1.

Document  India's position

In force w.e.f.

3. Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention for the Not Yet In Force
Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS PROT (HSSC)1988)
8. Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Not Yet In Force
Loadlines, 1966 (LL PROT(HSSC) 1988)
10. International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas6.5.75 Under
in cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969 (Intervention 1969) Consideration.
11. Protocol relating to Intervention on High Seas in cases of pollution30.3.83 --
by substances other than oil 1973 (INTERVENTION PROT 1973)
14. Protocol of 1992 to amend the International Convention on Civil 30.5.96 --
Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (CLC PROT 1992)
17. Convention relating to Civil Liability in the field of Maritime Carriage
15.7.75 Considered and
of Nuclear Material, 1971 (NUCLEAR 1971) decided not to ratify.
18. International Convention on the establishment of an International16.10.78 Ratified
Fund for compensation of Oil Pollution Damage 1971 (FUND 1971)

20.. Protocol of 1992 to amend the International Convention on the 30.5.96 Under Consideration
establishment of an International Fund for the compensation of Oil
Pollution Damage 1971(FUND PROT 1992)
22. Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their
28.4.87 --
luggage by Sea 1974 (PAL 1974)
23. Protocol to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of 30.4.89 --
Passengers and their luggage by Sea 1974 (PAL PROT 1976)
27. Convention on limitation of liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (LMC
1.12.86 --
1976)
29. International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979 22.6.85 Under Consideration.
(SAR 1979)
30. Convention for suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of1.3.92 Under Consideration.
Maritime Navigation (SWA 1988)
31. Protocol for the suppression of unlawful acts against the Safety of1.3.92 Under Consideration.
Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf (SWA PROT 1988)
33. International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness response13.5.95 Under Consideration.
and cooperation 1990 (OPRC 1990)

34. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of30.8.75 Consideration kept in
Wastes, and other matter 1972 as amended (LDC (Amended) 1972) abeyance

35. International Convention on Standard of Training Certification and

Not yet In force
Watch-keeping for fishing Vessels Personnel (STCW-F)

36. Torremolinos Protocol of 1993 relating to the Terremolinos Not yet In force
International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels 1977 (SFV
PROT 1993)

The position in respect of the remaining Conventions Protocols (after deducting those ratified
and under consideration mentioned above) is as follows:-
(i) Protocol relating to Intervention on High Seas in cases of pollution by substances other than
oil 1973.
This protocol, which came into force on 30.3.87 contains provisions relating to pollution of High
Seas by sewage, by nuclear substances or by chemical. The provisions of this convention are
also relevant in terms of intervention convention 1969. Therefore, action will be initiated after
examining the issues involved therein including the financial implications to ratify this protocol.
(ii) Convention relating to Civil Liability in the fields on Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Materials
1971.
This Convention which came into force on 15.7.75 mainly lays down the liability of owners of
vessels for carriage of nuclear material. This Convention confirms and reinforces the specia l
system establishment by the Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage 1963 (also known
as Vienna Convention). This subject has also been mentioned in the convention on third party
liability in the field of Nuclear Energy 1960 (also known as 1960 Paris convention). The
Department of Atomic Energy while considering the ratification 1963 Vienna Convention has
expressed that India should not become party to 1963 Vienna convention for the following main
reasons:-

(a) No important country has become a party to it. Consequently, participation in the
Convention would have very limited advantage.
(b) Its features are of little appeal or applicability or relevance to India, and no advantage
will accrue to India as a result of participation in it.
They further advised that no useful purpose would be served by ratifying the present
convention without becoming party to the Vienna Convention. The Ministry of Surface
Transport after having considered the views expressed by the Dept. of Atomic Energy agreed
not to press for ratification of this Convention. The position remains the same as on date.
(iii) , (iv) & (v) The Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their luggage
by sea 1976 and 1990 protocols.
This Convention lays down the liability of Ship-owners for death or personal injury to a
passenger and also for loss of or damage to Passenger luggage if the incident causing such
damage was due to the fault or the neglect of the carrier or his servants or agents. The Liability
has been fixed at such a high level (ranging from 18000 francs for loss of / damage, to 7,00,000
francs for death or personal injury). The Indian ship-owners who operate Passenger services
only in Coastal waters have opposed stating that acceptance of such heavy liability would
necessitate substantial increase in passenger fares and Insurance cover. It may be stated that
the provision of M. S. Act already provide for liability of owners for personal and property
claims, which is lower than the liability under the Athens Convention. Further, there was a
proposal to incorporate in the M. S. Act, 1958 specific provisions for casting a liability on ship-
owners to pay compensation for death or injury to passengers up to Rest. 1 lakh irrespective of
whether the owner is at fault or not. However, the M. S. Act Review Committee which was set
up to review the existing Act recommended giving powers to the Central Govt. to fix such lower
limit of liability on Ship-owners of ships (in respect to claims related to passengers carried by
the ships in coastal trade of India) as may be notified by the Central Govt. from time to time.
Simultaneously the committee did not favor the system of payment of specific compensation
irrespective of ship-owners fault as claimants could claim even higher compensation but within
the limit notified by government as suggested above. For these reasons, the ratification of
Convention / Protocols has not been taken up.
(vi) The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976.
This Convention has replaced International Convention relating to the Limitation of Liability of
owners of seagoing ships, 1957. It came into force from 1 st December, 1986. The provisions of
1957 Convention have already been incorporated in the M. S. Act, 1958. The 1976 Convention
mainly increase the amounts of limits of liability for loss of life or damage to property by almost
two to four times the limits prescribed by the 1957 Convention. It has also specific provision for
compensations to be given for death or injury of a passenger and loss or damage to passenger’s
luggage equivalent to the provisions of the Athens Convention.
(vii) The Torremolinos International Convention on safety of fishing vessels 1977 (revised by
protocol of 1993)
This Convention which has not come into force prescribed international standards for
construction, survey, equipment, maintenance and operation of fishing vessels propelled by
mechanical means of propulsion. It has not come into force. The question of its ratification by
India has not yet been considered since there are very few fishing vessels of the type mentioned
in the convention, operating in India. However the provisions of the convention are kept in
mind while approving while approving technical plans relating to construction of new fishing
vessels.

