Modern slavery and human trafficking present an inherent risk to workers engaged in operations surrounding shipping activities. One of the first statutes addressing the problem was the UK Modern Slavery Act [MSA], which presents several statutory sanctions for shipping companies in case of non-compliance. The article examines the sanctions available under different provisions of MSA as applied specifically to shipping activities.
As a further step, the article conducts an empirical analysis of the reporting practices of liner shipping operators, eligible for compliance under MSA. In addition to the rates of compliance, it engages in content analysis of the modern slavery statements, seeking to identify the uniform patterns of reporting and industry best practices.
The last part of the article discusses whether corporate undertakings as reported in modern slavery statements may serve as a ground for tort liability, similarly to the supply chain or ‘production liability’ emerging from group policies and codes of conduct.
The regulation of private activities that take place overseas has received significant attention in the legal scholarship. The traditional discussion of the topic observes such regulation from the perspectives of public international law principles of jurisdiction or private international law conflict of laws rules. The present article contributes to the discussion from the perspective of private parties engaged in shipping activities, who face an increasing need of compliance with different regulatory acts of extraterritorial application. It argues that the proliferation of such acts incentivizes private parties to include regulatory interests in their business activities.
The article further suggests that extraterritorial regulation can serve as a trigger for transfer and intrinsic adoption of state’s regulatory interest by private parties. It observes the examples of such ‘privatization of extraterritoriality’ in corporate compliance policies and contractual CSR clauses used by shipping companies, noting their spillover effects over other parties. It further notes that the proliferation of extraterritorial regulation sometimes results in the universalization of responses from private parties, as acquisition of regulatory interest untied from its nation-state origins. The concluding section puts the observed phenomenon into a broader picture, discussing the contribution of extraterritorial regulation to the mechanisms of private governance.
Plastic litter is introduced into the oceans from land-based sources located in many countries around the world. Marine plastic pollution may therefore be attributable to multiple states, resulting in shared state responsibility. This article discusses the issue of shared state responsibility for land-based marine plastic pollution by examining (i) primary rules of international law concerning the prevention of land-based marine plastic pollution; (ii) secondary rules of international law on this subject; and (iii) possible ways of strengthening the primary rules. It concludes that the barrier for the invocation of state responsibility may become higher in cases of shared state responsibility. Three cumulative solutions to this problem are proposed: elaborating the obligation of due diligence, strengthening compliance procedures, and interlinking regimes governing the marine environment and international watercourses.