    Churchill and Lowe (1993), p. 80; Dunlap (1996), p. 14; Kasoulides (1993), p. 25; Molenaar (1998), p. 193; Ozcayir (2004), pp. 86ff; Quadri (1939), p. 91; Treves (1995), p. 38.

  28. 28.

    Section 1 of the Paris MoU; Section 1 of the Viña del Mar Agreement; Section 1 of the Tokyo MoU; Section 1 of the Caribbean MoU; Section 1 of the Mediterranean MoU; Section 1 of the Abuya MoU; Section 1 of the Black Sea MoU; Section 1 of the Riyadh MoU.

  29. 29.

    Section 2 of the Paris MoU; Section 2 of the Viña del Mar Agreement; Section 2 of the Tokyo MoU; Section 2 of the Caribbean MoU; Section 2 of the Mediterranean MoU; Section 2 of the Abuya MoU; Section 2 of the Black Sea MoU; Section 2 of the Riyadh MoU.

  30. 30.

    Section 3 of the Paris MoU; Section 3 of the Viña del Mar Agreement; Section 3.3ff. of the Tokyo MoU; Section 3 of the Caribbean MoU; Section 3 of the Mediterranean MoU; Section 3 of the Abuja MoU; Section 3 of the Black Sea MoU; Section 3 of the Riyadh MoU.

  31. 31.

    Section 3.4ff. of the Paris MoU; Section 3.10ff. of the Viña del Mar Agreement; Section 3.7ff. of the Tokyo MoU; Section 3.7.1ff. of the Caribbean MoU; Section 3.6.3ff. of the Mediterrean MoU; Section 3.4.3 of the Abuja MoU; Section 3.6.4ff. of the Black Sea MoU; Section 3.14ff. of the Riyadh MoU.

  32. 32.

    Section 4 of the Paris MoU; Section 4 of the Abuja MoU.

  33. 33.

    Section 7 of the Paris MoU; Section 6 of the Viña del Mar Agreement; Section 6 of the Tokyo MoU; Section 6 of the Caribbean MoU; Section 6 of the Mediterranean MoU; Section 8 of the Abuja MoU; Section 7 of the Black Sea MoU; Section 7 of the Riyadh MoU.

  34. 34.

    Section 8 of the Paris MoU; Section 7 of the Viña del Mar Agreement; Section 7 of the Tokyo MoU; Section 8 of the Caribbean MoU; Section 7 of the Mediterranean MoU; Section 10 of the Abuja MoU; Section 9 of the Black Sea MoU; Section 9 of the Riyadh MoU. Most MoU have been amended, especially in their Technical Annexes.

  35. 35.

    Bang (2008).

  36. 36.

    Abuja MoU ( 2012).

  37. 37.

    Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE (2016).

  38. 38.

    Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE (2016), p. 4.

  39. 39.

    Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE (2016), p. 5.

  40. 40.

    Port of Rotterdam (2016).

  41. 41.

    Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2016).

  42. 42.

    Annex 9, n. 3 of the Paris MoU; Annex 1, n. 2.4 of the Viña del Mar Agreement; Section 3.1 of the Tokyo MoU; Section 3.1 of the Caribbean MoU; Section 3.2.1 of the Mediterranean MoU; Section 3.3 of the Abuja MoU; Section 3.1.2 of the Black Sea MoU; Section 3.2 of the Riyadh MoU. It is significant that the clear grounds rule, which is found only in the Annexes of the Paris MoU, was moved to the main text in all the subsequent instruments, as if the need was felt to emphasize its importance as a guarantee for the ship.

  43. 43.

    Paris MoU (2016b).

  44. 44.

    Annex 1, paragraph 2.

  45. 45.

    Annex 1, paragraph 3.

  46. 46.

    Annex 1, paragraph 5.

  47. 47.

    Annex 1, paragraph 10.

  48. 48.

    Annex 1, paragraph 8.

  49. 49.

    Annex 1, paragraph 24.

  50. 50.

    Fraser (2010).

  51. 51.

    Amnesty International and Greenpeace Netherlands (2012), p. 54.

  52. 52.

    Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2016).

  53. 53.

    United Nations (2009).

  54. 54.

    District Court of Amsterdam (2010a).

  55. 55.

    District Court of Amsterdam (2010b).

  56. 56.

    District Court of Amsterdam (2010c).

  57. 57.

    Amsterdam Court of Appeals (2011).

  58. 58.

    District Court of Amsterdam (2010d).

  59. 59.

    District Court of Amsterdam (2010e).

References

  • Abuja MoU. (2012). Memorandum of Understanding Text. Memorandum of understanding on port state control for west & central African region. Retrieved from http://www.abujamou.org/index.php?pid=5t77uyggfgdf6756

  • Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty SE. (2016). Safety and shipping review 2016, March 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International and Greenpeace Netherlands. (2012). The toxic truth. London-Amsterdam: Amnesty International Publications-Greenpeace Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amsterdam Court of Appeals. (2011). Judgment of 23 December 2011, case number 23-003334-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argentine Naval Prefecture. (2012). Acuerdo Latinoamericano sobre Control de Busques por el Estado Rector del Puerto. Buenos Aires: Prefectura Naval Argentina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bang, H.-S. (2008). Is port state control an effective means to combat vessel-source pollution? The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 23(4), pp. 715ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC. (2002). Striken oil tank sinks. BBC, November 19, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC. (2014). Why so many shipowners find Panama’s flag convenient. BBC, August 5, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black Sea MOU. (2016). BS MOU Text. Black Sea MOU. Retrieved from http://www.bsmou.org/

  • Brandon, M. (1953). Analysis of the terms “Treaty” and “International Agreement” for purposes of registration under article 102 of the United Nations charter. The American Journal of International Law, 47(1), pp. 52ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. (2016). Trafigura lawsuits (re Côte d’Ivoire). Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. Retrieved from https://business-humanrights.org/en/trafigura-lawsuits-re-c%C3%B4te-d%E2%80%99ivoire

  • Churchill, R. R., & Lowe, A. (1993). The Law of the Sea, II Rev. Ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisafis, A. (2008). The polluter pays: 30,000 tonne oil disaster costs French firm €200 m. The Guardian, January 17, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • CMOU. (2010). About Us. CMOU. Retrieved from http://www.caribbeanmou.org/aboutus.php

  • District Court of Amsterdam. (2010a). Judgment of 23 July 2010, case number 13/846004-08 (PROMIS).

