Many continue to appeal for port states to take up the slack and tighten port state
control and introduce initiatives beyond the current PSC inspection regime. Some
call for “broadening coastal states’ prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction, particularly in the EEZ” and even empowering non-state actors against substandard
shipping.
59 They call upon port states to strengthen control over foreign shipping by
requiring vessel monitoring system (VMS) and voyage data recorder (VDR)) data as
a condition for entry into port, taking action against stateless vessels, applying
general conservation laws to ships,
60 and using criminal or administrative law to
penalize ships that engage in unlawful acts such as furnishing false information.
61
The frustration becomes plain when one considers that even when a serious
violation is discovered through PSC inspection, port state action may still be limited
only to imposing fines and endorsing the case to the flag state for further investigation and possible prosecution. It will always be a worry that shipowners are
constantly balancing the probability of their ships being found substandard, and
the actual cost of compliance.
62 Nonetheless, as port and coastal states stand to lose
the most in terms of marine pollution, port state control will always remain an
essential part of the safety and marine environmental protection regulatory framework in shipping.
3 PSC Implementation and Effectiveness
The implementation of PSC in the context of Annex VI is guided by recommendations adopted at IMO as well as procedures agreed at the regional PSC MoU by its
member states. While such recommendations and procedures are designed to
enhance harmonization in the conduct of inspections, member states and regional
MoUs continue to face numerous challenges in increasing the effectiveness of port
state control.
3.1 Implementation
The IMO offers some useful recommendations and guidance in exercising port state
control in the context of MARPOL Annex VI. Foremost of these are Resolution
MEPC.181(59) (2009 Guidelines for port state control under the revised MARPOL
Annex VI) and Resolution A.1119(30) (Procedures for port state control, 2017).
59 Karim (2015), p. 146.
60 Such as the United States’ Lacey Act of 1900 (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371–3378), which prohibits trade in
wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported, or sold.
61 Molenaar (2007), pp. 246–247.
62 Becker (1998), pp. 639–640.
536
M. Q. Mejia, Jr.
control and introduce initiatives beyond the current PSC inspection regime. Some
call for “broadening coastal states’ prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction, particularly in the EEZ” and even empowering non-state actors against substandard
shipping.
59 They call upon port states to strengthen control over foreign shipping by
requiring vessel monitoring system (VMS) and voyage data recorder (VDR)) data as
a condition for entry into port, taking action against stateless vessels, applying
general conservation laws to ships,
60 and using criminal or administrative law to
penalize ships that engage in unlawful acts such as furnishing false information.
61
The frustration becomes plain when one considers that even when a serious
violation is discovered through PSC inspection, port state action may still be limited
only to imposing fines and endorsing the case to the flag state for further investigation and possible prosecution. It will always be a worry that shipowners are
constantly balancing the probability of their ships being found substandard, and
the actual cost of compliance.
62 Nonetheless, as port and coastal states stand to lose
the most in terms of marine pollution, port state control will always remain an
essential part of the safety and marine environmental protection regulatory framework in shipping.
3 PSC Implementation and Effectiveness
The implementation of PSC in the context of Annex VI is guided by recommendations adopted at IMO as well as procedures agreed at the regional PSC MoU by its
member states. While such recommendations and procedures are designed to
enhance harmonization in the conduct of inspections, member states and regional
MoUs continue to face numerous challenges in increasing the effectiveness of port
state control.
3.1 Implementation
The IMO offers some useful recommendations and guidance in exercising port state
control in the context of MARPOL Annex VI. Foremost of these are Resolution
MEPC.181(59) (2009 Guidelines for port state control under the revised MARPOL
Annex VI) and Resolution A.1119(30) (Procedures for port state control, 2017).
59 Karim (2015), p. 146.
60 Such as the United States’ Lacey Act of 1900 (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371–3378), which prohibits trade in
wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported, or sold.
61 Molenaar (2007), pp. 246–247.
62 Becker (1998), pp. 639–640.
536
M. Q. Mejia, Jr.