organizations in the international law of the sea is perhaps best captured by the
concept of ‘competent international organization’, which serves to allocate and
underscore the pursuit of a rules-based order, institutionalised cooperation and the
pursuit of equity in international relations. The International Maritime Organization
(IMO) is at the centre of a constellation of international organizations concerned
with some aspect of navigation and shipping and stands out as ‘the’ competent
international organization for rule and standard-setting to facilitate international
navigation and maritime trade.
2
The IMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations designed inter alia, to
provide machinery for co-operation among governments in the field of governmental
regulation and practices relating to maritime technical matters, and to encourage and
facilitate the adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning
maritime safety, efficiency of navigation and prevention and control of marine
pollution from ships.
3 The IMO of today is a significantly different organization
than when first established. Functionally and structurally, it has evolved in response
to social needs, events and expectations. Recently the IMO Council, under internal
pressure and calls for greater transparency,
4 launched an open-ended working group
on the reform of the Council.
5 And it is conceivable that further change in the IMO’s
mandate and structure might be needed in response to the growing role the organization is playing in leading the industry on the path to decarbonization.
In this essay we discuss how the IMO emerged with a basic mandate and structure
that evolved in response to external and internal pressures to better equip itself and
facilitate the quantitative and qualitative expansion and maintenance of international
maritime law. Against that backdrop we further explore the governance challenges
the IMO is facing in a contemporary setting as a result of climate change and
consider the extent to which the IMO’s current mandate and structure enable it to
address these challenges. Our focus is on decarbonization called for by the Paris
Agreement, 2015.
6 We consider this issue to constitute the greatest challenge the
IMO has faced since the late 1960s, when it first embraced the environmental
mandate. We are of this view because of the long regulatory horizon of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emission reductions, the accompanying technological and economic
2 Law of the Sea Bulletin, 79–95. For a discussion of international organizations that have a mandate
with respect to some aspect of shipping, see Chircop (2017), pp. 118–121.
3 Convention on the International Maritime Organization (IMO Convention), art 1. The convention
was amended several times.
4 Access to Information, Submitted by Australia, IMO Doc C 121/3(b)/5 (19 October 2018).
5 ‘Council 121st session, 19–23 November 2018’, online: http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/
MeetingSummaries/Council/Pages/Council.,-121st-session,-19-23-November-2018.aspx. See Proposed Terms of Reference for the Working Group on Council Reform, Submitted by Cook Islands,
Japan, Marshall Islands, Panama, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and United States of
America, IMO Doc C 121/3(b)/13 (19 October 2018). The expectation is for Council to submit
recommendations to the Assembly’s 31st session.
6 Paris Agreement, adopted 12 December 2015 (entered into force 4 November 2016), Adoption of
the Paris Agreement, Dec CP.21, 21st Session, UN Doc FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1
(12 December 2015).
98
A. Chircop and D. Shan
concept of ‘competent international organization’, which serves to allocate and
underscore the pursuit of a rules-based order, institutionalised cooperation and the
pursuit of equity in international relations. The International Maritime Organization
(IMO) is at the centre of a constellation of international organizations concerned
with some aspect of navigation and shipping and stands out as ‘the’ competent
international organization for rule and standard-setting to facilitate international
navigation and maritime trade.
2
The IMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations designed inter alia, to
provide machinery for co-operation among governments in the field of governmental
regulation and practices relating to maritime technical matters, and to encourage and
facilitate the adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning
maritime safety, efficiency of navigation and prevention and control of marine
pollution from ships.
3 The IMO of today is a significantly different organization
than when first established. Functionally and structurally, it has evolved in response
to social needs, events and expectations. Recently the IMO Council, under internal
pressure and calls for greater transparency,
4 launched an open-ended working group
on the reform of the Council.
5 And it is conceivable that further change in the IMO’s
mandate and structure might be needed in response to the growing role the organization is playing in leading the industry on the path to decarbonization.
In this essay we discuss how the IMO emerged with a basic mandate and structure
that evolved in response to external and internal pressures to better equip itself and
facilitate the quantitative and qualitative expansion and maintenance of international
maritime law. Against that backdrop we further explore the governance challenges
the IMO is facing in a contemporary setting as a result of climate change and
consider the extent to which the IMO’s current mandate and structure enable it to
address these challenges. Our focus is on decarbonization called for by the Paris
Agreement, 2015.
6 We consider this issue to constitute the greatest challenge the
IMO has faced since the late 1960s, when it first embraced the environmental
mandate. We are of this view because of the long regulatory horizon of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emission reductions, the accompanying technological and economic
2 Law of the Sea Bulletin, 79–95. For a discussion of international organizations that have a mandate
with respect to some aspect of shipping, see Chircop (2017), pp. 118–121.
3 Convention on the International Maritime Organization (IMO Convention), art 1. The convention
was amended several times.
4 Access to Information, Submitted by Australia, IMO Doc C 121/3(b)/5 (19 October 2018).
5 ‘Council 121st session, 19–23 November 2018’, online: http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/
MeetingSummaries/Council/Pages/Council.,-121st-session,-19-23-November-2018.aspx. See Proposed Terms of Reference for the Working Group on Council Reform, Submitted by Cook Islands,
Japan, Marshall Islands, Panama, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and United States of
America, IMO Doc C 121/3(b)/13 (19 October 2018). The expectation is for Council to submit
recommendations to the Assembly’s 31st session.
6 Paris Agreement, adopted 12 December 2015 (entered into force 4 November 2016), Adoption of
the Paris Agreement, Dec CP.21, 21st Session, UN Doc FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1
(12 December 2015).
98
A. Chircop and D. Shan