    Google Scholar 

  • District Court of Amsterdam (2010b), Judgment of 23 July 2010, case number 13/864003-08 (PROMIS).

    Google Scholar 

  • District Court of Amsterdam. (2010c). Judgment of 23 July 2010, case number 13/864003-06 (PROMIS).

    Google Scholar 

  • District Court of Amsterdam. (2010d). Judgment of 23 July 2010, case number 13/846008-08.

    Google Scholar 

  • District Court of Amsterdam. (2010e). Judgment of 23 July 2010, case number 13/846006-08 (PROMIS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dotinga, H., & Kwiatkowska, B. (Eds.). (2001). International organizations and the law of the sea (Vol. I). The Hague-London-Boston: Martinus Nijhoof Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, W. W. (1996). Transit Passage in the Russian Arctic Straits. Maritime Briefing, 1996, 1(7), pp. 1ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, T. O. (1974). The modern law of treaties. Dobbs Ferry-Leiden: Sijthoff-Oceana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Euronews. (2012). Erika, the globalised tanker disaster. Euronews, 25 September 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. (2002). Implementation of the international plan of action to deter, prevent and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregolated fishing. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, P. (2010). The probo koala inquiry. Singapore: Trafigura Group Pte. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2016). 2015 Port of Hong Kong Statistical Tables. Hong Kong: The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

    Google Scholar 

  • Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control. (2014). Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control for the Indian Ocean Region, MOU.Rev 8 Oct 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Chamber of Shipping. (2016). Shipping industry flag state performance table, 2015/2016. London: International Chamber of Shipping.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Maritime Organization (1991). Regional cooperation in the control of ships and discharges, Resolution A.682(17), adopted on November 6, 1991 (Agenda Item 10).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Maritime Organization. (2016). Surveys, verifications and certification. IMO. Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/MSAS/Pages/SurveysAndCertification.aspx

  • International Transport Workers’ Federation. (2016). Defining FOCs and the problems they pose. ITF Seafarers. Retrieved from http://www.itfseafarers.org/defining-focs.cfm

  • Kasoulides, G. (1993). Port state control and jurisdiction. Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • LISCR. (2016). About the liberian registry. Liberian Registry. Retrieved from http://www.liscr.com/liscr/AboutUs/AboutLiberianRegistry/tabid/206/Default.aspx

  • McNair, A. D. (1961). The law of treaties. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mediterranean MoU. (2014). MoU Text. Mediterranean M.O.U. Retrieved from http://www.medmou.org/

  • Molenaar, E. J. (1998). Coastal state jurisdiction over vessel-source pollution. The Hague-Boston-London: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozcayir, O. (2004). Port state control, II Edition. London-Singapore: Informa Professionals.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panama Maritime Authority. (2015). About us. The Panama Registry. Retrieved from http://www.segumar.com/about-us/

  • Paris MoU (2016a). Memorandum. Paris MoU. Retrieved form https://www.parismou.org/about-us/memorandum

  • Paris MoU. (2016b). Code of good practice for port state control officers conducting inspections within the framework of the Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control, MSC/MEPC.4/circ. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Port of Rotterdam. (2016). An increase in the number of vessels in Rotterdam for the first time since 2007, press release of February 26, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quadri, R. (1939). Le navi private nel diritto internazionale. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • RINA Services s.p.a. (2016). RINA Services: About us. RINA Services. Retrieved from http://www.rina.org/en/aboutus

  • Riyadh MoU on PSC. (2015). Riyadh MoU text. Riyadh memorandum of understanding. Retrieved from http://www.riyadhmou.org/aboutmoutext.html

  • Rosenne, S. (1970). The law of treaties. Dobbs Ferry-Leiden: Sijthoff-Oceana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands, P. (2012). Principles of international environmental law (III ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The International Tankers Owners Pollution Federation Limited. (2014). Amoco Cadiz, France, 1978. ITOPF. Retrieved from http://www.itopf.com/in-action/case-studies/case-study/amoco-cadiz-france-1978/

  • Tokyo MOU. (2016). Memorandum of Understanding. Tokyo MOU. Retrieved from http://www.tokyo-mou.org/organization/memorandum_of_understanding.php

  • Treves, T. (1995). Il diritto del mare e l’Italia. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2009). Report of the special rapporteur on the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, Okechukwu Ibeanu, A/HRC/12/26/Add.2.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Coast Guard. (2016). Foreign & Offshore Compliance Division (CG-CVC-2). United States coast guard. Retrieved from http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cgcvc/cvc2/psc/

  • Zwinge, T. (2011). Duties of flag states to implement and enforce international standards and regulations. Journal of International Business and Law, 10(2), pp. 297ff. Hempstead: Hofstra University.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rome, Italy

    Marco Casagrande

Authors
  1. Marco Casagrande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Casagrande .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Casagrande, M. (2017). Flags of Convenience and Port State Control. In: Seaports in International Law. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60396-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60396-4_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60395-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60396-4

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation