OPRC addresses pollution from accidental oil spills. Both are regulatory conventions. The third important instrument is the London Convention of 1972 modified by
its 1996 Protocol.
67 This convention regulates the deliberate dumping of wastes at
sea and contains special provisions relating to radio-active wastes and incineration of
wastes at sea. Ships that do not comply with the standards specified in these
conventions would be considered to be substandard ships. There are several other
conventions in the ship-source pollution domain, namely, the Anti-Fouling Systems
Convention (AFS),
68 Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention,
69 the Basel
Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes, (Basel),
70 the
Nairobi Convention on Wreck Removal (ICRW),
71 and the Hong Kong Convention
on Ship Recycling.
72 Notably, the Basel Convention is not an IMO convention is
one adopted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Hong
Kong Convention is not yet in force. In effect, ship recycling is regulated by the
Basel Convention. Non-compliance with these conventions may lead to a ship being
considered substandard but it must be remembered that a ship is only obliged to
comply if its flag state is a party to that convention.
3.4 Maritime Security
The phenomenon of maritime security as we know it today, has occupied centre
stage status in the aftermath of the Achille Lauro incident in 1986 and following the
fatal events of September 11, 2001. This is the third pillar of the triumvirate of ship
standards in addition to maritime safety and environmental protection. According to
some, maritime security is in essence, an extension of maritime safety, but a
distinctive characteristic of maritime security is that the acts committed comprise
deliberate human intervention, as distinguished from negligent acts, or attributable to
accidental or fortuitous circumstances. Thus, there are subtle differences between
safety and security in the maritime context.
73
Maritime security can be said to consist of four elements that have engendered
two IMO initiatives. The most serious is terrorism which has been addressed by the
67 Convention on the Prevention of Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972, 1046
UNTS 120 and its Protocol of 1996, 36 ILM 1.
68 International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 5 October
2001, IMO Doc. AFS/CONF/26, of 18 October 2001.
69 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004, 1760 UNTS 142.
70 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
Disposal, 1989, 1833 UNTS 3, 1673 UNTS 126.
71 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, 46 ILM 694 (2007).
72 Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of
Ships, 2009, (SR/CONF/45).
73 Mukherjee and Liu (2015), pp. 54–55.
Ship Nationality, Flag States and the Eradication of Substandard Ships:. . .
595
its 1996 Protocol.
67 This convention regulates the deliberate dumping of wastes at
sea and contains special provisions relating to radio-active wastes and incineration of
wastes at sea. Ships that do not comply with the standards specified in these
conventions would be considered to be substandard ships. There are several other
conventions in the ship-source pollution domain, namely, the Anti-Fouling Systems
Convention (AFS),
68 Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention,
69 the Basel
Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes, (Basel),
70 the
Nairobi Convention on Wreck Removal (ICRW),
71 and the Hong Kong Convention
on Ship Recycling.
72 Notably, the Basel Convention is not an IMO convention is
one adopted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Hong
Kong Convention is not yet in force. In effect, ship recycling is regulated by the
Basel Convention. Non-compliance with these conventions may lead to a ship being
considered substandard but it must be remembered that a ship is only obliged to
comply if its flag state is a party to that convention.
3.4 Maritime Security
The phenomenon of maritime security as we know it today, has occupied centre
stage status in the aftermath of the Achille Lauro incident in 1986 and following the
fatal events of September 11, 2001. This is the third pillar of the triumvirate of ship
standards in addition to maritime safety and environmental protection. According to
some, maritime security is in essence, an extension of maritime safety, but a
distinctive characteristic of maritime security is that the acts committed comprise
deliberate human intervention, as distinguished from negligent acts, or attributable to
accidental or fortuitous circumstances. Thus, there are subtle differences between
safety and security in the maritime context.
73
Maritime security can be said to consist of four elements that have engendered
two IMO initiatives. The most serious is terrorism which has been addressed by the
67 Convention on the Prevention of Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972, 1046
UNTS 120 and its Protocol of 1996, 36 ILM 1.
68 International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 5 October
2001, IMO Doc. AFS/CONF/26, of 18 October 2001.
69 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004, 1760 UNTS 142.
70 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
Disposal, 1989, 1833 UNTS 3, 1673 UNTS 126.
71 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, 46 ILM 694 (2007).
72 Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of
Ships, 2009, (SR/CONF/45).
73 Mukherjee and Liu (2015), pp. 54–55.
Ship Nationality, Flag States and the Eradication of Substandard Ships:. . .
595