The section then includes a footnote, suggesting that “the relevant IMO Model
Course(s) may be of assistance in the preparation of courses”.
74 It is obvious that the
regulating of those who oversee and are responsible for the training and assessment
of competence is done at a far less stringent level than it is for the ship operators
actually on-board ship.
75
In the case of the international regulating of remote ship operators, it remains to
be seen how international law could/will be applied to their education and training,
76
given that they will operate from sovereign jurisdictions.
7 Conclusion
Maritime accidents and other evidence of limitations in seafarer competence have
not disappeared. In the words of Sampson,
77 this has “ensured a sustained political
concern with standards of maritime education and training” that stakeholders are
being forced to respond to.
Shipping still facilitates 80–90% of world trade by volume and has been
described as the “lifeblood of world trade”.
78 In similar vein, the human element
on ships—the seafarers—are the lifeblood of shipping. Despite the introduction of
increasingly sophisticated technology, the maritime industry will continue to depend
on maritime operational personnel. The future “seafarer”, while not necessarily cast
in the mould of the traditional and contemporary seafarer, will nevertheless have
operational control of a vessel, whether onboard or ashore. Seafarer education and
training must therefore continue to attract global attention and efforts to optimise its
outcomes.
The international community and the application of international legal frameworks will continue to be the best context within which to discuss and generate
regulation to oversee the operations of a global industry such as the maritime
industry is. As has been stated, “modern ship safety, labour and environment
protection arrangements pose international problems that require international solutions”.
79 As long as trade between jurisdictions separated by vast ocean spaces is
74 IMO Model Courses themselves are only recommendatory in legal character.
75 Other examples include the stringent application of training requirements for the IMDG Code in
respect of the handling of dangerous goods (mainly mandatory under SOLAS) on board ship, while
only a Circular (MSC1/Circ.1216) on “Revised Recommendation on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Cargoes and Related Activities in Port Areas” is the limit of international regulating of the
same handling of dangerous goods in ports.
76 The IMO has commenced a scoping exercise to determine, among others, the legal implications of
Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS).
77 Sampson (2004).
78 See http://www.ics-shipping.org/ics-film%2D%2D-international-shipping-lifeblood-of-worldtrade.
79 International Commission on Shipping (2000).
492
M. E. Manuel and R. Baumler
Course(s) may be of assistance in the preparation of courses”.
74 It is obvious that the
regulating of those who oversee and are responsible for the training and assessment
of competence is done at a far less stringent level than it is for the ship operators
actually on-board ship.
75
In the case of the international regulating of remote ship operators, it remains to
be seen how international law could/will be applied to their education and training,
76
given that they will operate from sovereign jurisdictions.
7 Conclusion
Maritime accidents and other evidence of limitations in seafarer competence have
not disappeared. In the words of Sampson,
77 this has “ensured a sustained political
concern with standards of maritime education and training” that stakeholders are
being forced to respond to.
Shipping still facilitates 80–90% of world trade by volume and has been
described as the “lifeblood of world trade”.
78 In similar vein, the human element
on ships—the seafarers—are the lifeblood of shipping. Despite the introduction of
increasingly sophisticated technology, the maritime industry will continue to depend
on maritime operational personnel. The future “seafarer”, while not necessarily cast
in the mould of the traditional and contemporary seafarer, will nevertheless have
operational control of a vessel, whether onboard or ashore. Seafarer education and
training must therefore continue to attract global attention and efforts to optimise its
outcomes.
The international community and the application of international legal frameworks will continue to be the best context within which to discuss and generate
regulation to oversee the operations of a global industry such as the maritime
industry is. As has been stated, “modern ship safety, labour and environment
protection arrangements pose international problems that require international solutions”.
79 As long as trade between jurisdictions separated by vast ocean spaces is
74 IMO Model Courses themselves are only recommendatory in legal character.
75 Other examples include the stringent application of training requirements for the IMDG Code in
respect of the handling of dangerous goods (mainly mandatory under SOLAS) on board ship, while
only a Circular (MSC1/Circ.1216) on “Revised Recommendation on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Cargoes and Related Activities in Port Areas” is the limit of international regulating of the
same handling of dangerous goods in ports.
76 The IMO has commenced a scoping exercise to determine, among others, the legal implications of
Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS).
77 Sampson (2004).
78 See http://www.ics-shipping.org/ics-film%2D%2D-international-shipping-lifeblood-of-worldtrade.
79 International Commission on Shipping (2000).
492
M. E. Manuel and R. Baumler