Jump to content

Flag of convenience: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Port state targeting: linked the Hague
m →‎Background: correct red link
Line 14: Line 14:
[[File:Amoco Cadiz 1 edit1.jpg|thumb|right|The sinking of the Liberian-flagged ''Amoco Cadiz'' led to concerted ship inspections by port states]]The environmental disaster caused by the 1978 sinking of the {{MV|Amoco Cadiz}}, which flew the Liberian flag of convenience, spurred the creation of a new type of maritime enforcement.<ref name="paris-about">{{cite web |url=http://www.parismou.org/ParisMOU/Organisation/About+Us/History/default.aspx |title=A short history of the Paris MOU |author=Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |month= |year=2010 |work= |publisher=Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control |location= Paris|page= |pages= |at= |language= |trans_title= |format= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate=2010-07-01 |quote= |ref= |separator= |postscript= }}</ref> Resulting from "strong political and public outcry" over the ''Cadiz'' sinking, fourteen European nations signed the 1982 "Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control" or Paris MOU.<ref name="paris-about"/> Under [[port state control]], ships in international trade became subject to inspection by the states they visit. In addition to shipboard living and working conditions, these inspections cover items concerning the safety of life at sea and the prevention of pollution by ships.<ref name="paris-about"/> In cases when a port state inspection uncovers problems with a ship, the port state may take actions including [[Port state control#Detention of ship under Port State Control|detaining the ship]].<ref>Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, 2009.</ref> In 2008, member states of the Paris MOU conducted 14,322 inspections with deficiencies, which resulted in vessels being detained 1,220 times that year.<ref>Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, 2009, p 27.</ref> Member states of the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding conducted 13,298 ship inspections in 2009, recording 86,820 deficiencies which resulted in 1,336 detentions.<ref>Secretariat of the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding, 2009, p 22.</ref>
[[File:Amoco Cadiz 1 edit1.jpg|thumb|right|The sinking of the Liberian-flagged ''Amoco Cadiz'' led to concerted ship inspections by port states]]The environmental disaster caused by the 1978 sinking of the {{MV|Amoco Cadiz}}, which flew the Liberian flag of convenience, spurred the creation of a new type of maritime enforcement.<ref name="paris-about">{{cite web |url=http://www.parismou.org/ParisMOU/Organisation/About+Us/History/default.aspx |title=A short history of the Paris MOU |author=Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |month= |year=2010 |work= |publisher=Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control |location= Paris|page= |pages= |at= |language= |trans_title= |format= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate=2010-07-01 |quote= |ref= |separator= |postscript= }}</ref> Resulting from "strong political and public outcry" over the ''Cadiz'' sinking, fourteen European nations signed the 1982 "Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control" or Paris MOU.<ref name="paris-about"/> Under [[port state control]], ships in international trade became subject to inspection by the states they visit. In addition to shipboard living and working conditions, these inspections cover items concerning the safety of life at sea and the prevention of pollution by ships.<ref name="paris-about"/> In cases when a port state inspection uncovers problems with a ship, the port state may take actions including [[Port state control#Detention of ship under Port State Control|detaining the ship]].<ref>Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, 2009.</ref> In 2008, member states of the Paris MOU conducted 14,322 inspections with deficiencies, which resulted in vessels being detained 1,220 times that year.<ref>Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, 2009, p 27.</ref> Member states of the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding conducted 13,298 ship inspections in 2009, recording 86,820 deficiencies which resulted in 1,336 detentions.<ref>Secretariat of the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding, 2009, p 22.</ref>


The principle that there be a "genuine link" between a ship's owners and its flag state dates back to 1958, when Article 5(1) of the [[1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas|Geneva Convention on the High Seas]] also required that "the state must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag."<ref name="dandrea2">D'Andrea 2006, p.2.</ref> The principle was repeated in Article 91 of the 1982 treaty called the [[United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea]] and often referred to as UNCLOS.<ref name="icftu7"/> In 1986, the [[United Nations Conference on Trade and Development]] attempted to solidify the genuine link concept in the [[United Nations Convention for Registration of Ships]].<ref name="dandrea6">D'Andrea 2006, p.6.</ref> The Convention for Registration of Ships would require that a flag state be linked to its ships either by having an economic stake in the ownership of its ships or by providing mariners to crew the ships.<ref name="dandrea6"/> To come into force, the 1986 treaty requires 40 signatories whose combined tonnage exceeds 25% of the world total.<ref name="dandrea6"/> To date, only 14 countries have signed the treaty.<ref name="dandrea6"/>
The principle that there be a "genuine link" between a ship's owners and its flag state dates back to 1958, when Article 5(1) of the [[Geneva Convention on the High Seas]] also required that "the state must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag."<ref name="dandrea2">D'Andrea 2006, p.2.</ref> The principle was repeated in Article 91 of the 1982 treaty called the [[United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea]] and often referred to as UNCLOS.<ref name="icftu7"/> In 1986, the [[United Nations Conference on Trade and Development]] attempted to solidify the genuine link concept in the [[United Nations Convention for Registration of Ships]].<ref name="dandrea6">D'Andrea 2006, p.6.</ref> The Convention for Registration of Ships would require that a flag state be linked to its ships either by having an economic stake in the ownership of its ships or by providing mariners to crew the ships.<ref name="dandrea6"/> To come into force, the 1986 treaty requires 40 signatories whose combined tonnage exceeds 25% of the world total.<ref name="dandrea6"/> To date, only 14 countries have signed the treaty.<ref name="dandrea6"/>