2.

SUA Convention
• The SUA Convention did not define the term ‘terrorism’ or the term ‘maritime
terrorism’.
• As discussed earlier, the definition of terrorism is a highly contested issue.
• Instead, the Convention identified some relevant offences or unlawful acts.
Article 3 of the SUA Convention classified the following as unlawful acts
a) Seizure or exercise of control over a ship by intimidation
b) Violence against a person on board a ship if the violence has potential to endanger the
safety of navigation of the ship
c) Destruction or damage of a ship or its cargo
d) Placing a device or substance to destroy or damage a ship or its cargo
e) Destruction, damage and interference to navigational facilities
f) Endangering a ship by communicating false information.

• The SUA Convention imposes an obligation on State parties to criminalise unlawful

seizure, control, destruction and damage of ships within and beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of their country, including its territorial waters.
• State parties are obliged to make this offence punishable under their national law,
‘taking into account the grave nature of those offences’
Other conventions that may be of relevance in the repression and effective prosecution of
piracy include:
(a) The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime
Navigation, 1988, and its Protocols;
(b) The International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, 1979;

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
(SUA Convention), 1988, as amended
It is important to distinguish piracy, as defined in UNCLOS, from “armed robbery against
ships”; this is not addressed in UNCLOS, but is defined by the IMO Code of Practice for the
Investigation of Crimes of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships.58 Article 2.2 of the
Code provides: Armed robbery against ships means any of the following acts: 1. Any illegal
act of violence or detention or any act of depredation, or threat thereof, other than an act
of ‘piracy’, committed for private ends and directed against a ship or against persons or
property on board such ship, within a State’s internal waters, archipelagic waters and
territorial sea; 2. Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described above.
51. In cases of armed robbery against ships, primary responsibility for enforcement
measures would, in accordance with part II of UNCLOS, normally fall on the coastal State.
Armed robbery against ships also constitutes an offence under the 1988 Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention)
(c) The United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, 2000.

