reviewing compliance with the requirements of this Convention (including seafarers’
rights) relating to the working and living conditions of seafarers on the ship.” It
further specifies that, “Each Member shall accept the maritime labour certificate and
the declaration of maritime labour compliance required under Regulation 5.1.3 as
prima facie evidence of compliance with the requirements of this Convention
(including seafarers’ rights). Accordingly, the inspection in its ports shall, except
in the circumstances specified in the Code, be limited to a review of the certificate
and declaration.”
33
The International Convention on Load Lines (LL), 1966; International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (TONNAGE), 1969; the International
Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (AFS),
2001, and; the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM), 2004, all contain provisions stipulating
that foreign ships are subject to inspection by duly authorized port state control
officers, ensuring that such control is exercised as far as is reasonable and practicable
with a view to verifying that the ship carries the appropriate LL/TONNAGE/AFS/
BWM certification on board.
34
Because of its essential function as a complementary mechanism for enforcing
global shipping standards outside the regular flag state inspection and certification
procedures, the regime of port state control has variably been characterized as the
institutionalization of third-party control
35 and the last safety net.
36 However, aside
from compensating for the negative effects of the constant pressure exerted by
commercial competition on shipping companies and flag states, PSC inspections
also unintentionally perform an important risk assessment and management function. PSC inspections generate public information that afford private and public
sector maritime stakeholders additional data for assessing a particular vessel’s safety
record as well as a general understanding of the “factors that explain the likelihood of
having a substandard vessel, that is, a vessel whose probability of being detained
(by port state control) for being hazardous to safety, health or the environment is
high.”
37
33 MLC, Regulation 5.2.1.
34 LL, Article 21; TONNAGE, Article 12; AFS, Article 11; BWM, Article 9.
35 Mejia (2005), p. 16.
36 Özçayir (2009), p. 201.
37 Cariou et al. (2012), p. 656.
Air Pollution, Climate Change, and Port State Control
531
rights) relating to the working and living conditions of seafarers on the ship.” It
further specifies that, “Each Member shall accept the maritime labour certificate and
the declaration of maritime labour compliance required under Regulation 5.1.3 as
prima facie evidence of compliance with the requirements of this Convention
(including seafarers’ rights). Accordingly, the inspection in its ports shall, except
in the circumstances specified in the Code, be limited to a review of the certificate
and declaration.”
33
The International Convention on Load Lines (LL), 1966; International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (TONNAGE), 1969; the International
Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (AFS),
2001, and; the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM), 2004, all contain provisions stipulating
that foreign ships are subject to inspection by duly authorized port state control
officers, ensuring that such control is exercised as far as is reasonable and practicable
with a view to verifying that the ship carries the appropriate LL/TONNAGE/AFS/
BWM certification on board.
34
Because of its essential function as a complementary mechanism for enforcing
global shipping standards outside the regular flag state inspection and certification
procedures, the regime of port state control has variably been characterized as the
institutionalization of third-party control
35 and the last safety net.
36 However, aside
from compensating for the negative effects of the constant pressure exerted by
commercial competition on shipping companies and flag states, PSC inspections
also unintentionally perform an important risk assessment and management function. PSC inspections generate public information that afford private and public
sector maritime stakeholders additional data for assessing a particular vessel’s safety
record as well as a general understanding of the “factors that explain the likelihood of
having a substandard vessel, that is, a vessel whose probability of being detained
(by port state control) for being hazardous to safety, health or the environment is
high.”
37
33 MLC, Regulation 5.2.1.
34 LL, Article 21; TONNAGE, Article 12; AFS, Article 11; BWM, Article 9.
35 Mejia (2005), p. 16.
36 Özçayir (2009), p. 201.
37 Cariou et al. (2012), p. 656.
Air Pollution, Climate Change, and Port State Control
531