==History==
==History==

Revision as of 15:39, 13 July 2010

This article is about merchant shipping. For the general business strategy, see Flag of convenience (business).
The MOL Pride, a merchant ship owned and operated by the Japanese transport company Mitsui O.S.K. Lines flying the flag of Liberia.[1]

A merchant ship is said to be flying a flag of convenience if it is registered in a country different to that of its owners "for purposes of reducing operating costs or avoiding government regulations".[2] The closely-related term open registry is used to describe an organization that will register ships owned by foreign entities.

The term flag of convenience has been used since the 1950s and refers to the civil ensign a ship flies to indicate its country of registration or flag state. A ship operates under the laws of its flag state, and these laws are used if the ship is involved in an admiralty case.[3] The modern practice of flagging ships in foreign countries began in the 1920s in the United States, when shipowners frustrated by increased regulations and rising labor costs began to register their ships to Panama. The use of flags of convenience steadily increased, and in 1968, Liberia grew to surpass the United Kingdom as the world's largest shipping register. As of 2009, more than half of the world’s merchant ships are registered under flags of convenience, and the Panamanian, Liberian, and Marshallese flags of convenience account for almost 40% of the entire world fleet, in terms of deadweight tonnage.[4]

Flag of convenience registries are often criticized. As of 2009, thirteen flag states have been found by international shipping organizations to have substandard regulations. A basis for many criticisms is that the flag of convenience system allows shipowners to be legally anonymous and difficult to prosecute in civil and criminal actions. Flag of convenience ships have been found engaging in crime and terrorism, frequently are found offering substandard working conditions, and negatively impact the environment, primarily through illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. As of 2009, ships of thirteen flags of convenience are targeted for special enforcement by countries that they visit. Supporters of the practice point to economic and regulatory advantages, and increased freedom in choosing employees from an international labor pool.

Background

International law requires that every merchant ship be registered in a country, called its flag state.[5] A ship's flag state exercises regulatory control over the vessel and is required to inspect it regularly, certify the ship's equipment and crew, and issue safety and pollution prevention documents. The organization which actually registers the ship is known as its registry. Registries may be governmental or private agencies. In some cases, such as the United States' Alternative Compliance Program, the registry can assign a third party to administer inspections.[6]

The reasons for choosing an open register are varied and include tax avoidance,[7] the ability to avoid national labor and environmental regulations,[7][8] and the ability to hire crews from lower-wage countries.[7] National or closed registries typically require a ship be owned and constructed by national interests, and at least partially crewed by its citizens. Conversely, open registries frequently offer on-line registration, and some guarantee completion in less than a day.[9] The use of flags of convenience lowers registration and maintenance costs, which in turn reduces overall transportation costs. The accumulated advantages can be significant, for example in 1999, 28 of Sea-Land's fleet of 63 ships were foreign flagged, saving the company up to 3.5 million dollars per ship per year.[7]

The sinking of the Liberian-flagged Amoco Cadiz led to concerted ship inspections by port states

The environmental disaster caused by the 1978 sinking of the MV Amoco Cadiz, which flew the Liberian flag of convenience, spurred the creation of a new type of maritime enforcement.[10] Resulting from "strong political and public outcry" over the Cadiz sinking, fourteen European nations signed the 1982 "Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control" or Paris MOU.[10] Under port state control, ships in international trade became subject to inspection by the states they visit. In addition to shipboard living and working conditions, these inspections cover items concerning the safety of life at sea and the prevention of pollution by ships.[10] In cases when a port state inspection uncovers problems with a ship, the port state may take actions including detaining the ship.[11] In 2008, member states of the Paris MOU conducted 14,322 inspections with deficiencies, which resulted in vessels being detained 1,220 times that year.[12] Member states of the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding conducted 13,298 ship inspections in 2009, recording 86,820 deficiencies which resulted in 1,336 detentions.[13]

