An Exposé of Canadian “Abandoned
Vessels & Derelicts” Through a Legal
Analysis of Doctrinal Silos
Tafsir M. Johansson
Abstract “Abandoned vessels and derelicts” have been on the Canadian scene
since 2011 and in the past year or so, some of the most celebrated vessels such as
the MV Miner, the Kathryn Spirit and the MV Farley Mowat have made their way
from small online newswires to major national headlines. Although federal authorities have managed to dispose some of those vessels, the issue continues to remain at
the epicentre of debate and discussion. With this exposure, followed by governmental debates and discussions, surfaced the question of responsibility for managing
these so-called “abandoned vessels”, which is also sporadically referred to simply as
“derelicts”. Responsibilities associated with the management of Canadian “abandoned vessel and derelict” have consistently proven to be a predicament over the last
few years and a matter of debate for years among all levels of government. As all
fingers point towards the federal government and how the federal authorities can
lighten some of the load and relieve the taxpayers from incurring financial costs that
should have been borne by the owners, it has neither been possible to undertake
operations for removal nor possible to enforce preventative measures owing to the
fact that the federal laws and system have proven to be somewhat less effective and
efficient. As noted by MP Bernadette Jordan: “the responsibility for an abandoned
vessel and derelict has been batted around for years . . . but now is the time for the
federal government to step up and take a leadership role”. However, with the limited
capacity and crucial gaps and drawbacks in the federal laws and the corresponding
system, it might be quite challenging to live up to that commitment. Simply stated,
the federal laws require a number of significant amendments, the commencing point
being the implementation of a definition of “abandoned vessel and derelict” because
the existing federal laws are devoid of a rationale “black-letter” explanation of what
the term actually refers to.
T. M. Johansson (*)
WMU-Sasakawa Global Ocean Institute, Malmö, Sweden
e-mail: TM@WMU.SE
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
P. K. Mukherjee et al. (eds.), Maritime Law in Motion, WMU Studies in Maritime
Affairs 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_16
341
Vessels & Derelicts” Through a Legal
Analysis of Doctrinal Silos
Tafsir M. Johansson
Abstract “Abandoned vessels and derelicts” have been on the Canadian scene
since 2011 and in the past year or so, some of the most celebrated vessels such as
the MV Miner, the Kathryn Spirit and the MV Farley Mowat have made their way
from small online newswires to major national headlines. Although federal authorities have managed to dispose some of those vessels, the issue continues to remain at
the epicentre of debate and discussion. With this exposure, followed by governmental debates and discussions, surfaced the question of responsibility for managing
these so-called “abandoned vessels”, which is also sporadically referred to simply as
“derelicts”. Responsibilities associated with the management of Canadian “abandoned vessel and derelict” have consistently proven to be a predicament over the last
few years and a matter of debate for years among all levels of government. As all
fingers point towards the federal government and how the federal authorities can
lighten some of the load and relieve the taxpayers from incurring financial costs that
should have been borne by the owners, it has neither been possible to undertake
operations for removal nor possible to enforce preventative measures owing to the
fact that the federal laws and system have proven to be somewhat less effective and
efficient. As noted by MP Bernadette Jordan: “the responsibility for an abandoned
vessel and derelict has been batted around for years . . . but now is the time for the
federal government to step up and take a leadership role”. However, with the limited
capacity and crucial gaps and drawbacks in the federal laws and the corresponding
system, it might be quite challenging to live up to that commitment. Simply stated,
the federal laws require a number of significant amendments, the commencing point
being the implementation of a definition of “abandoned vessel and derelict” because
the existing federal laws are devoid of a rationale “black-letter” explanation of what
the term actually refers to.
T. M. Johansson (*)
WMU-Sasakawa Global Ocean Institute, Malmö, Sweden
e-mail: TM@WMU.SE
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
P. K. Mukherjee et al. (eds.), Maritime Law in Motion, WMU Studies in Maritime
Affairs 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_16
341