This chapter introduces the reader to port State jurisdiction in public international law, linking customary law traditions to its utilization in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Its provisions are contextualized within their relationship to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, both historically as a matter of treaty negotiations, and contemporarily as a matter of defining generally accepted international rules and standards for port States regulating vessel-source pollution. Port States play a key role in promoting and evolving the uniform and universal application of MARPOL standards as, by-and-large, minimum global standards. Complementary principles—such as no more favorable treatment—and mechanisms—such as regional port State control memorandums—are highlighted, as well as several relevant implementation strategies, for example, concentrated inspection campaigns.
The power to regulate on-board protection of merchant vessels lies with the flag state. However, the national models of regulation are not developed in a unilateral vacuum. In fact, the whole concept of flag state jurisdiction and legislative power has to be understood and exercised on the national level in close relation with the general regime of the international law of the sea. The aim of the article is therefore two-fold: first, it aims to provide a background for the country reports in this special issue by giving a brief insight into the problem of piracy in the twenty-first century and the international approaches towards this problem. Here the article also provides an insight into the legal background by presenting the concept of piracy in the law of the sea and connected law enforcement powers. Thus, this part of the article provides the overall context in which the discussions concerning on-board protection and the development of national regulations have occurred. Second, the article analyses the issue of on-board protection from the perspective of the legal framework in international law, as well as relevant international soft-law instruments, influencing the development on the national level. On-board protection of vessels as such is not regulated in the international law; however, international law provides a form of general legal setting, in which flags states navigate. Thus, this article aims to draw a picture of the international context in which flags states develop their specific legal approach.
The core function of UNCLOS is to provide a legal order for the oceans and their peaceful uses. This includes providing a legal framework for upholding law and order at sea, as this is a precondition for peaceful use. Part One of this volume deals with different perspectives of upholding law and order at sea; and Chapter 2 creates a backdrop for the following chapters dealing with these various issues. The chapter presents some perspectives on the system of law and order at sea and sets the following chapters in context with themes such as the scope of UNCLOS and its limitations, the adaptability of the convention to new developments, the role of the zonal system created under the convention and the influence of state practice on the system of upholding law and order at sea. By doing so, Chapter 2 also creates a line to the following parts of this volume; and some of the perspectives raised in Chapter 2 will be revisited in the final part (Part Four) of this volume, dealing with UNCLOS as a system of regulation and connected methodologies.
This edited volume examines the continued viability of international human rights law in the context of growing transnational law enforcement. With states increasingly making use of global governance modes, core exercises of public authority such as migration control, surveillance, detention and policing, are increasingly conducted extraterritorially, outsourced to foreign governments or delegated to non-state actors.
New forms of cooperation raise difficult questions about divided, shared and joint responsibility under international human rights law. At the same time, some governments engage in transnational law enforcement exactly to avoid such responsibilities, creatively seeking to navigate the complex, overlapping and sometimes unclear bodies of international law. As such, this volume argues that this area represents a particular dark side of globalisation, requiring both scholars and practitioners to revisit basic assumptions and legal strategies.
The volume will be of great interest to students, scholars and practitioners of international relations, human rights and public international law.
In this introduction to a special section of the September 2019 issue of International Affairs, we revisit the main themes and arguments of our article ‘Beyond seablindness: a new agenda for maritime security studies’, published in this journal in November 2017. We reiterate our call for more scholarly attention to be paid to the maritime environment in international relations and security studies. We argue that the contemporary maritime security agenda should be understood as an interlinked set of challenges of growing global, regional and national significance, and comprising issues of national, environmental, economic and human security. We suggest that maritime security is characterized by four main characteristics, including its interconnected nature, its transnationality, its liminality—in the sense of implicating both land and sea—and its national and institutional cross-jurisdictionality. Each of the five articles in the special section explores aspects of the contemporary maritime security agenda, including themes of geopolitics, international law, interconnectivity, maritime security governance and the changing spatial order at sea.
The European Union (EU) seeks to become a global maritime-security actor, yet strategic challenges influence its maritime-security strategy process. Is there a distinctive and coherent EU approach to global maritime security, and how should the EU address the growing range of maritime challenges, including the intensification of militarized competition in the Indo-Pacific?
1. Introduction. 2. Industry self-regulation in maritime law. 2.1. Why is industry self-regulation necessary? 2.2. Relevant self-regulatory instru- ments. 3. Industry self-regulation and armed protection. 3.1. Quality assurance of private Maritime Security Companies. 3.2. Use of force. 3.3. Reporting. 4. Remarks and conclusion
This chapter examines the role of industry self-regulation in relation to international maritime law. While multilateral intergovernmental agreements are important to encouraging regulatory harmonisation, private actors have an essential role in industry, both in developing norms and in making rules and standards effective to ensure safe and secure shipping on clean oceans. Nonetheless, private actors are often overlooked and yet to be placed in the context of international maritime law and especially the United Nations Convention of Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This chapter does so by analysing industry self-regulation in relation to UNCLOS, flag states and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) respectively.
Highly reliable situation awareness is a main driver to enhance safety via autonomous technology in the marine industry. Groundings, ship collisions and collisions with bridges illustrate the need for enhanced safety. Authority for a computer to suggest actions or to take command, would be able to avoid some accidents where human misjudgement was a core reason. Autonomous situation awareness need be conducted with extreme confidence to let a computer algorithm take command. The anticipation of how a situation can develop is by far the most difficult step in situation awareness, and anticipation is the subject of this article. The IMO International Regulations for Preventing Collisions
at Sea (COLREGS), describe the regulatory behaviours of marine vessels relative to each other, and correct interpretation of situations is instrumental to safe navigation. Based on a breakdown of COLREGS rules, this article presents a framework to represent manoeuvring behaviours that are expected when all vessels obey the rules. The article shows how nested finite automata can segregate situation assessment from decision making and provide a testable and repeatable algorithm. The suggested method makes it possible to anticipate own ship and other vessels’ manoeuvring in a multi-vessel scenario. The framework is validated using scenarios from a full-mission simulator.