policies and related procedures’ that ‘facilitate the movement of PCASP and their
firearms and security-related equipment.
88 To conduct services appropriately, the
interim Guidance directed to PMSCs providing PCASP services (Cir.1443) requires
the company to acquire the necessary professional certification, insurance cover,
operational competence to employ and provide PCASP services for combating
piracy. The company also requires knowledge of the regulation and policies of the
flag state, port as well as coastal states.
89
Arguably, the IMO recommendations have enjoyed a positive response as they
provide directly relevant consideration of several complexities that surround the use
of PMSC service within the maritime domain, including but not limited to identifying the need of states to specify necessary professional certification, insurance cover,
operational competence as well as the relationship of the PCASP with the master
while on board a vessel. These IMO recommendations have formed the basis for
several stakeholders’ articulation on their stance with respect to PMSCs services and
how they ought to be engaged. For instance, Singaporean Guidance on the use of
Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel
90 serves to inform on Singapore’s
position on the use of armed security personnel on board Singapore registered
vessels, based on IMO’s Interim Guidance MSC.1/Circ.1405.
91
However, as much as these IMO documents are welcomed, they still do not
provide adequate sector-specific recommendations to fill certain regulatory gaps.
Aside from falling short of resolving the problems arising from competencies of
states, Cir. 1405/Rev. 3 for ship owners and Cir. 1443 on PMSCs do not also meet
the needs of various stakeholders concerned about operational challenges.
92 Furthermore, the IMO recommendations possess an inherently non-mandatory nature
that is characteristic of international soft law instruments.
93 In spite of its potential to
spur national legislation among coastal and flag states, provisions in the Interim
recommendations are not legally binding.
94 States and other relevant stake holders
are only urged to utilise the guidelines as a road map to identifying and filling gaps
existing from the use of PMSCs.
95 Thus the parties that the guidelines address do not
incur any liability for failure to give effect to the provisions.
88 MSC.1/1048/Rev.1.
89 MSC.1/Circ. 1443, Annex1, par. 3(3.3).
90 Shipping Circular No. 11 (2011).
91 Ibid. See also Republic of Marshall Island, Marine Notice (2016) No. 2-011-39; Antigua and
Barbuda, Department of Marine Services and Merchant Shipping (ADOMS), (2013) Cir. 2013-003.
92 Carreira Da Cruz (2017), pp. 64 and 74.
93 On meaning and characteristics of international soft law instruments see Guzman and Meyer
(2010), pp. 171–222; Chaisse and Ji (2018), pp. 477–479.
94 MSC.1/Circ. 1443, Annex1, par. 1.5; Liss (2015), p. 89; Marin et al. (2017), p. 192.
95 MSC1/1406/Rev. 3, Annex 1, par.1; MSC.1/Circ. 1443, Annex1, par. 1.5; MSC.1/Circ.1405/
Rev.2, Annex 1, pa. 1.3.
188
O. A. Eruaga
firearms and security-related equipment.
88 To conduct services appropriately, the
interim Guidance directed to PMSCs providing PCASP services (Cir.1443) requires
the company to acquire the necessary professional certification, insurance cover,
operational competence to employ and provide PCASP services for combating
piracy. The company also requires knowledge of the regulation and policies of the
flag state, port as well as coastal states.
89
Arguably, the IMO recommendations have enjoyed a positive response as they
provide directly relevant consideration of several complexities that surround the use
of PMSC service within the maritime domain, including but not limited to identifying the need of states to specify necessary professional certification, insurance cover,
operational competence as well as the relationship of the PCASP with the master
while on board a vessel. These IMO recommendations have formed the basis for
several stakeholders’ articulation on their stance with respect to PMSCs services and
how they ought to be engaged. For instance, Singaporean Guidance on the use of
Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel
90 serves to inform on Singapore’s
position on the use of armed security personnel on board Singapore registered
vessels, based on IMO’s Interim Guidance MSC.1/Circ.1405.
91
However, as much as these IMO documents are welcomed, they still do not
provide adequate sector-specific recommendations to fill certain regulatory gaps.
Aside from falling short of resolving the problems arising from competencies of
states, Cir. 1405/Rev. 3 for ship owners and Cir. 1443 on PMSCs do not also meet
the needs of various stakeholders concerned about operational challenges.
92 Furthermore, the IMO recommendations possess an inherently non-mandatory nature
that is characteristic of international soft law instruments.
93 In spite of its potential to
spur national legislation among coastal and flag states, provisions in the Interim
recommendations are not legally binding.
94 States and other relevant stake holders
are only urged to utilise the guidelines as a road map to identifying and filling gaps
existing from the use of PMSCs.
95 Thus the parties that the guidelines address do not
incur any liability for failure to give effect to the provisions.
88 MSC.1/1048/Rev.1.
89 MSC.1/Circ. 1443, Annex1, par. 3(3.3).
90 Shipping Circular No. 11 (2011).
91 Ibid. See also Republic of Marshall Island, Marine Notice (2016) No. 2-011-39; Antigua and
Barbuda, Department of Marine Services and Merchant Shipping (ADOMS), (2013) Cir. 2013-003.
92 Carreira Da Cruz (2017), pp. 64 and 74.
93 On meaning and characteristics of international soft law instruments see Guzman and Meyer
(2010), pp. 171–222; Chaisse and Ji (2018), pp. 477–479.
94 MSC.1/Circ. 1443, Annex1, par. 1.5; Liss (2015), p. 89; Marin et al. (2017), p. 192.
95 MSC1/1406/Rev. 3, Annex 1, par.1; MSC.1/Circ. 1443, Annex1, par. 1.5; MSC.1/Circ.1405/
Rev.2, Annex 1, pa. 1.3.
188
O. A. Eruaga