the attainment of and certification for competency of seafarers, they set no standards
for competence regarding what seafarers had to know, understand or have
proficiency in.
3 The Role of the Development of Open Registries
It is noteworthy that from the early 1900s till the promulgation of the early conventions described in the preceding section, other geopolitical factors were beginning to
significantly affect the global shipping industry and the competence of the labour
force that crewed ships. The evolution of seafarer education and training in international law cannot be discussed without the examination of the role and place of “flags
of convenience” (FoCs)
22,23 sometimes called “flags of necessity” or “open registries”. This phenomenon, while present much earlier in history,
24 took on new
prominence in the early 1930s based on its perceived economic benefits to shipowners and the resisting representations of the International Transport Workers
Federation (ITF) to the ILO.
25
As has been discussed earlier, many traditional maritime nation States had
developed comprehensive national systems of seafarer education and training,
underpinned by significant maritime histories as well as comprehensive legal and
administrative frameworks. In the nature of national governmental control, these
systems were often hinged on high-levels of taxation and administrative requirements, limitations on the national character of ship crews and what was often
perceived by shipowners as “expensive unionized” crew. The manifestation of the
phenomenon of FoCs challenged the form of national control that developed in
traditional maritime nation States.
Economic gain for both the shipowner and the jurisdiction was imperative.
26
Countries perceived to have relatively little maritime histories and limited maritime
knowledge and skill base, and characterised by lax systems of administrative
governance as well as lower taxation levels, were becoming more attractive to ship
22 The term itself is not universally deemed to be appropriate, being used only by a segment of the
industry, as it is considered by some to be pejorative. Indeed, it is not in use as a legal term under
UNCLOS (see Wiswall (1996)). It is not used in official text of the IMO.
23 The problem of “flags of convenience” revolves round the legal concept of “genuine link” and its
determination/definition and implementation. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS), in its article 91 states that “Ships have the nationality of the State whose flag they
are entitled to fly. There must be a genuine link between the State and the ship”. Furthermore, article
94 requires that “Every State shall effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative,
technical and social matters over ships flying its flag”. Additionally, every State is required by that
article to “take such measures for ships flying its flag as are necessary to ensure safety of life at sea”.
In the specific context of this chapter, such measures include the manning and training of crews.
24 Metaxas (1981).
25 Argiroffo (1974).
26 Wiswall (1996).
The Evolution of Seafarer Education and Training in International Law
477
for competence regarding what seafarers had to know, understand or have
proficiency in.
3 The Role of the Development of Open Registries
It is noteworthy that from the early 1900s till the promulgation of the early conventions described in the preceding section, other geopolitical factors were beginning to
significantly affect the global shipping industry and the competence of the labour
force that crewed ships. The evolution of seafarer education and training in international law cannot be discussed without the examination of the role and place of “flags
of convenience” (FoCs)
22,23 sometimes called “flags of necessity” or “open registries”. This phenomenon, while present much earlier in history,
24 took on new
prominence in the early 1930s based on its perceived economic benefits to shipowners and the resisting representations of the International Transport Workers
Federation (ITF) to the ILO.
25
As has been discussed earlier, many traditional maritime nation States had
developed comprehensive national systems of seafarer education and training,
underpinned by significant maritime histories as well as comprehensive legal and
administrative frameworks. In the nature of national governmental control, these
systems were often hinged on high-levels of taxation and administrative requirements, limitations on the national character of ship crews and what was often
perceived by shipowners as “expensive unionized” crew. The manifestation of the
phenomenon of FoCs challenged the form of national control that developed in
traditional maritime nation States.
Economic gain for both the shipowner and the jurisdiction was imperative.
26
Countries perceived to have relatively little maritime histories and limited maritime
knowledge and skill base, and characterised by lax systems of administrative
governance as well as lower taxation levels, were becoming more attractive to ship
22 The term itself is not universally deemed to be appropriate, being used only by a segment of the
industry, as it is considered by some to be pejorative. Indeed, it is not in use as a legal term under
UNCLOS (see Wiswall (1996)). It is not used in official text of the IMO.
23 The problem of “flags of convenience” revolves round the legal concept of “genuine link” and its
determination/definition and implementation. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS), in its article 91 states that “Ships have the nationality of the State whose flag they
are entitled to fly. There must be a genuine link between the State and the ship”. Furthermore, article
94 requires that “Every State shall effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative,
technical and social matters over ships flying its flag”. Additionally, every State is required by that
article to “take such measures for ships flying its flag as are necessary to ensure safety of life at sea”.
In the specific context of this chapter, such measures include the manning and training of crews.
24 Metaxas (1981).
25 Argiroffo (1974).
26 Wiswall (1996).
The Evolution of Seafarer Education and Training in International Law
477