The applicability to a wide range of offences that affect the safety of navigation
58 as
well as the extensive geographical coverage
59 are significant innovations in the
Convention that makes it appealing to maritime security stakeholders.
60
As with UNCLOS, the Convention gives due accord to flag state authority,
control and jurisdiction over administrative, technical and social matters involving
the vessel. It equally gives due recognition to coastal state rights and jurisdiction
under the international law of the sea.
61 In contrast to UNCLOS which refers only to
mitigation of security threats by government warships, the SUA Convention provides for private response to crimes. SUA Article 8 allows the master to apprehend
and deliver any person he believes has committed an offence under the Convention.
PMSCs under flag state authority may provide services on the vessel, for the purpose
of fulfilling Article 8. The Convention places an obligation on the master where
practicable to pre-notify the receiving State of his intention to deliver such person.
62
Another observation with respect to conducting authorised apprehension of suspects,
is the requirement of the use of minimum force.
63 However, the reference to the use
of minimum force under SUA 2005 appears to refer to its use by government law
enforcement officials for their safety or that of person on board.
2.1.1.3 International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea and the ISPS Code
The International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code and amendments to
the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention
64 as the foundation treaty for the ISPS
Code establishes a framework for cooperation between contracting governments,
their agencies, the shipping and port industries to detect and take preventive measures against security threats affecting ships or port facilities used in international
trade.
65 The Code, enforced by flag and port state control measures, obligates
relevant stakeholders to comply at the very least, with certain mandatory security
requirements for ensuring maritime security.
66 Based on these requirements, PMSCs
provide several services such as the development of security plans from security
assessments, training ship security officers and conducting appropriate drills and
exercises.
67
58 SUA 2005, Art. 3, 3bis, 3ter and 3 quarter.
59 SUA 2005, Art. 4.
60 Mejia and Mukherjee (2006), pp. 181–184.
61 SUA 2005, Art 9.
62 SUA 2005, Article 8 (2).
63 SUA 2005, Article 8bis.
64 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, Chapter XI-2.
65 For an in-depth discussion on the background to and development of the ISPS Code, see generally
Jones (2006).
66 Mileski et al. (2015), pp. 97–98.
67 Cullen (2012), p. 29.
184
O. A. Eruaga
58 as
well as the extensive geographical coverage
59 are significant innovations in the
Convention that makes it appealing to maritime security stakeholders.
60
As with UNCLOS, the Convention gives due accord to flag state authority,
control and jurisdiction over administrative, technical and social matters involving
the vessel. It equally gives due recognition to coastal state rights and jurisdiction
under the international law of the sea.
61 In contrast to UNCLOS which refers only to
mitigation of security threats by government warships, the SUA Convention provides for private response to crimes. SUA Article 8 allows the master to apprehend
and deliver any person he believes has committed an offence under the Convention.
PMSCs under flag state authority may provide services on the vessel, for the purpose
of fulfilling Article 8. The Convention places an obligation on the master where
practicable to pre-notify the receiving State of his intention to deliver such person.
62
Another observation with respect to conducting authorised apprehension of suspects,
is the requirement of the use of minimum force.
63 However, the reference to the use
of minimum force under SUA 2005 appears to refer to its use by government law
enforcement officials for their safety or that of person on board.
2.1.1.3 International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea and the ISPS Code
The International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code and amendments to
the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention
64 as the foundation treaty for the ISPS
Code establishes a framework for cooperation between contracting governments,
their agencies, the shipping and port industries to detect and take preventive measures against security threats affecting ships or port facilities used in international
trade.
65 The Code, enforced by flag and port state control measures, obligates
relevant stakeholders to comply at the very least, with certain mandatory security
requirements for ensuring maritime security.
66 Based on these requirements, PMSCs
provide several services such as the development of security plans from security
assessments, training ship security officers and conducting appropriate drills and
exercises.
67
58 SUA 2005, Art. 3, 3bis, 3ter and 3 quarter.
59 SUA 2005, Art. 4.
60 Mejia and Mukherjee (2006), pp. 181–184.
61 SUA 2005, Art 9.
62 SUA 2005, Article 8 (2).
63 SUA 2005, Article 8bis.
64 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, Chapter XI-2.
65 For an in-depth discussion on the background to and development of the ISPS Code, see generally
Jones (2006).
66 Mileski et al. (2015), pp. 97–98.
67 Cullen (2012), p. 29.
184
O. A. Eruaga