(effective in 2008)
30 to address maritime documentation and recent amendments to
the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965.
31
This general overview of the evolution of the IMO’s functions and structures has
served to demonstrate that the organization has been very active. From a structural
perspective, the organization enhanced inclusive participation by improving representation in its organs and further developed its ability to address new subject-matter
by establishing new structures for emerging concerns. At the same time however,
and from a functionalist perspective, frequently IMO regulation has been eventdriven and usually triggered by maritime casualties or security threats against ships.
In retrospect, the IMO developed a relatively comprehensive maritime governance system, enabling member states to collectively address changing maritime
risks and issues. At the same time it has also attracted criticism as a laggard, usually
because of the reactive and slow pace of regulation, instead of being anticipatory and
proactive. At times the ability of the IMO to lead, rather than follow the industry, has
been questioned. The regulation of GHG emissions from ships now constitutes a
new challenge, as well as opportunity, for the IMO to address a major contemporary
problem in a proactive manner. However, is the IMO sufficiently equipped to
respond to this new challenge effectively, efficiently and equitably, or does it need
to evolve further? This leads to the second part of the essay.
3 The Climate Change Era and the Decarbonization
Challenge
In order to understand the GHG challenge the IMO faces, and the extent to which its
mandate and structure enable it to tackle the challenge, it is useful to set out the
context of climate change governance. The United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, 1992 (UNFCCC)
32 set out the parameters to achieve the
objective of ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system’.
33 The shipping industry was expected to be part of the global effort and
in the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, developed states were expected to pursue limitation or
30 Amendments to the Convention on the International Maritime Organization (Institutionalisation
of the Facilitation Committee), IMO Assembly Resolution A.724(17) adopted 7 November 1991.
31 Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965.
32 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992. We refer to the
UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement collectively in this report as the UN Climate Regime. Article 4.1
(c) of the UNFCCC requires Parties to promote and cooperate in the development, application and
diffusion of technologies, practices and process that reduce or prevent greenhouse gas emissions
from the transport sector.
33 Ibid art 2.
104
A. Chircop and D. Shan
30 to address maritime documentation and recent amendments to
the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965.
31
This general overview of the evolution of the IMO’s functions and structures has
served to demonstrate that the organization has been very active. From a structural
perspective, the organization enhanced inclusive participation by improving representation in its organs and further developed its ability to address new subject-matter
by establishing new structures for emerging concerns. At the same time however,
and from a functionalist perspective, frequently IMO regulation has been eventdriven and usually triggered by maritime casualties or security threats against ships.
In retrospect, the IMO developed a relatively comprehensive maritime governance system, enabling member states to collectively address changing maritime
risks and issues. At the same time it has also attracted criticism as a laggard, usually
because of the reactive and slow pace of regulation, instead of being anticipatory and
proactive. At times the ability of the IMO to lead, rather than follow the industry, has
been questioned. The regulation of GHG emissions from ships now constitutes a
new challenge, as well as opportunity, for the IMO to address a major contemporary
problem in a proactive manner. However, is the IMO sufficiently equipped to
respond to this new challenge effectively, efficiently and equitably, or does it need
to evolve further? This leads to the second part of the essay.
3 The Climate Change Era and the Decarbonization
Challenge
In order to understand the GHG challenge the IMO faces, and the extent to which its
mandate and structure enable it to tackle the challenge, it is useful to set out the
context of climate change governance. The United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, 1992 (UNFCCC)
32 set out the parameters to achieve the
objective of ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system’.
33 The shipping industry was expected to be part of the global effort and
in the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, developed states were expected to pursue limitation or
30 Amendments to the Convention on the International Maritime Organization (Institutionalisation
of the Facilitation Committee), IMO Assembly Resolution A.724(17) adopted 7 November 1991.
31 Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965.
32 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992. We refer to the
UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement collectively in this report as the UN Climate Regime. Article 4.1
(c) of the UNFCCC requires Parties to promote and cooperate in the development, application and
diffusion of technologies, practices and process that reduce or prevent greenhouse gas emissions
from the transport sector.
33 Ibid art 2.
104
A. Chircop and D. Shan