The principle that there be a "genuine link" between a ship's owners and its flag state dates back to 1958, when Article 5(1) of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas also required that "the state must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag."[14] The principle was repeated in Article 91 of the 1982 treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and often referred to as UNCLOS.[5] In 1986, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development attempted to solidify the genuine link concept in the United Nations Convention for Registration of Ships.[15] The Convention for Registration of Ships would require that a flag state be linked to its ships either by having an economic stake in the ownership of its ships or by providing mariners to crew the ships.[15] To come into force, the 1986 treaty requires 40 signatories whose combined tonnage exceeds 25% of the world total.[15] To date, only 14 countries have signed the treaty.[15]

History

Merchant ships have used deceptive flags as a tactic to evade enemy warships since antiquity, and examples can be found from as early as the Roman era through the Middle Ages.[16] More recently, this technique was used by the British during the Napoleonic Wars and the United States during the War of 1812.[17] However, the modern practice of registering ships in foreign countries to gain economic advantage originated in the United States in the era of World War I.

The engineers of the Seamen's Act, from left to right, maritime labor leader Andrew Furuseth, Senator La Follette, and muckraker Lincoln Steffens, circa 1915.

Between 1915 and 1922, several laws were passed in the United States to strengthen the United States Merchant Marine and provide safeguards for its mariners.[18] During this period, U.S.-flagged ships became subject to regular inspections undertaken by the American Bureau of Shipping.[18] This was also the time of Robert LaFollette's Seamen's Act of 1915, which has been described as the "Magna Carta of sailors' rights."[19] The Seamen's Act regulated mariners' working hours, their payment, and established baseline requirements for shipboard food.[19] It also reduced penalties for disobedience and abolished the practice of imprisoning sailors for the offense of desertion.[19] Another aspect of the Seamen's Act was enforcement of safety standards, with requirements on lifeboats, the number of qualified able seamen on board, and that officers and seamen be able to speak the same language.[19]

These laws put U.S.-flagged vessels at an economic disadvantage against countries lacking such safeguards.[18] By moving their ships to the Panamanian flag, owners could avoid providing these protections.[18] The Belen Quezada, the first foreign ship flagged in the Panamanian registry, was employed in running illegal alcohol between Canada and the United States during Prohibition.[20] In addition to sidestepping the Seamen's Act, Panamanian-flagged ships in this early period paid sailors on the Japanese wage scale, which was much lower than that of western merchant powers.[20]

The Liberian open registry was the brainchild of Edward Stettinius, who had been Franklin D. Roosevelt's Secretary of State during World War II.[21] Stettinius created a corporate structure that included The Liberia Corporation, a joint-venture with the government of Liberia.[21] The corporation was structured so that one-fourth of its revenue would go to the Liberian government, another 10% went to fund social programs in Liberia, and the remainder returned to Stettinius' corporation.[21] The Liberian registry was created at a time when the Panama's registry was becoming less attractive for several reasons including its unpopularity with the U.S. labor movement and European shipping concerns, political unrest in Panama, and increases in its fees and regulations.[21]

The drilling rig Deepwater Horizon flew a Marshallese flag of convenience.[22]

On 11 March 1949, Greek shipping magnate Stavros Niarchos registered the first ship under the Liberian flag of convenience, the World Peace. When Stettinius died in 1950, ownership of the registry passed to the International Bank of Washington, led by General George Olmsted.[23] Within 18 years, Liberia grew to surpass the United Kingdom as the world's largest register.[23]

Due to Liberia's 1989 and 1999 civil wars, its registry eventually fell second to Panama's flag of convenience, but maritime funds continued to supply 70% of its total government revenue.[23] After the civil war of 1990, Liberia joined with the Republic of the Marshall Islands to develop a new maritime and corporate program.[23] The resulting company, International Registries, was formed as a parent company, and in 1993 was bought out by its management.[23] After taking over the Liberian government, Americo-Liberian warlord Charles Taylor signed a new registry contract with the Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry, commonly known as LISCR. LISCR was one of the few legal sources of income for Taylor's regime.[23] Taylor is now on trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague on 11 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law.[24]

As of 2009, the Panamanian, Liberian, and Marshallese flags of convenience account for almost 40% of the entire world fleet, in terms of deadweight tonnage[4] That same year, the top ten flags of convenience registered 55% of ther world's deadweight tonnage, including 61% of bulk carriers and 56% of oil tankers.[4]

Extent of use

Top 11 flags of convenience account for almost 55% of the entire world fleet.[4][25]
Further information: List of flags of convenience