52. The SUA Convention was adopted following the incident on board the Achille Lauro in
1985, where the vessel was seized by a group of Palestinians posing as passengers. The
incident served as an illustration of the inadequacy of the international legal regime
governing piracy under UNCLOS, in so far as it concerned the exclusion from the definition
of piracy of acts of terrorism that are politically motivated, such as hijackings and internal
seizures of a ship. 53. The SUA Convention complements the provisions on piracy that are
found in UNCLOS, as it provides further definitions of offences that threaten the safety of
maritime navigation. It also obliges Contracting States to either extradite or prosecute
alleged offenders of unlawful acts. 54. Thus the SUA Convention may provide an additional
basis for jurisdiction in cases where the act falls outside the geographic or substantive scope
of UNCLOS, i.e. does not fall within the traditional definition of piracy as reflected in
UNCLOS. Moreover, the specific obligations imposed on Contracting States to the SUA
Convention may play an important part in the context of maritime piracy. 1.1. Offences
55. The offences dealt with by the SUA Convention are set out in article 3 of the Convention,
which provides: 1. Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and
intentionally: (a) seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any
other form of intimidation; or (b) performs an act of violence against a person on board a
ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or (c) destroys a ship or
causes damage to a ship or to its cargo which is likely to endanger the safe navigation of
that ship; or (d) places or causes to be placed on a ship, by any means whatsoever, a device
or substance which is likely to destroy that ship, or cause damage to that ship or its cargo
which endangers or is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or (e) destroys or
seriously damages maritime navigational facilities or seriously interferes with their
operation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of a ship; or (f)
communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safe
navigation of a ship; or (g) injures or kills any person, in connection with the commission or
the attempted commission of any of
the offences set forth in subparagraphs (a) to (f). 2. Any person also commits an offence if
that person: (a) attempts to commit any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1; or (b)
abets the commission of any of the offences set forth in paragraph 1 perpetrated by any
person or is otherwise an accomplice of a person who commits such an offence; or (c)
threatens, with or without a condition, as is provided for under national law, aimed at
compelling a physical or juridical person to do or refrain from doing any act, to commit any
of the offences set forth in paragraph 1, subparagraphs (b), (c) and (e), if that threat is likely
to endanger the safe navigation of the ship in question. 56. While article 3 of the SUA
Convention does not explicitly refer to piratical acts or armed robbery against ships, many of
the offences listed (e.g. article 3(1)(a) and (b)) contain the basic elements of the crime of
piracy, and therefore such acts may be covered by the SUA Convention. That being said, the
SUA Convention creates separate offences from those provided in article 101 of UNCLOS.
This allows a prosecuting State to choose whether to prosecute under the SUA Convention
or UNCLOS, provided that the relevant offences are explicitly included in that State’s
criminal legislation.59 57. Article 3(2) of the SUA Convention requires the acts of
attempting, abetting and threatening to carry out the offences in article 3(1) to also be
considered as crimes under the Convention. The IMO secretariat has noted that the
terminology employed in article 101(c) of UNCLOS, namely “inciting” and “intentionally
facilitating” acts of piracy, is somewhat different, although some of the concepts may
overlap, for example, “facilitating” and “abetting”.60 58. It is also worth noting that the
offences listed in article 3 are not limited to those that involve more than one ship. As such,
the internal seizure of a ship may fall within one of the listed offences. SUA convention.pdf

3
OPRC CONVENTION
International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation
(OPRC) is an international maritime convention establishing measures for dealing with
marine oil pollution incidents nationally and in co-operation with other countries and are
required to establish measures for dealing with pollution incidents, either nationally or in
co-operation with other countries – THIS MEANS TO HAVE A CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR OIL
POLLUTION AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL INVOVING A NUMBER OF
COUNTRIES IN A REGION.
The primary objectives of the OPRC are as follows (ALL AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL):
O Contingency planning and coordinated response procedures.
O Establishment of equipment stocks sufficient to deal with oil pollution risks.
O Research and development programs.
O Training and exercise programs to facilitate oil spill response.
O SOPEP to be carried on board all vessels over a stipulated size.
Responsibilities of Ships and Oil pollution reporting procedures
1. Ships are required to carry a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan, in accordance
with the provisions adopted by the IMO for this purpose. These plans are subject, while
in a port or at an offshore terminal under the jurisdiction of a Party, to inspection by
officers duly authorized by that Party. SOPEP IS THE ACCEPTABLE SHIPBOARD
PLAN FOR OPRC. A contingency plan specifically for OPRC is therefore NOT
REQUIRED.
2. Ships are required to report any observed event at sea involving a discharge of oil or the
presence of oil or incidents of pollution to coastal authorities and the convention details
the actions that are then to be taken.
OPRC - HNS PROTOCOL
The Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to pollution Incidents by
Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 2000 (OPRC-HNS Protocol) follows the principles of the
International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990
(OPRC) and was formally adopted by States already Party to the OPRC Convention at a
Diplomatic Conference held at IMO headquarters in London in March 2000. The Protocol
entered into force on 14 June 2007.
Like the OPRC Convention, the HNS Protocol aims to provide a global framework for
international co-operation in combating major incidents or threats of marine pollution from
HNS. Parties to the HNS Protocol will be required to establish measures for dealing with
pollution incidents, either nationally or in co-operation with other countries. Ships will be
required to carry a shipboard pollution emergency plan (SMPEP) to deal specifically with
incidents involving HNS.

Why wreck removal convention is not ratified by all the countries.

The purpose of the Nairobi Convention is to harmonize the regulations on wreck

removal.7 The convention is also meant to fill a gap in international law by providing Coastal
States with clear mandates of wreck removal when it comes to wrecks situated outside of
the territorial sea while at the same time enabling them to claim compensation for incurred
costs as a result of the removal Without the convention the mandates of States are unclear
when it comes to wrecks located outside of the territorial sea (LEG/CONF.16/INF.2, p. 2 and
cf. art. 56 in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, hereafter abbreviated as
UNCLOS). Within the territorial sea however States can apply their national laws on wrecks
since the State has full sovereignty in that area. 8 The situation is not as clear in the exclusive
economic zone This insecurity results in it being unclear whether the convention codifies
already existing mandates that States have according to international law, if it expands the
already existing mandates or if it creates new mandates for States in this respect. 9

