Within the family of regulatory maritime treaty instruments, some standards
pertain to the safety of ship and crew; others to the qualifications, skill and competence of the crew and the performance of their tasks. The standard of training and
competency that a seafarer has acquired to enable him to carry out his assigned tasks
safely is thus equally important from the human factor point of view. Training and
qualifications of seafarers are governed by the STCW Convention. The convention,
adopted in 1978, was amended quite extensively in 1995 to not only promote
international uniformity in these matters but also to raise the standards of training,
certification and watch-keeping. It is not only the lack or inadequacy of training and
competence that underscores the substandard condition of a ship. If the crew are
lacking in skill, that is, if for example they are incapable of handling shipboard
equipment with which they are tasked or carry out any activity prohibited by a
Convention that may jeopardize the safety or security of the ship or persons on
board, the ship may be considered sub-standard. Connected to the above matters is
adherence to the statutory safe manning scale reflected in the SOLAS requirement of
“safe, sufficient and efficient manning”. It is an important factor in the determination
of whether a ship is of requisite standard or falls under the rubric of substandard ship.
Notably, aside from SOLAS and STCW, the relevant instruments in this regard
are the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC)
80 and ILO Convention 147 on
Minimum Standards among other ILO instruments.
81
4 Regulation and Enforcement of Standards: Responsibility
and Blame
4.1 Preliminary Remarks
Responsibility and control work hand in hand which raises the question of who
should be responsible for the safety and security of the ship, the safety and welfare of
shipboard personnel and protection and preservation of the marine environment. The
IMO and ILO regulatory conventions are mainly what one might refer to as flag state
conventions; in other words, the obligations and requirements imposed by them are
directed primarily to flag states. However, embedded in these conventions are also
responsibilities to be discharged by port states; and under Part XII of UNCLOS in
relation to environmental protection and preservation, by coastal states. Be that as it
may, shipowners and operators also have to bear certain responsibilities in conjunction with, and incidental to, those imposed on states by conventions. The main
international instruments that draw shipowners and operators into the fray are the
ISM and ISPS Codes. Other industry control mechanisms include the role of
classification societies.
80 45 ILM 792.
81 62/122, 21 ILM.
Ship Nationality, Flag States and the Eradication of Substandard Ships:. . .
597
pertain to the safety of ship and crew; others to the qualifications, skill and competence of the crew and the performance of their tasks. The standard of training and
competency that a seafarer has acquired to enable him to carry out his assigned tasks
safely is thus equally important from the human factor point of view. Training and
qualifications of seafarers are governed by the STCW Convention. The convention,
adopted in 1978, was amended quite extensively in 1995 to not only promote
international uniformity in these matters but also to raise the standards of training,
certification and watch-keeping. It is not only the lack or inadequacy of training and
competence that underscores the substandard condition of a ship. If the crew are
lacking in skill, that is, if for example they are incapable of handling shipboard
equipment with which they are tasked or carry out any activity prohibited by a
Convention that may jeopardize the safety or security of the ship or persons on
board, the ship may be considered sub-standard. Connected to the above matters is
adherence to the statutory safe manning scale reflected in the SOLAS requirement of
“safe, sufficient and efficient manning”. It is an important factor in the determination
of whether a ship is of requisite standard or falls under the rubric of substandard ship.
Notably, aside from SOLAS and STCW, the relevant instruments in this regard
are the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC)
80 and ILO Convention 147 on
Minimum Standards among other ILO instruments.
81
4 Regulation and Enforcement of Standards: Responsibility
and Blame
4.1 Preliminary Remarks
Responsibility and control work hand in hand which raises the question of who
should be responsible for the safety and security of the ship, the safety and welfare of
shipboard personnel and protection and preservation of the marine environment. The
IMO and ILO regulatory conventions are mainly what one might refer to as flag state
conventions; in other words, the obligations and requirements imposed by them are
directed primarily to flag states. However, embedded in these conventions are also
responsibilities to be discharged by port states; and under Part XII of UNCLOS in
relation to environmental protection and preservation, by coastal states. Be that as it
may, shipowners and operators also have to bear certain responsibilities in conjunction with, and incidental to, those imposed on states by conventions. The main
international instruments that draw shipowners and operators into the fray are the
ISM and ISPS Codes. Other industry control mechanisms include the role of
classification societies.
80 45 ILM 792.
81 62/122, 21 ILM.
Ship Nationality, Flag States and the Eradication of Substandard Ships:. . .
597