134
Legislation 29-08-2011 ; Aksu et al. 2004 ). EU ports could thus be expected to
receive a larger share of single-hull tankers than before (Regulation (EC) No
417/2002). As a reaction to this threat, the EU enacted a unilateral speeding up of
the phasing-out timetable that had already been established in the US OPA 90,
stipulating that no Category 1 tankers would be allowed to enter any port in any EU
country or carry the fl ag of any EU member country after 2005 (Regulation (EC) No
417/2002 ). Vessels constructed in 1980 or earlier would not be allowed after 2003
and those constructed in 1981 not after 2004. Category 2 and 3 tankers were given
a deadline of 2010, with the newest vessels being given deadlines furthest into the
future. However, vessels in Category 2 and Category 3 that were older than 15 years
in 2005 were subjected to enhanced surveys – so-called Condition Assessment
Scheme (CAS) – especially targeting structural weaknesses in single-hull vessels
(Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 ). Faced by considerable pressure from the EU
(Höfer 2003 ), IMO attempted a speed-up of the single-hull phase-out and a revised
schedule entered into force in 2003 (MARPOL Regulation 13 G). In December
2003 additional revisions were made, stipulating that Category 1 tankers (large vessels not having segregated ballast tanks) had to be phased out no later than 2005.
Category 2 tankers (large tankers with segregated ballast tanks) and Category 3
tankers (small vessels) were required to have double hulls from 2010 onwards, not
2015 as previously decided (IMO 2012 -06-29). The Flag State could, however, still
give permission for Category 2 and 3 tankers according to what was stipulated in the
IMO CAS (Condition Assessment Scheme), to continue operation until 2015 or
until they were 25 years old. This brief review of the phasing out of single-hull
vessels is an interesting example of how dominant players (the USA and EU) interact
with an intergovernmental authority (IMO) on command and control measures
related to environmental safety.
5 The USA and EU pushed forward the phasing out
of single-hull oil tankers, thus facilitating a global phasing out through IMO mechanisms. They were able to do this due to their large share of the world market. They
had to do this because of domestic political pressures to increase safety in marine
oil transportation and perceived dangers in being negatively affected by unilateral
action by others.
6
5 However, it should be noted that although UNCLOS regulations on the right of Port State Control
have been important in the regime for in-phasing of double hull vessels, double hulls are probably
not a panacea for improved safety. It has been shown that these constructions often are harder to
inspect and that inadequate technical solutions and poor maintenance may result in only limited
safety enhancements.
6 Although relevant IMO regulations do not have complete global coverage, MARPOL Annex I/II
has been ratifi ed by 150 countries ( 2011b ), representing more than 99 % of global merchant shipping tonnage (IMO 2011a ).
B. Hassler
Legislation 29-08-2011 ; Aksu et al. 2004 ). EU ports could thus be expected to
receive a larger share of single-hull tankers than before (Regulation (EC) No
417/2002). As a reaction to this threat, the EU enacted a unilateral speeding up of
the phasing-out timetable that had already been established in the US OPA 90,
stipulating that no Category 1 tankers would be allowed to enter any port in any EU
country or carry the fl ag of any EU member country after 2005 (Regulation (EC) No
417/2002 ). Vessels constructed in 1980 or earlier would not be allowed after 2003
and those constructed in 1981 not after 2004. Category 2 and 3 tankers were given
a deadline of 2010, with the newest vessels being given deadlines furthest into the
future. However, vessels in Category 2 and Category 3 that were older than 15 years
in 2005 were subjected to enhanced surveys – so-called Condition Assessment
Scheme (CAS) – especially targeting structural weaknesses in single-hull vessels
(Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 ). Faced by considerable pressure from the EU
(Höfer 2003 ), IMO attempted a speed-up of the single-hull phase-out and a revised
schedule entered into force in 2003 (MARPOL Regulation 13 G). In December
2003 additional revisions were made, stipulating that Category 1 tankers (large vessels not having segregated ballast tanks) had to be phased out no later than 2005.
Category 2 tankers (large tankers with segregated ballast tanks) and Category 3
tankers (small vessels) were required to have double hulls from 2010 onwards, not
2015 as previously decided (IMO 2012 -06-29). The Flag State could, however, still
give permission for Category 2 and 3 tankers according to what was stipulated in the
IMO CAS (Condition Assessment Scheme), to continue operation until 2015 or
until they were 25 years old. This brief review of the phasing out of single-hull
vessels is an interesting example of how dominant players (the USA and EU) interact
with an intergovernmental authority (IMO) on command and control measures
related to environmental safety.
5 The USA and EU pushed forward the phasing out
of single-hull oil tankers, thus facilitating a global phasing out through IMO mechanisms. They were able to do this due to their large share of the world market. They
had to do this because of domestic political pressures to increase safety in marine
oil transportation and perceived dangers in being negatively affected by unilateral
action by others.
6
5 However, it should be noted that although UNCLOS regulations on the right of Port State Control
have been important in the regime for in-phasing of double hull vessels, double hulls are probably
not a panacea for improved safety. It has been shown that these constructions often are harder to
inspect and that inadequate technical solutions and poor maintenance may result in only limited
safety enhancements.
6 Although relevant IMO regulations do not have complete global coverage, MARPOL Annex I/II
has been ratifi ed by 150 countries ( 2011b ), representing more than 99 % of global merchant shipping tonnage (IMO 2011a ).
B. Hassler