3.1. Area of Application and Definitions

3.1.1. Two Different Types of Wrecks

The convention distinguishes between two types of wrecks. This is manifested already in the
preamble in that State Parties are aware that: “…wrecks, if not removed, may pose a haza rd
to navigation or the marine environment…”. 10 The convention thus focuses on two
situations. The first one involves a wreck posing a hazard to navigation. An example of this is
a wreck being positioned in such a way as to obstruct a trafficked fairway. That this may
pose a problem is well illustrated by the wreckage of the Tricolor in 2002. Tricolor was a
Norwegian-flagged vehicle carrier that sank in a densely trafficked part of the English
Channel following a collision with another ship. The wreck was positioned inside the French
exclusive economic zone and badly situated in a type of crossing in the traffic separation
scheme of the English Channel where the traffic is dense. The wreck was positioned close to
the waterline and at times, depending on the tide, submerged close to the surface.
Consequently the wreck turned into a hazard to navigation, which was also manifested in
practice. Even though the wreck was overseen by French authorities and marked in
accordance with general practice using buoys and even a radar transponder, a ship collided
with the wreck the night after the wreckage. A couple of days later yet another ship collided
with the wreck despite surveillance and information of the wreck being spread. 11
The wreckage of the Tricolor shows the importance of being able to handle wreck removal
in cases where wrecks obstruct navigation. In a situation like this immediate action is often
necessary. The case also illustrates the uncertainty concerning what actions a State can take
when confronted with this kind of situation in its exclusive economic zone. When the
situation emerged French authorities ordered that the wreck should be removed, but
doubts were raised as to the mandate to issue that kind of order in accordance with
international law (Dromgoole and Forrest, 2011, p. 93.). It is this kind of uncertainty that the
Nairobi Convention is meant to eliminate.

The other situation is a wreck that poses a hazard to the environment. An example of this is
a ship where the wreckage in itself is a danger to the environment where no other
convention or regulation has already regulated the matter. 13

3.1.2. The Convention Area

The Nairobi Convention is applicable in what is called the Convention area. This is defined in
art. 1.1 WRC as: “…the exclusive economic zone of a State Party, established in accordance
with international law….” This wording is used since a State must claim an exclusive
economic zone (Dixon, 2007, p. 215). If a State has not established an exclusive economic
zone the convention will, according to art. 1.1 WRC, cover “…an area beyond and adjacent
to the territorial sea of that State determined by that State in accordance with international
law and extending not more than 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the
breadth of its territorial sea is measured.” This coincides with the definition of the exclusive
economic zone in art. 57 UNCLOS.
The fact that the Convention area is equal to the exclusive economic zone or a
corresponding area means that the convention e contrario is not applicable in the territorial
sea, in internal waters or on the high seas. 14 From the outset the convention thus covers an
area between 12 and 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial sea is measured.15 This leads to consequences when it comes to what types of
wrecks that is likely to fall under the application of the convention. The water in the
exclusive economic zone is often deep. Consequently sunken ships are in general more
seldom likely to pose a hazard to navigation, since they will be submerged in such a way as
to not cause problems of this kind. Instead it is more likely that the wrecks being covered by
the convention in these cases are wrecks that pose a hazard to the environment
Another consequence of the scope of application is that incidents that occur close to shore
are not covered. This is problematic since most wreckage occurs close to shore either in the
territorial sea or in internal waters To enable an application encompassing these wrecks as
well the convention includes an opt-in clause in art. 3.2 WRC allowing a State Party to
extend the scope of application to wrecks located within its territory including the territorial
sea. The wording used in the article: “*a+ State Party may extend the application of this
Convention to wrecks located within its territory, including the territorial sea…” indicates
that apart from the territorial sea also internal waters are included in the definition. Why
would the convention text otherwise explicitly state that the application within the
territory also includes the territorial sea? The reasonable construction of that wording is
that also other areas than the territorial sea is included and consequently that the
application covers internal waters as well. 16 Of the 25 States that have ratified the
convention 13 have chosen to use the opt-in-clause extending the scope of
application.17 Denmark motivated its use of the clause by stating that an overwhelming
majority of wrecks that are likely to be subject to wreck removal will be located within the
Danish sea territory.18
Usage of the opt-in-clause will furthermore likely result in a shift of balance considering
what types of wrecks that will be covered by the convention. In the territorial sea and
internal waters the water is generally shallower and, as a consequence, more wrecks are
likely to pose a hazard to navigation than should the convention only be applicable in the
exclusive economic zone.
Considering that wreckage is most likely to occur close to shore and the fact that only
roughly half of the Contracting States have chosen to use the opt-in-clause, it is clear that
this development is a problem for the convention's effect in practice. 19 The fact that many
States have chosen to not extend the application of the convention also means that the
overall goal of striving toward harmonization is undermined. Harmonization and a strive
toward a uniform framework are fundamental parts of the preamble to the convention,
making the construction with an optional clause of application somewhat bewildering. The
inclusion of the opt-in-clause has also been criticized on this basis. As is often the case in
international conventions the clause was the result of a compromise between States and
organizations that argued for a more extended application and others who were in favor of
a more confined area of application. 20
The opt-in-clause can be seen as an incentive for States to extend the convention's scope of
application. It is in this light that the provision should be viewed. Some have however stated
that the provision as a compromise seems a bit ambiguous and unnecessary, since the
States in favor of an extended scope of application can enact corresponding provisions
within their own jurisdictions This argument was however addressed in a statement
concerning the opt-in-clause issued by Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, Portugal, and
the United Kingdom during the conference. According to the States it would not be possible
for a State to unilaterally legislate when it comes to the financial provisions of the
convention and the provisions handling compulsory insurance and the ability to claim the
insurer directly (LEG/CONF.16/12, p. 1). 21 This seems to be the better view. A State would
without an opt-in-clause have difficulties unilaterally claiming an insurer situated in another
State in accordance with the convention text should the other State only apply the
convention within the context of the Convention area as described in the convention and
should the convention not enable an extension of the scope of application.

