inspection, survey, and certification regime.
9 Because inspections by flag state are
normally scheduled, they “are not well positioned to regulate ongoing operational
matters, such as fuel use or ongoing engine emissions” whereas port states, through
random PSC inspections, “have the capacity to monitor such requirements on a
regular basis.”
10 Port states are in this sense better suited to inspect whether ships in
their daily mode of operations comply with IMO-adopted air pollution and climate
change mitigation standards and measures.
This chapter examines the important role port states play in the reduction of air
pollution and the mitigation of climate change, particularly by ensuring ships’
compliance with Annex VI of MARPOL through inspections under the regime of
port state control. This chapter includes a review of the legal bases for port state
control as well as its potential effectiveness as a enforcement mechanism within the
context of MARPOL Annex VI.
1 Port State Control: Background and Legal Bases
The inspection of vessels calling at foreign ports is not a recent phenomenon; it has
been a feature of enforcement in modern international maritime law from as early as
1929 version of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS).
11 Port state control was eventually institutionalized in the early 1980s
when eight north European states agreed that, in order to engender uniform port state
enforcement, no less than a regionally coordinated inspection regime would suffice.
Institutionalization and regionalization came as a response to growing frustration
with numerous flag states “unable to adequately perform their mandated duties of
ensuring that ships flying their flag comply fully with international safety standards
formulated under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and
the International Labour Organization (ILO).”
12 Also, as has happened far too often,
a series of marine casualties and accidents led to a public outcry for more stringent
regulations for ship safety and protection of the maritime environment,
13 and
became a strong catalyst for the establishment of regional PSC agreements.
14
The first regional port state control regime was borne out of the Hague Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of 1978, reinforced four years later by the more
comprehensive Paris MoU of 1982. Greeted initially with suspicion,
15 the
9 Lagdami (2016), p. 313.
10 Marten (2016), p. 95.
11 Graziano et al. (2018b), p. 230.
12 Cariou et al. (2007), pp. 243–244; Mejia (2005), p. 17.
13 Graziano et al. (2018b), p. 230.
14 Amoco Cadiz (1978), Aegean Sea (1992), Braer (1993), Estonia (1994), Erika (1999) and
Prestige (2002) among others.
15 Graziano et al. (2018a), p. 98.
Air Pollution, Climate Change, and Port State Control
527
9 Because inspections by flag state are
normally scheduled, they “are not well positioned to regulate ongoing operational
matters, such as fuel use or ongoing engine emissions” whereas port states, through
random PSC inspections, “have the capacity to monitor such requirements on a
regular basis.”
10 Port states are in this sense better suited to inspect whether ships in
their daily mode of operations comply with IMO-adopted air pollution and climate
change mitigation standards and measures.
This chapter examines the important role port states play in the reduction of air
pollution and the mitigation of climate change, particularly by ensuring ships’
compliance with Annex VI of MARPOL through inspections under the regime of
port state control. This chapter includes a review of the legal bases for port state
control as well as its potential effectiveness as a enforcement mechanism within the
context of MARPOL Annex VI.
1 Port State Control: Background and Legal Bases
The inspection of vessels calling at foreign ports is not a recent phenomenon; it has
been a feature of enforcement in modern international maritime law from as early as
1929 version of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS).
11 Port state control was eventually institutionalized in the early 1980s
when eight north European states agreed that, in order to engender uniform port state
enforcement, no less than a regionally coordinated inspection regime would suffice.
Institutionalization and regionalization came as a response to growing frustration
with numerous flag states “unable to adequately perform their mandated duties of
ensuring that ships flying their flag comply fully with international safety standards
formulated under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and
the International Labour Organization (ILO).”
12 Also, as has happened far too often,
a series of marine casualties and accidents led to a public outcry for more stringent
regulations for ship safety and protection of the maritime environment,
13 and
became a strong catalyst for the establishment of regional PSC agreements.
14
The first regional port state control regime was borne out of the Hague Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of 1978, reinforced four years later by the more
comprehensive Paris MoU of 1982. Greeted initially with suspicion,
15 the
9 Lagdami (2016), p. 313.
10 Marten (2016), p. 95.
11 Graziano et al. (2018b), p. 230.
12 Cariou et al. (2007), pp. 243–244; Mejia (2005), p. 17.
13 Graziano et al. (2018b), p. 230.
14 Amoco Cadiz (1978), Aegean Sea (1992), Braer (1993), Estonia (1994), Erika (1999) and
Prestige (2002) among others.
15 Graziano et al. (2018a), p. 98.
Air Pollution, Climate Change, and Port State Control
527