The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) maintains a list of 32 registries it considers to be FOC registries.[26] In developing the list, the ITF considers "ability and willingness of the flag state to enforce international minimum social standards on its vessels,"[25] the "degree of ratification and enforcement of ILO Conventions and Recommendations,"[25] and "safety and environmental record."[25] As of 2010 the list includes Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Burma, Cambodia, the Cayman Island, Comoros, Cyprus, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Gibraltar, Honduras, Jamaica, Lebanon, Liberia, Malta, the Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Netherlands Antilles, North Korea, Panama, Sao Tome and Príncipe, St Vincent, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Vanuatu, and the French and German International Ship Registers.[26]

As of 2009, Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands are the worlds three largest registries in terms of deadweight tonnage (DWT).[4] These three organizations registered 11,636 ships of 1,000 DWT and above, for a total of 468,405,000 DWT: more than 39% of the world's shipbourne carrying capacity.[4] Panama dominates the scene with over 8,065 ships accounting for almost 23% of the world's DWT.[4] Of the three, the Marshall Islands (with 1,265 registered ships) had the greatest rate of DWT increase in 2009, increasing its tonnage by almost 15%.[4]

The Bahamanian flag ranks sixth worldwide, behind the Hong Kong and Greek registries, but is similar in size to the Marshallese flag of convenience, with about 200 more ships but a carrying capacity about 6,000,000 DWT lower.[4] Malta, at the ninth position worldwide, had about 100 more ships than the Bahamas, with a capacity of 50,666,000 DWT, representing 4% of the world fleet with 12% growth that year.[4]

At the eleventh position, Cyprus registered 1,016 ships in 2009, 2.6% of world tonnage.[4] The remaining top 11 flags of convenience are Antigua and Barbuda (#20), Bermuda (#22), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (#26), and the French International Ship Register (FIS) at number #27.[4] Bermuda and the FIS have fewer than 200 ships apiece, but they are large: the average Bermudan ship is 67,310 DWT and the average FIS ship is at 42,524 DWT.[4] (By way of reference, the average capacity of ships in the U.S. and U.K. registers is 1,851 DWT and 9,517 DWT respectively.[4]) The registries of Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines both have over 1,000 ships with average capacity of 10,423 DWT and 7,334 DWT respectively.[4]

The 21 other flags of convenience listed by the ITF each account for less than 1% of the world's DWT.[4] As of 2008, more than half of the world’s merchant ships (measured by tonnage) are registered under flags of convenience.[27]

Criticism

There are a number of common threads found in criticisms of the flag of convenience system. One is that these flag states have insufficient regulations and that those regulations they do have are poorly enforced. Another is that, in many cases, the flag state cannot identify a shipowner, much less hold the owner civilly or criminally responsible for a ship's actions. As a result of this lack of flag state control, flags of convenience are criticized on grounds of providing an environment for conducting criminal activities, supporting terrorism, providing poor working conditions for seafarers, and having an adverse effect on the environment.

Concealed ownership

Shipowners often establish shell corporations to be the legal owners of their ships.[28] To distinguish between the actual shipowner and the shell corporations, the terms "beneficial owner" or "ultimate owner" are often used. Webster's defines a beneficial owner as "one who enjoys the benefit of a property of which another is the legal owner."[29] A ship's beneficial owner is legally and financially responsible for the ship and its activities.[30]

The 2004 Report of the UN Secretary General’s Consultative Group on Flag State Implementation reported that "It is very easy, and comparatively inexpensive, to establish a complex web of corporate entities to provide very effective cover to the identities of beneficial owners who do not want to be known."[31] According to a 2003 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report entitled "Ownership and Control of Ships", these corporate structures are often multi-layered, spread across numerous jurisdictions, and make the beneficial owner "almost impenetrable" to law enforcement officials and taxation.[28] The report concludes that "regardless of the reasons why the cloak of anonymity is made available, if it is provided it will also assist those who may wish to remain hidden because they engage in illegal or criminal activities, including terrorists."[28]

The OECD report concludes that the use of bearer shares is "perhaps the single most important (and perhaps the most widely used) mechanism" to protect the anonymity of a ship's beneficial owner.[32] Physically possessing a bearer share accords ownership of the corporation.[32] There is no requirement for reporting the transfer of bearer shares, and not every jurisdiction requires that their serial numbers even be recorded.[32]

Two similar techniques to provide anonymity for a ship's beneficial owner are "nominee shareholders" and "nominee directors." In some jurisdictions that require shareholder identities to be reported, a loophole is created where the beneficial owner may appoint a nominee to be the shareholder, and that nominee cannot legally be compelled to reveal the identity of the beneficial owner.[33] All corporations are required to have at least one director, however many jurisdictions allow this to be a nominee director.[34] A nominee director's name would appear on all corporate paperwork in place of the beneficial owners, and like nominee shareholders, few jurisdictions can compel a nominee director to divulge the identity of beneficial owners.[34] To further complicate matters, some jurisdictions allow a corporation to fulfill the duties of a nominee director.[34]

Crime

Arms smuggling, the ability to conceal large sums of money, trafficking in goods and people and other illegal activities can also thrive in the unregulated havens which the flag of convenience system provides.