There is however some uncertainty as to if this should be possible at all. In a statement

issued by the United States at the conference it is stated that it is, according to the view of
the United States, still unclear what a State that has chosen to apply the convention on its
territory can demand when it comes to ships from other States that have not used the opt-
in-clause. According to the United States a State that has used the opt-in-clause should not
be able to apply the convention when it comes to other State Parties that have not used the
opt-in-clause themselves when a ship e.g., is using its right of innocent passage through the
territorial sea. This should instead only be done when the ship is calling a port
(LEG/CONF.16/15, p. 1). The background to that statement is a State's right of innocent
passage through the territorial sea of another State according to art. 17 UNLCOS. One could
argue that the right of innocent passage to some degree has been restricted in a case where
a State that has extended the application of the convention takes action in accordance with
the provisions in relation to a ship who’s Flag State has chosen not to use the opt-in-clause.
This seems to contradict the wording in art. 16 WRC where it is stated that: “*n+nothing in
this Convention shall prejudice the rights and obligations of any State under the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, and under the customary international law
of the sea.” There are thus different opinions as to the possibility of applying the convention
in this respect.
3.1.3. Definition of Ship

A ship is defined in art. 1.2 WRC as “…a seagoing vessel of any type whatsoever….” It is not
clear how the term seagoing is to be construed. This requisite was not present in the
original draft of the convention (LEG/CONF.16/3, p. 1.). The term is however present as a
suggestion in a proposal on the scope of the convention issued by Australia, Canada,
Germany, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom at the conference (LEG/CONF.16/12, p.
2 ff.). In English case law the term has previously been construed as not encompassing ships
that cannot navigate on the ocean (Rainey, 2013, p. 50 ff.). This would affect ships
navigating on trade routes along rivers in internal waters. Usually this will be in form of
barges of different kinds.22 It is however unclear if this is the meaning the term has in the
present convention. There are cases in English case law where barge-like structures without
propulsion have been considered ships. A more extended construction of the term would be
that seagoing basically means that the ship can be navigated on water.

The article furthermore includes an enumeration of what kinds of ships that are
encompassed in the article. It is stated that hydrofoil boats as well as air-cushion vehicles
and submersibles are included in the definition. Submersibles will however to a large extent
be warships and on that ground excluded from the application of the convention pursuant
to art. 4.2 WRC.23 The two last examples in the enumeration are floating craft, with a
somewhat unclear scope and meaning, and floating platforms. In all of these cases the
underlying demand on the vessels being seagoing has to be fulfilled. The two latter
examples are furthermore not considered ships while they are “…on location engaged in the
exploration, exploitation or production of seabed mineral resources.” In this way a large
part of the off shore-industry's vessels are excluded while in service.

3.1.4. Definition of Wreck and Maritime Casualty

The convention conjoins the term wreck with the occurrence of a maritime casualty.
According to art. 1.3 WRC a maritime casualty is “…a collision of ships, stranding or other
incident of navigation, or other occurrence on board a ship or external to it, resulting in
material damage or imminent threat of material damage to a ship or its cargo”. 24 This is
undoubtedly a wide definition and it is hard to envisage a situation where a wreckage could
take place that is not at the same time the result of a maritime casualty as defined.

