Another challenge to regulation in education in general relates to the affective
domain of learning. Common to the determination of all educational outcomes are
the use of three domains.
55 They are the cognitive, psychomotor and affective
domains. For successful ship operation, the affective domain is just as essential as
are the other two as an educational outcome. This domain describes the development
of emotional traits such as feelings, degree of acceptance or rejection, values,
appreciation, enthusiasm, motivation and attitudes. It focuses on the learning outcomes covering those issues that relate to, arise from or influence feelings or
emotions or an individual’s inclination to act or refrain from acting in a certain
manner due to personal convictions, quality of character and of conscience.
56 The
affective domain with its associated learning outcomes is a difficult area to regulate.
The competences addressed by the STCW Convention as amended, are predominantly cognitive and/or psychomotor in essence, and though the 2010 amendments
saw the inclusion in the STCW Code of elements such as leadership and managerial
skill, they do not cover in appropriate detail, the wider scope of the affective domain
which would include professionalism, ethical behaviour, cultural/diversity sensitivity/awareness, environmental consciousness, team behaviour etc.
57 While the importance of these have been recognized, there remains ambiguity as to how they lend
themselves to international regulation.
Yet another important issue that faces the international regulation of seafarer
education is its traditionally reactive nature. Historically, the regulatory framework
of the IMO has been reactive, piecemeal and predominantly based on prescription
and the checking of compliance.
58 A philosophical reorientation to the formulation
of international law in the case of the IMO has been its efforts to be more integrative
and proactive in regulation-making, with an increased focus on risk evaluation and
management.
59 In the case of safety of life at sea this has led to discussions of formal
affected the development of post-1995 regulations such as ILO C180 on Seafarers’ Hours of Work
and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996, the MLC, 2006 and ILO C188 on work in fishing,
2007. While the ILO’s efforts to regulate hours of work had been justified by the need to protect
workers against the detrimental effects of long working periods, the ILO 1996 Seafarers’ Hours of
Work and the Manning of Ships Convention (C180) disrupted the 1919 norm by introducing
standards plausibly inspired by IMO requirements. While the ILO and IMO provisions in respect
of seafarers are now relatively similar, they arguably differ substantially from the original ILO
principles. This original ethos, apparently recalled in Regulation 2.3 paragraph 3 of the MLC, is
undermined by the provisions laid down subsequently in paragraph 5 which allow national
standards to set limits: hours of work of 14 h in any 24-h period and 72 h in any 7-day period
(maximum); and hours of rest of 10 h in any 24-h period and 77 h in any 7-day period (minimum).
These “debatable” discrepancies and challenges are not the focus of this chapter and are
discussed in other fora.
55 Bloom et al. (1956).
56 Manuel (2005).
57 Resolution 7 of the 2010 STCW Manila Conference included in Attachment 3 to the Final Act of
the Conference refers to such professionalism.
58 Rasmussen (2016).
59 Ibid.
488
M. E. Manuel and R. Baumler
domain of learning. Common to the determination of all educational outcomes are
the use of three domains.
55 They are the cognitive, psychomotor and affective
domains. For successful ship operation, the affective domain is just as essential as
are the other two as an educational outcome. This domain describes the development
of emotional traits such as feelings, degree of acceptance or rejection, values,
appreciation, enthusiasm, motivation and attitudes. It focuses on the learning outcomes covering those issues that relate to, arise from or influence feelings or
emotions or an individual’s inclination to act or refrain from acting in a certain
manner due to personal convictions, quality of character and of conscience.
56 The
affective domain with its associated learning outcomes is a difficult area to regulate.
The competences addressed by the STCW Convention as amended, are predominantly cognitive and/or psychomotor in essence, and though the 2010 amendments
saw the inclusion in the STCW Code of elements such as leadership and managerial
skill, they do not cover in appropriate detail, the wider scope of the affective domain
which would include professionalism, ethical behaviour, cultural/diversity sensitivity/awareness, environmental consciousness, team behaviour etc.
57 While the importance of these have been recognized, there remains ambiguity as to how they lend
themselves to international regulation.
Yet another important issue that faces the international regulation of seafarer
education is its traditionally reactive nature. Historically, the regulatory framework
of the IMO has been reactive, piecemeal and predominantly based on prescription
and the checking of compliance.
58 A philosophical reorientation to the formulation
of international law in the case of the IMO has been its efforts to be more integrative
and proactive in regulation-making, with an increased focus on risk evaluation and
management.
59 In the case of safety of life at sea this has led to discussions of formal
affected the development of post-1995 regulations such as ILO C180 on Seafarers’ Hours of Work
and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996, the MLC, 2006 and ILO C188 on work in fishing,
2007. While the ILO’s efforts to regulate hours of work had been justified by the need to protect
workers against the detrimental effects of long working periods, the ILO 1996 Seafarers’ Hours of
Work and the Manning of Ships Convention (C180) disrupted the 1919 norm by introducing
standards plausibly inspired by IMO requirements. While the ILO and IMO provisions in respect
of seafarers are now relatively similar, they arguably differ substantially from the original ILO
principles. This original ethos, apparently recalled in Regulation 2.3 paragraph 3 of the MLC, is
undermined by the provisions laid down subsequently in paragraph 5 which allow national
standards to set limits: hours of work of 14 h in any 24-h period and 72 h in any 7-day period
(maximum); and hours of rest of 10 h in any 24-h period and 77 h in any 7-day period (minimum).
These “debatable” discrepancies and challenges are not the focus of this chapter and are
discussed in other fora.
55 Bloom et al. (1956).
56 Manuel (2005).
57 Resolution 7 of the 2010 STCW Manila Conference included in Attachment 3 to the Final Act of
the Conference refers to such professionalism.
58 Rasmussen (2016).
59 Ibid.
488
M. E. Manuel and R. Baumler