David Cockroft, general secretary of the ITF[9]

Flag of convenience ships have long been linked to crime on the high seas. For example, in 1982, Honduras shut down its open registry operations because it had enabled "illegal traffic of all kinds and had given Honduras a bad name."[35]

Ships registered by the Cambodia Shipping Corporation (CSC) were found smuggling drugs and cigarettes in Europe, breaking the Iraq oil embargo, and engaging in human trafficking and prostitution in Europe and Asia.[9] In response to these activities, in 2000, Ahamd Yahya of the Cambodian Ministry of Public Works and Transport told industry publication Fairplay "We don't know or care who owns the ships or whether they're doing 'white' or 'black' business ... it is not our concern."[9] Less than two years later, French forces seized the Cambodian-flagged, Greek-owned MV Winner for cocaine smuggling.[9] Shortly after the seizure, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen closed the registry to foreign ships,[9] and Cambodia canceled its contract with CSC shortly thereafter.[36]

The North Korean flag of convenience has also garnered significant scrutiny. In 2003, the North Korean freighter Pong-su reflagged to Tuvulu in the middle of a voyage shortly before being seized by Australian authorities for smuggling heroin into that country.[9] That year thirteen nations began monitoring vessels under the North Korean flag for "illicit cargos, like drugs, missiles or nuclear weapon fuel."[36] In 2006, ships owned by Egyptian and Syrian interests, flagged by North Korea, and based in the United States were discovered to be engaged in smuggling migrants in Europe.[9]

Terrorism

The OECD report states that the possibility of terrorists using ships is "obvious" and "potentially devastating" and goes on to list ways in which ships could be used.[37] One clear use would be to move personnel, equipment, and weapons around the world.[37] Another would be to transport bombs, such as a "container set to explode near a city."[37] Also, ships could be used as a weapon in their own right, for example an oil tanker or liquefied natural gas carrier rigged as a floating bomb.[37] Finally, the OECD discussed the possibility of criminal and terrorist organizations using ships engaging in legal or illegal trade as a source of revenue to fund criminal activities.[38]

In 2002 in the United States, Democratic senator John Breaux of Louisiana proposed a bill to prevent U.S. shipowners from using foreign flags as a counter-terrorism measure.[39]

Working conditions

These floating sweatshops are the building blocks of the notorious "Flag-of-Convenience" (FOC) system. It exists for one reason and one reason only: to allow companies to avoid paying taxes and escape the minimum health, safety and environmental standards of their home countries.

Maritime Trades Department of the AFL-CIO[40]

In the accompanying material of the United Nations' Maritime Labour Convention of 2006, the International Labour Organization estimated that at that time there were approximately 1,200,000 working seafarers across the world.[41] This document goes on to say that when working aboard ships flagged to states that do not "exercise effective jurisdiction and control" over their ships that "seafarers often have to work under unacceptable conditions, to the detriment of their well-being, health and safety and the safety of the ships on which they work."[42]

The International Transport Workers' Federation goes further, stating that flags of convenience "provide a means of avoiding labor regulation in the country of ownership, and become a vehicle for paying low wages and forcing long hours of work and unsafe working conditions. Since FOC ships have no real nationality, they are beyond the reach of any single national seafarers' trade union."[43] They also say that these ships of have low safety standards and no construction requirements, that they "do not enforce safety standards, minimum social standards or trade union rights for seafarers",[44] that they frequently fail to pay their crews,[7] have poor safety records,[7] and engage in practices such as abandoning crewmen in distant ports.[7]

Environmental effects

The practice of flags of convenience, where owners register vessels in countries other than their own in order to avoid binding regulations or controls, is a serious menace to today’s maritime world.

European Union Fisheries Commissioner, Franz Fischler[45]

While flag of convenience ships have been involved with some of the highest-profile oil spills in history (such as the Maltese-flagged MV Erika,[46] the Bahamanian-flagged MV Prestige,[47] the Marshallese-flagged Deepwater Horizon,[48] and the Liberian-flagged MV Amaco Cadiz[49] and MV Sea Empress[50]) the most common environmental criticism they face regards illegal fishing. These critics of the flag of convenience system argue that many of the FOC flag states lack the resources or the will to properly monitor and control those vessels. The Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) contends that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) vessels use flags of convenience to avoid fisheries regulations and controls. Flags of convenience help reduce the operating costs associated with illegal fishing methods, and help illegal operators avoid prosecution and hide beneficial ownership.[51] As a result, flags of convenience perpetuate IUU fishing which has extensive environmental, social and economic impacts, particularly in developing countries.[52] The EJF is campaigning to end the granting of flags of convenience to fishing vessels as an effective measure to combat IUU fishing.