As a consequence of a maritime casualty the ship can become a wreck. A definition of wreck
is found in art. 1.4 WRC where it is stated that a wreck is a sunken or stranded ship (art.
1.4.a); or any part of a sunken or stranded ship, including any object that is or has been on
board such a ship (art. 1.4.b); or any object that is lost at sea from a ship and that is
stranded, sunken or adrift at sea (art. 1.4.c); or a ship that is about, or may reasonably be
expected, to sink or to strand, where effective measures to assist the ship or any property in
danger are not already being taken (art. 1.4.d). As can clearly be seen the definition of wreck
is broad in the convention. Apart from ships that have stranded or sunk also objects that
were on board are covered by the convention. By art. 1.4.c WRC this is extended to
encompass objects that have been lost overboard even though the ship in itself has not
become a wreck. Floating containers will fall under this part of the definition (Herbert and
Lloyd's, 2013, p. 37). Such items by themselves are thus considered wrecks according to the
convention. The last section of art 1.4 WRC extends the term wreck to instances where the
ship has not yet sunk or stranded but where the ship may reasonably be expected to sink or
strand and where effective measures to assist the ship or any property in danger are not
already being taken. This last segment of the definition opens up complicated questions of
when a ship is to be considered a wreck or not. How those judgments are to be made is
unclear. It is also unclear who is going to make them and on what grounds.

3.1.5. Which Wrecks Are Encompassed by the Convention?

A question that was debated during the conference was which wrecks that fall under the
scope of the convention. The United States criticized the wording of art. 2 that describe a
State's right to take measures when it comes to a wreck that constitutes a hazard in
accordance with the convention in the Convention area. The fact that the article does not
clearly state that it deals with a wreck from another State Party suggests that the rights of
States not being parties to the convention are compromised. The United States pointed out
the fact that measures that a State can take within the exclusive economic zone toward a
wreck from another State, are limited according to international customary law as reflected
in the UNCLOS.25 Art. 221.1 in the UNCLOS states that Coastal States have the right to take
and enforce measures beyond the territorial sea provided that they are proportionate to the
actual or threatened damage to protect their coastline and other interests enumerated in
the article from pollution or threat of pollution following upon a maritime casualty or acts
relating to such a casualty, which may reasonably be expected to result in major harmful
consequences. The Nairobi Convention however seems to extend the possibility of Coastal
States given the fact that the phrasing in art. 2.1 WRC covers wrecks in general. The
convention allows a Coastal State to take measures toward a wreck that constitutes a
hazard to navigation. This has no corresponding provision in the UNCLOS. The United States
proposed that it should be included in art. 16 WRC that nothing in the convention shall
prejudice the rights and obligations of non-State Parties to the convention under the
UNCLOS and under customary international law of the sea (see LEG/CONF.16/6, p. 1 ff.). The
text of the convention was however not modified in the way the United States suggested
and the question posed therefore remains unanswered. How the convention deals with
wrecks from States that are not parties to the convention is therefore unclear to a certain
extent. A construction would be that it follows from art. 16 WRC that the provisions in the
Nairobi Convention have no effect should they differ from international customary law
when it comes to States not being members of the convention. On the other hand it is
curious that the text of the convention did not specifically point toward States not being
members of the convention considering the fact that the convention undoubtedly results in
changes for the State Parties compared to what would otherwise have been the case in
accordance with the UNCLOS and international customary law. In light of this art. 16 WRC
seems to refute itself.26

