Altogether, the current legal and administrative framework at the international
level is viewed as representing minimum standards. Arguably, legal instruments like
STCW ‘78 should ideally not to be seen as the ceiling to which jurisdictions should
aspire, but the foundation from which they should build; they are the minimum to
which all jurisdictions agree. While in an international context such as the IMO, this
minimum may well be the only realistic/pragmatic mandatory outcome possible, it
does not necessarily mean that the minimum standards are to be equated with
optimum standards or best practice.
5 Challenges to the International Legal and Administrative
Framework of Seafarer Education and Training
The complexity of regulating, implementing, monitoring, evaluating and controlling
educational activities and outcomes at a national level is significantly exacerbated by
their elevation to an international level particularly in a public international law
context. Despite the significant work undertaken by the global maritime community
to create standards for the education, training, assessment and certification of
seafarers, there remains considerable variety between the abilities of different countries to meet international standards and to oversee optimum legal and administrative
systems.
The causative factors for the continuing discrepancy between idealised desires
and reality may include the nature of the Organization
41 itself. The IMO is, in
essence, not a de facto enforcement body; it faces great difficulties in the generation
and application of sanctions. Any enforcement powers it may have across board are
derived from the sovereign States (individually and collectively) who constitute its
membership. States are reticent to rescind sovereign control of activities that occur in
their jurisdiction. This is the case even when such activities (such as curricula,
learning activities, quality control measures) impact on other States and this
explains, to a degree, the weak enforcement provisions and terminology often
employed in the Organization’s legal instruments. This, together with resource
limitations (particularly in terms of human, institutional and financial resources),
constitutes a challenge to the fashioning and implementation of conventions as a
whole.
However, one observes a gradual drift towards higher levels of enforcement in
international law. This may be due to “the creeping erosion of sovereignty”, for want
of a better term. In the context of the regulation of seafarers’ education and training,
there has been a trend (arising from deliberations among the membership of the
IMO) towards allowing the international body to exert more control over national
activities. This is quite clear from the evolution of the STCW Convention discussed
earlier. As indicated earlier, the 1978 original was liberal in its use of the term “to the
41 i.e. the IMO.
484
M. E. Manuel and R. Baumler
level is viewed as representing minimum standards. Arguably, legal instruments like
STCW ‘78 should ideally not to be seen as the ceiling to which jurisdictions should
aspire, but the foundation from which they should build; they are the minimum to
which all jurisdictions agree. While in an international context such as the IMO, this
minimum may well be the only realistic/pragmatic mandatory outcome possible, it
does not necessarily mean that the minimum standards are to be equated with
optimum standards or best practice.
5 Challenges to the International Legal and Administrative
Framework of Seafarer Education and Training
The complexity of regulating, implementing, monitoring, evaluating and controlling
educational activities and outcomes at a national level is significantly exacerbated by
their elevation to an international level particularly in a public international law
context. Despite the significant work undertaken by the global maritime community
to create standards for the education, training, assessment and certification of
seafarers, there remains considerable variety between the abilities of different countries to meet international standards and to oversee optimum legal and administrative
systems.
The causative factors for the continuing discrepancy between idealised desires
and reality may include the nature of the Organization
41 itself. The IMO is, in
essence, not a de facto enforcement body; it faces great difficulties in the generation
and application of sanctions. Any enforcement powers it may have across board are
derived from the sovereign States (individually and collectively) who constitute its
membership. States are reticent to rescind sovereign control of activities that occur in
their jurisdiction. This is the case even when such activities (such as curricula,
learning activities, quality control measures) impact on other States and this
explains, to a degree, the weak enforcement provisions and terminology often
employed in the Organization’s legal instruments. This, together with resource
limitations (particularly in terms of human, institutional and financial resources),
constitutes a challenge to the fashioning and implementation of conventions as a
whole.
However, one observes a gradual drift towards higher levels of enforcement in
international law. This may be due to “the creeping erosion of sovereignty”, for want
of a better term. In the context of the regulation of seafarers’ education and training,
there has been a trend (arising from deliberations among the membership of the
IMO) towards allowing the international body to exert more control over national
activities. This is quite clear from the evolution of the STCW Convention discussed
earlier. As indicated earlier, the 1978 original was liberal in its use of the term “to the
41 i.e. the IMO.
484
M. E. Manuel and R. Baumler