Ratification of maritime conventions

Non-ratification of
International Conventions, 2009[53]
Flag Template:Rot270 Template:Rot270 Template:Rot270 Template:Rot270 Template:Rot270
 Antigua/Barbuda X
 Bahamas X
 Bolivia X X X X X
 Cambodia X X
 North Korea X X X
 Georgia X X X
 Honduras X X X X X
 Jamaica X
 Lebanon X X X
 Malta X
 Mongolia X X
 St. Vincent/Grenadines X
 Sri Lanka X X X X

International regulations for the maritime industry are promulgated by agencies of the United Nations, particularly the International Maritime Organization and International Labour Organization. Flag states adopt these regulations for their ships by ratifying individual treaties. One common criticism against flag of convenience countries is that they allow shipowners to avoid these regulations by not ratifying important treaties or by failing to enforce them.

Maritime International Secretariat Services (MARISEC) issues a yearly report entitled the Flag State Performance Table in association with industry groups the Baltic and International Maritime Council, the International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners, the International Chamber of Shipping, the International Shipping Federation, and the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners.[54] The 2009 report identified the six "core" conventions representing a minimum level of maritime regulation, from the viewpoint of shipowners, as SOLAS, MARPOL, LL 66, STCW, ILO 147, and CLC/FUND92.[54] Five of these six core conventions are not ratified by several flag of convenience countries.

SOLAS is an acronym for Safety of Life at Sea, or formally "International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended, including the 1988 Protocol, the International Safety Management Code (ISM) and the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS)". SOLAS was originally ratified in 1914 in response to the sinking of the RMS Titanic. It prescribed numbers of lifeboats and other emergency equipment along with safety procedures, including continuous radio watches. The treaty was rewritten in 1974 to include provisions on ship construction, subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations, fire detection and protection, life-saving appliances and arrangements, radio communications, safety of navigation, carriage of cargoes and dangerous goods, operation of nuclear ships, management for the safe operation of ships, safety measures for high-speed craft, special measures to enhance maritime safety and security, and additional safety measures for bulk carriers.[55] As of 2009, the Bolivian, Honduran, Lebanese, and Sri Lankan flags of convenience have not ratified the SOLAS treaty.[53]

MARPOL refers to the "International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978, including Annexes I – VI". This treaty regulates pollution by ships, in particular oil pollution, noxious liquid substances carried in bulk, harmful substances carried in packaged form, shipboard sewage and garbage, and air pollution by ships.[56] As of 2009, the Bahamanian, Bolivian, Cambodian, North Korean, Georgian, Honduran, Lebanese, Maltese, and Sri Lankan flags of convenience have not ratified the MARPOL treaty.[53]

LL 66 is an industry designation for the "International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, including the 1988 Protocol".[53] The 1966 convention set minimum standards for freeboard and reserve buoyancy, and addressed hull stress and overloading, special regulations for ships carrying timber, and regulations pertaining to ship's fittings such as doors, freeing ports, and hatchways.[57] The loadlines convention also designated zones, areas, and seasonal periods in which special buoyancy conditions must be met.[57] The 1988 protocol "harmonized" LL 66 with subsequent requirements in the SOLAS and MARPOL treaties, and required surveys and certification for ships to demonstrate compliance with loadline requirements.[57] As of 2009, the Bahamanian, Bolivian, Georgian, Honduran, and Sri Lankan flags of convenience have not ratified the MARPOL treaty.[53]

ILO147 is shorthand for the "International Labour Organization Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention 1976, including the 1996 Protocol". This convention requires member states establish and enforce regulations for all ships under its flag concerning safety and competency standards, work hours, manning, and conditions of employment and living arrangements.[58] Among its specific requirements are that procedures be established for appropriate hiring of seafarers, for handling complaints, that the flag state verify its ships are in compliance with international labour conventions, and that it hold official inquiries in cases of a "serious marine casualty" of a ship flying its flag.[58] The convention also gives signatories the right, when in receipt of a complaint about a ship in its ports to "rectify any conditions on board which are clearly hazardous to safety or health."[58] As of 2009, the Antigua/Barbudan, Bolivian, Cambodian, North Korean, Georgian, Honduran, Jamaican, Mongolian, Vincentian, and Sri Lankan flags of convenience have not ratified the ILO147 treaty.[53]