3.2. When and How can a State Take Action?

As already mentioned art. 2 WRC enables a State Party to take measures in accordance with
the convention when it comes to wrecks situated within the Convention area that constitute
a hazard. The phrasing “*a+ State Party may take measures” (italics added) indicates that
there is no obligation for a State Party to act but merely a possibility. A hazard is defined in
art. 1.5 WRC as “…any condition or threat that: (a) poses a danger or impediment to
navigation; or (b) may reasonably be expected to result in major harmful consequences to
the marine environment, or damage to the coastline or related interests of one or more
States.” This is connected with the wording in the preamble on wrecks posing threats to
navigation or the environment. Thus, it is enough that a wreck poses a threat to navigation
for a hazard to exist according to the convention. More is needed when it comes to a hazard
to the environment. In order for such a hazard to exist there has to be a situation that may
reasonably result in major harmful consequences to the marine environment. As already
stated this wording is virtually the same as in art. 221.1 UNCLOS. The phrasing suggests that
there needs to be damage to a substantial degree. Undoubtedly the phrasing requires
qualified judgments to be made. It may be hard to predict when a situation may reasonably
be expected to result in major harmful consequences to the marine environment. This
criticism was also put forward by Mexico at the conference. The State held that the usage of
a word like reasonable might lead to problems when it comes to construction and
application since it allows individual State Parties on their own to decide what is needed for
the provision to be applicable. In this way the phrasing, according to Mexico, invites States
to discretionary decide whether a hazard exists or not based on whether this is suitable for
the State. Thus, the wording invites subjective constructions instead of allowing the
application to be based on an objective test as to whether a hazard in light of the
convention exists or not (LEG/CONF.16/4, ANNEX, p. 1).
Furthermore, a distinction seems to be made in the wording of the article by the words “…,
or damage to…,” which suggests that there is no need for major harmful consequences for
the following segment of the article. The article could however also be construed the other
way around which would require the need for such consequences for the whole segment.
This is unclear. This part of the article deals with damages to coastlines or other related
interests of one or more States.
The related interests are regulated in art. 1.6 WRC. According to the definition these are
“interests of a Coastal State directly affected or threatened by a wreck.” This is followed by
examples of what constitutes related interests e.g., fishing, tourism, health and offshore as
well as underwater infrastructure. It should be noted that only States that are Coastal
States seem to have these interests according to the convention. By using the term Coastal
States a distinction is made between those States that have coasts and State
Parties encompassing all States being members of the convention. This suggests
that Landlocked States, i.e., States that have no coasts, cannot have the interests in the
convention. That view is however not unambiguous since Landlocked States may have the
right to fish in the exclusive economic zone of other States in certain cases and also have the
right to construct underwater infrastructure in the form of underwater cables and the like. 27
Apart from the general definition of hazard in art. 1.5 WRC certain criteria are enumerated
in art. 6 WRC. The Affected State should take these into account when determining if there
exists a hazard in light of the convention or not. These correspond to the ship as such, e.g.,
its size and construction (art. 6.a WRC). Further criteria deal with geographical
circumstances. Thus, the depth of the water on the site of the wreckage can be of
importance as well as the tidal movements (art. 6.b-c WRC). There are furthermore criteria
that deal with the maritime traffic in the area. Consequently closeness to fairways and
traffic separations schemes may affect the question as well as how dense and frequent the
traffic is (art. 6.e-f WRC). Also ship-specific information like what cargo the ship is carrying is
of interest as well as what kind of oils that are present on board (art. 6.h WRC). 28

When it has been determined that there exists a hazard according to the convention the
Affected State, according to art. 2.2 WRC, has the right to take measures proportional to the
hazard. This demand of proportionality is elaborated in art. 2.3 WRC with the phrasing that
these measures cannot go further than what is reasonably necessary in order to remove the
wreck. The measures shall furthermore stop as soon as the wreck has been removed and
not unnecessarily come into conflict with the rights and interests of other States including
the State whose flag the ship had and the persons, legal or physical, that are affected.

There are some uncertainties and unclear parts in the convention. There are also
advantages and disadvantages with using it as unified framework for wreck removal.
The biggest advantage of the convention is that it provides a uniform regulation of wrecks. It
also clearly states the registered owner's responsibility in the case of a wreckage while at
the same time enabling the Affected State to act in situations where immediate action is
needed. Furthermore, the convention also ensures monetary compensation following wreck
removal.
There are however several disadvantages of the convention. A peculiar inclusion is the opt-
in clause that allows States to extend the application to the territorial sea and internal
waters. This possibility arguably inhibits harmonization which is in direct opposition with the
wording in the preamble. As is often the case this was the result of a compromise at the
conference. There is furthermore a lack of uniformity when it comes to limitation. Some
States have opted out of the possibility to limit liability when it comes to wreck removal in
the LLMC as amended. There may also exist different national regimes in this respect. The
convention also includes some unclear and ambiguous articles, e.g., the already mentioned
art. 2.1 and art. 16 WRC. Another thing to keep in mind is the definition of removal in the
convention which opens up for other measures than an actual wreck removal in toto.
Despite these disadvantages the convention addresses the questions posed in the beginning
of this article. It clearly points out the registered owner as the one responsible for the
wreckage and the wreck removal. It furthermore states what measures in the form of
reporting, locating, marking and removing the wreck that can and are to be taken after a
wreckage. Finally, the convention also ensures the possibility of enforcement by compulsory
insurance on the behalf of the owner combined with a possibility of claiming the insurer
directly.

The deficiencies observed are perhaps a prize one must pay in order to reach a more
harmonized regulation. In this way the Nairobi Convention is a step in the right direction
toward a unified framework for wreck removal.

4
IACS AND CLASSIFICATION
IACS (International Society of Classification Societies)
Dedicated to safe ships and clean seas, IACS makes a unique contribution to maritime safety
and regulation through technical support, compliance verification and research and
development. More than 90% of the world's cargo carrying tonnage is covered by the
classification design, construction and through-life compliance Rules and standards set by
the
ten Member Societies and one Associate of IACS.
The 10 members of IACS are: ABS, BV, CCS, DNV, GL, KR, LR, NK, RINA, and RS
IACS common structural rules
On 14 December 2005 the Common Structural Rules (CSR) for Tankers and Bulk Carriers
were unanimously adopted by the IACS Council for implementation on 1 April 2006. The
Council was satisfied that the new rules have been based on sound technical grounds, and
achieve the goals of more robust and safer ships..

