basis as a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and
sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties”.
52 Apart from
giving identity to the ship, the flag also provides the ship with the protection of the
state whose flag it flies and in very early times served as a means of warding off the
enemy.
53
3.2 Flags of Convenience or Open Registries
Even though the genesis of flags of convenience is traceable to the early 1920s and
the period immediately after the second world war, the historical antecedents date
back to the era when Roman and Greek ships used the flags of the other countries to
secure trading advantages. The example is cited of British owned merchant ships
trading in the Mediterranean flying the flags of other countries as insurance against
capture.
54
As indicated earlier, in the 1920s a number of US ships were registered under the
Panamanian flag to avoid prohibition restrictions. Furthermore, immediately after
the Second World War, the dire economic situation forced merchant ships to run on
shoestring budgets and they sought avenues to cut down cost. Most of these
merchant ships found solace in open registries that were prepared to offer their
flag without the known restrictions associated with the traditional maritime countries. The new registries offered massive tax holidays, minimum or no regulatory
oversight. No restrictions on crew nationality, minimum legal formalities, no political interference and simple mortgage arrangements. All these made it possible for
the ownership of single ship companies and led to cost reduction for ship owners.
With time, most of these new registries which offered their flag for convenience
relaxed all forms of restrictions and enabled substandard ships and rust buckets to
trade on the oceans.
In view of the increasing relaxation of controls and regulation, a good number of
these ships were involved in accidents leading to huge loss of lives and property. The
concerns of the international community heightened and with the formation of the
IMO, rules were tightened with respect to the operations of these ships. Some of the
well—established registries improved upon their oversight and regulatory requirements but by and large the flags of convenience were treated with derision until very
recent times when due to international regulation and stricter enforcement mechanisms the situation has seen some marked improvement.
The tightening of the rules through arrangements such as port State control
although strengthened the control mechanisms, was not far-reaching as to deal
52 Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) (1955), ICJ Reports 4-27. P.23.
53 See in general Mansell (2009), pp. 13–14.
54 See Seafarers Rights International, Flag State Responsibilities and Seafarers Rights http//
seafarersrights.org/.
Coastal, Flag and Port State Jurisdictions: Powers and Other. . .
511
sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties”.
52 Apart from
giving identity to the ship, the flag also provides the ship with the protection of the
state whose flag it flies and in very early times served as a means of warding off the
enemy.
53
3.2 Flags of Convenience or Open Registries
Even though the genesis of flags of convenience is traceable to the early 1920s and
the period immediately after the second world war, the historical antecedents date
back to the era when Roman and Greek ships used the flags of the other countries to
secure trading advantages. The example is cited of British owned merchant ships
trading in the Mediterranean flying the flags of other countries as insurance against
capture.
54
As indicated earlier, in the 1920s a number of US ships were registered under the
Panamanian flag to avoid prohibition restrictions. Furthermore, immediately after
the Second World War, the dire economic situation forced merchant ships to run on
shoestring budgets and they sought avenues to cut down cost. Most of these
merchant ships found solace in open registries that were prepared to offer their
flag without the known restrictions associated with the traditional maritime countries. The new registries offered massive tax holidays, minimum or no regulatory
oversight. No restrictions on crew nationality, minimum legal formalities, no political interference and simple mortgage arrangements. All these made it possible for
the ownership of single ship companies and led to cost reduction for ship owners.
With time, most of these new registries which offered their flag for convenience
relaxed all forms of restrictions and enabled substandard ships and rust buckets to
trade on the oceans.
In view of the increasing relaxation of controls and regulation, a good number of
these ships were involved in accidents leading to huge loss of lives and property. The
concerns of the international community heightened and with the formation of the
IMO, rules were tightened with respect to the operations of these ships. Some of the
well—established registries improved upon their oversight and regulatory requirements but by and large the flags of convenience were treated with derision until very
recent times when due to international regulation and stricter enforcement mechanisms the situation has seen some marked improvement.
The tightening of the rules through arrangements such as port State control
although strengthened the control mechanisms, was not far-reaching as to deal
52 Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) (1955), ICJ Reports 4-27. P.23.
53 See in general Mansell (2009), pp. 13–14.
54 See Seafarers Rights International, Flag State Responsibilities and Seafarers Rights http//
seafarersrights.org/.
Coastal, Flag and Port State Jurisdictions: Powers and Other. . .
511