CLC refers to the "International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992" . The convention was adopted "to ensure that adequate compensation is available to persons who suffer oil pollution damage resulting from maritime casualties involving oil-carrying ships."[59] In cases when the shipowner is deemed guilty of fault for an instance of oil pollution, the convention does not cap liability. When the shipowner is not personally at fault for an incident, the convention caps civil liability at between 3 million special drawing rights (SDR) for a ship of 5,000 GT to 59.7 million SDR for ships over 140,000 GT.[59] These limits translate to around US$3.8 million to US$76.5 million, although SDR exchange rates fluctuate daily.[59] CLC requires seagoing ships carrying bulk oil to maintain "insurance or other financial security" sufficient to cover the maximum liability for one oil spill.[59] As of 2009, the Bolivian, North Korean, Honduran, Lebanese, and, Mongolian flags of convenience have not ratified the CLC treaty.[53]

FUND92 refers to the "International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992". The original FUND convention in 1969 was drawn up as an enhancement to CLC meant on one hand to relieve shipowners from unfair liabilities due to unforeseeable circumstances and on the other hand remove liability caps that some member states thought were too low.[60] The fund is obliged to pay victims of pollution when damages exceed the shipowner's liability, when there is no liable shipowner, or when the shipowner is unable to pay its liability.[60] The fund is also required to "indemnify the shipowner or his insurer" in spills where a ship is in full compliance with international conventions, and no willful misconduct caused the spill.[60] As of 2009, the Bolivian, North Korean, Honduran, Lebanese, and, Mongolian flags of convenience have not ratified the FUND92 treaty.[53]

Port state targeting

Port State Targeting, 2009[53]
Flag Paris
Blacklist 		Tokyo
Blacklist 		US
Target List
 Antigua/Barbuda X
 Bahamas X
 Belize X X
 Bolivia X
 Cambodia X X X
 Cayman Islands X
 North Korea X X
 Georgia X X
 Honduras X X
 Lebanon X
 Malta X
 Mongolia X X
 Panama X X
 St. Vincent/Grenadines X

In 1978, a number of European countries agreed in The Hague to audit labour conditions on board vessels vis-a-vis the rules of the International Labour Organization. To this end, in 1982 the "Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control" (Paris MOU) was established, setting port state control standards for what is now twenty-six European countries and Canada.

Several other regional Memoranda Of Understanding have been established based on the Paris model, including the "Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region", typically referred to as the "Tokyo MOU", and organizations for the Black Sea, the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean, and Latin America.[61] The Tokyo and Paris organizations generate, based on deficiencies and detentions, black-, white-, and grey-lists of flag states. The US Coast Guard, which handles port state control inspections in the US, maintains a similar target list for underperforming flag states. As of 2009, fourteen of the thirty-one flags of convenience listed by the ITF are targeted for special enforcement by the countries of the Paris and Tokyo MOUs or U.S. Coast Guard: Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Cambodia, the Cayman Islands, North Korea, Georgia, Honduras, Lebanon, Malta, Mongolia, Lebanon, Malta, Mongolia, Panama, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.[53]

Wages

In 2005, a study by industry groups the Baltic and International Maritime Council and International Shipping Federation estimated that 466,000 officers and 721,000 unlicensed personnel worked aboard the world's ships.[62] The study found that an approximately equal share of officers come from OECD countries and the far east, with significant numbers also coming from eastern Europe, the Indian Subcontinent, Africa and Latin America.[62] Conversely, the major suppliers of unlicensed personnel are the far east, southeast Asia, and the Indian sub-continent.[62] The Phillipines and China are mentioned as particularly important suppliers of maritime labour.[62]

Variations in wages are significant, and a frequently cited rationale for the use of flags of convenience. 2009 statistics from the American Bureau of Labor Statistics give median earnings for able and ordinary seamen as US$35,810, varying from $21,640 (at the 10th percentile) to $55,360 (at the 90th percentile).[63] This can be compared with 2006 statistics from the International Labour Organization, giving average yearly earnings for Filipino and Chinese able seamen around $2,000 to $3,000 per year (PHP9,900 per month and CNY3,071 per year).[64] The wage differential for officers is similar. American chief engineers earned a median $63,630, varying from $35,030 to $109,310 while their Filipino counterparts averaged $5,500 per year (PHP21,342 per month).[65][64]

