education, examinations, qualifications of teaching staff, differentiation of training,
consideration of competency levels for recruitment, inspections to improve quality
standards, and the identification of fraudulent practices.
These fundamental elements—which still form the core of modern seafarer
education and training systems—were particularly obvious during the transition
from sailing ships to steam-powered ship propulsion (a transition not unlike the
current technological disruption in ship operation). Engineers and technicians who
were more situated in a shore-based industrial context, had to be “drafted” into the
maritime industry to “man” these new mechanically propelled ships. This change in
paradigm entrenched even more the need for the elements mentioned above.
14
These developments were further strengthened with the replication of such
systems in other jurisdictions and geographical locations e.g. the “Escuela Nautica
de Manila” founded in 1820 by Spain as a colonial power in The Philippines, five
Swedish navigation schools established in Malmö, Gothenburg, Gävle, Kalmar and
Stockholm in 1841 and similar institutions in Croatia in 1849.
In summary, the development of seafarer education and training, was driven by
the need to sustain shipping assets in a national context and to strengthen the
maritime power of nations as well as respond to disruptors in technology (in that
context, from sailing “technology” to a mechanical one).
2 The “Internationalization” of Seafarer Education
and Training
Following the concretization of clear national boundaries and territorial integrity of
States, and the notion of the right of States to—in the spirit of the Grotian doctrine of
“mare liberum”
15
—freely sail to and trade with every other nation, maritime commerce/trade increased along with a better evolution of notions of liability and
accountability with respect to a global commons. As the development of ships and
seafaring gathered pace, the need for seafarers’ education and training to be situated
in a more formal governance setting became stronger. Such education and training
and the systems, institutions and the regulatory frameworks that supported them,
however, continued to retain a wholly national character and the impetus for the
further development of these systems were always national in character and controlled by nation States.
However, it would not be long before the international character of the maritime
industry would become increasingly obvious and form an impelling drive for a
supranational framework. The global nature of the maritime industry has always
14 Woodman (2009).
15 Hugo Grotius’ ideas and contribution to international law were well established through his works
“Mare Liberum” and “De Jure Belli ac Pacis”. They formed the beginnings of the modern legal
regime of the High Seas.
474
M. E. Manuel and R. Baumler
consideration of competency levels for recruitment, inspections to improve quality
standards, and the identification of fraudulent practices.
These fundamental elements—which still form the core of modern seafarer
education and training systems—were particularly obvious during the transition
from sailing ships to steam-powered ship propulsion (a transition not unlike the
current technological disruption in ship operation). Engineers and technicians who
were more situated in a shore-based industrial context, had to be “drafted” into the
maritime industry to “man” these new mechanically propelled ships. This change in
paradigm entrenched even more the need for the elements mentioned above.
14
These developments were further strengthened with the replication of such
systems in other jurisdictions and geographical locations e.g. the “Escuela Nautica
de Manila” founded in 1820 by Spain as a colonial power in The Philippines, five
Swedish navigation schools established in Malmö, Gothenburg, Gävle, Kalmar and
Stockholm in 1841 and similar institutions in Croatia in 1849.
In summary, the development of seafarer education and training, was driven by
the need to sustain shipping assets in a national context and to strengthen the
maritime power of nations as well as respond to disruptors in technology (in that
context, from sailing “technology” to a mechanical one).
2 The “Internationalization” of Seafarer Education
and Training
Following the concretization of clear national boundaries and territorial integrity of
States, and the notion of the right of States to—in the spirit of the Grotian doctrine of
“mare liberum”
15
—freely sail to and trade with every other nation, maritime commerce/trade increased along with a better evolution of notions of liability and
accountability with respect to a global commons. As the development of ships and
seafaring gathered pace, the need for seafarers’ education and training to be situated
in a more formal governance setting became stronger. Such education and training
and the systems, institutions and the regulatory frameworks that supported them,
however, continued to retain a wholly national character and the impetus for the
further development of these systems were always national in character and controlled by nation States.
However, it would not be long before the international character of the maritime
industry would become increasingly obvious and form an impelling drive for a
supranational framework. The global nature of the maritime industry has always
14 Woodman (2009).
15 Hugo Grotius’ ideas and contribution to international law were well established through his works
“Mare Liberum” and “De Jure Belli ac Pacis”. They formed the beginnings of the modern legal
regime of the High Seas.
474
M. E. Manuel and R. Baumler