Footnotes

  1. ^ Vesseltracker.com. "MOL Pride, Cargo Ship". Retrieved June 13, 2010.
  2. ^ American Heritage Dictionary, 2000.
  3. ^ Hamzah, 2004.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p "Chapter 2, Structure and ownership of the world fleet" (PDF). Review of Maritime Transport 2009. UNCTAD: 36. 2009. Retrieved 2010-06-21. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ a b ICFTU et al., 2002, p. 7.
  6. ^ "U.S. Coast Guard Alternative Compliance Program". United States Coast Guard. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g Working, 1999.
  8. ^ Dempsey and Helling, 1980.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h Neff, 2007.
  10. ^ a b c Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (2010). "A short history of the Paris MOU". Paris: Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control. Retrieved 2010-07-01. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |month=, |separator=, and |coauthors= (help)
  11. ^ Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, 2009.
  12. ^ Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, 2009, p 27.
  13. ^ Secretariat of the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding, 2009, p 22.
  14. ^ D'Andrea 2006, p.2.
  15. ^ a b c d D'Andrea 2006, p.6.
  16. ^ Wiswall 1996, p. 113.
  17. ^ Kemp, 1976.
  18. ^ a b c d DeSombre 2006, p. 75.
  19. ^ a b c d Marquis, Greg (2007). "Brutality on Trial (review)". Law and Politics Book Review. Retrieved 2010-05-25.
  20. ^ a b DeSombre 2006, p. 76.
  21. ^ a b c d DeSombre 2006, p. 74.
  22. ^ Template:ABS name
  23. ^ a b c d e f Pike, 2008.
  24. ^ "Charles Taylor Trial Background". Charlestaylortrial.org. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  25. ^ a b c d International Transport Workers' Federation. "What are Flags of Convenience?". Retrieved 2007-05-04. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
  26. ^ a b "FOC Countries". International Transport Workers' Federation. 2005-06-06. Retrieved 2010-07-02.
  27. ^ ISL: Shipping Statistics Yearbook 2008, page 27. Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics, 2009.
  28. ^ a b c Gianni 2008, p. 20.
  29. ^ "Beneficial Owner". Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster's Inc. 1996. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
  30. ^ OECD 2003, p. 4.
  31. ^ Gianni 2008, p. 19.
  32. ^ a b c OECD 2003, p. 8.
  33. ^ OECD 2003, pp. 8–9.
  34. ^ a b c OECD 2009, p. 9.
  35. ^ Reuters, 1982.
  36. ^ a b Brooke, 2004.
  37. ^ a b c d OECD 2003, p.5.
  38. ^ OECD 2003, pp. 6.
  39. ^ The Economist, 2002.
  40. ^ Maritime Trades Department (2007-09-16). "Flags-of-Convenience Campaign". AFL-CIO. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  41. ^ International Labour Organization, "Maritime Labour Convention 2006, Frequently Asked Questions", p. 5.
  42. ^ International Labour Organization, "Maritime Labour Convention 2006, Frequently Asked Questions", pp. 4–5.
  43. ^ International Transport Workers' Federation. "Flags of Convenience campaign". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://www.itfglobal.org/flags-convenience/index.cfm" ignored (help)
  44. ^ What do FOC's mean to seafarers? International Transport Workers' Federation
  45. ^ ICFTU et al., 2002. Page 5.
  46. ^ Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution (CEDRE) (2009). "Erika". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. Retrieved 2010-06-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |trans_title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  47. ^ Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution (CEDRE) (2006). "Prestige". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. Retrieved 2010-06-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |trans_title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  48. ^ Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution (CEDRE) (2010). "Deepwater Horizon". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. Retrieved 2010-06-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |trans_title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  49. ^ Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution (CEDRE) (2006a). "Amoco Cadiz". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. Retrieved 2010-06-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |trans_title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  50. ^ Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution (CEDRE) (2006b). "Sea Empress". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. Retrieved 2010-06-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |trans_title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  51. ^ Gianni & Simpson, 2005.
  52. ^ Environmental Justice Foundation, 2009.
  53. ^ a b c d e f g h i j MARISEC, 2009.
  54. ^ a b MARISEC 2009, p.1.
  55. ^ "International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea". International Maritime Organization. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  56. ^ "International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78)". International Maritime Organization. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  57. ^ a b c "International Convention on Load Lines, 1966". International Maritime Organization. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  58. ^ a b c "Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976". International Labour Organization. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  59. ^ a b c d "International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969". International Maritime Organization. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  60. ^ a b c "International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND), 1971". International Maritime Organization. Retrieved 2010-07-02.
  61. ^ Tokyo MOU Secretariat, 2008.
  62. ^ a b c d Baltic and International Maritime Council; International Shipping Federation (2005). "Numbers and nationality of world's seafarers". Shipping and World Trade. London: Maritime International Secretariat Services. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |separator=, |coauthors=, and |month= (help)
  63. ^ "Sailors and Marine Oilers". Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010-05-14. Retrieved 2010-07-02.
  64. ^ a b Department of Statistics (2006). "LABORSTA". Geneva: International Labour Office. Retrieved 2010-07-01. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |month=, |separator=, and |coauthors= (help)
  65. ^ "Ship Engineers". Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010-05-14. Retrieved 2010-07-02.

References

General references

News stories

Fishing references

Port state control organizations

Further reading

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Flag of convenience.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_convenience&oldid=373274410"