5
SEEMP and EEDI
EEDI & SEEMP
The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) was made mandatory for new ships and the Ship
Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships at MEPC 62 (July 2011) with the
adoption of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.203(62)), by Parties to
MARPOL Annex VI.

This was the first legally binding climate change treaty to be adopted since the Kyoto
Protocol. Since this breakthrough MEPC 63 (March 2012) adopted four important guidelines
(resolutions MEPC.212(63), MEPC.213(63), MEPC.214(63) and MEPC.215(63)) aimed at
assisting the implementation of the mandatory regulations on Energy Efficiency for Ships in
MARPOL Annex VI.
Energy Efficiency Design Index

The EEDI for new ships is the most important technical measure and it aims at promoting
the use of more energy efficient (less polluting) equipment and engines. The EEDI requires a
minimum energy efficiency level per capacity mile (e.g. tonne mile) for different ship type
and size segments. From 1 January 2013, following an initial two year phase zero when new
ship design will need to meet the reference level for their ship type, the level is to be
tightened incrementally every five years, and so the EEDI is expected to stimulate continued
innovation and technical development of all the components influencing the fuel efficiency
of a ship from its design phase. The EEDI is a non-prescriptive, performance-based
mechanism that leaves the choice of technologies to use in a specific ship design to the
industry. As long as the required energy efficiency level is attained, ship designers and
builders are free to use the most cost-efficient solutions for the ship to comply with the
regulations. The EEDI provides a specific figure for an individual ship design, expressed in
grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per ship’s capacity-mile (the smaller the EEDI the more
energy efficient ship design) and is calculated by a formula based on the technical design
parameters for a given ship.

The CO2 reduction level (grams of CO2 per tonne mile) for the first phase is set to 10% and
will be tightened every five years to keep pace with technological developments of new
efficiency and reduction measures. Reduction rates have been established until the period
2025 to 2030 when a 30% reduction is mandated for applicable ship types calculated from a
reference line representing the average efficiency for ships built between 2000 and
2010. The EEDI is developed for the largest and most energy intensive segments of the
world merchant fleet and will embrace 72% of emissions from new ships covering the
following ship types: oil tankers, bulk carriers, gas carriers, general cargo, container ships,
and refrigerated cargo and combination carriers. For ship types not covered by the current
formula, suitable formulas are expected to be developed in the future addressing the largest
emitters first.

Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan and Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator

The Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) is an operational measure that
establishes a mechanism to improve the energy efficiency of a ship in a cost-effective
manner. The SEEMP also provides an approach for shipping companies to manage ship and
fleet efficiency performance over time using, for example, the Energy Efficiency Operational
Indicator (EEOI) as a monitoring tool. The guidance on the development of the SEEMP for
new and existing ships incorporates best practices for fuel efficient ship operation, as well as
guidelines for voluntary use of the EEOI for new and existing ships (MEPC.1/Circ.684). The
EEOI enables operators to measure the fuel efficiency of a ship in operation and to gauge
the effect of any changes in operation, e.g. improved voyage planning or more frequent
propeller cleaning, or introduction of technical measures such as waste heat recovery
systems or a new propeller. The SEEMP urges the ship owner and operator at each stage of
the plan to consider new technologies and practices when seeking to optimize the
performance of a ship.

2012 Guidelines on Technical and Operational Measures

Further to the adoption of a global energy standard at MEPC 62 (July 2011), MEPC 63
(March 2012) adopted four sets of important guidelines to assist in the implementation of
the mandatory regulations on Energy Efficiency for Ships in MARPOL Annex VI:

2012 Guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained Energy Efficiency Design Index
(EEDI) for new ships, resolution MEPC.212(63);
2012 Guidelines for the development of a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan
(SEEMP), resolution MEPC.213(63);
2012 Guidelines on survey and certification of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI),
resolution MEPC.214(63); and
Guidelines for calculation of reference lines for use with the Energy Efficiency Design Index
(EEDI), resolution MEPC.215(63).

Finalization and adoption of the supporting guidelines was a significant achievement which
provides sufficient lead time for Administrations and industry to prepare. The guidelines
will support Member States in their uniform implementation of the new chapter 4 of
MARPOL Annex VI Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships.

An updated work plan for the development of further guidelines and the development of
energy efficiency frameworks for those ships not covered by the current EEDI regulations
was also agreed at MEPC 63.

Background and further information

In accordance with the MEPC 55 work plan (October 2009), MEPC 59
(July 2009) agreed to a package of technical and operational measures to improve energy
efficiency and reduce GHG emissions from international shipping: Energy Efficiency Design
Index for new ships (EEDI), Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) and Energy
Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI).

Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI were adopted by Parties to MARPOL

Annex VI during MEPC 62 in July 2011 (resolution MEPC.203(62)), adding a new chapter 4 to
Annex VI on Regulations on energy efficiency for ships to make mandatory the EEDI for new
ships, and the SEEMP for all ships. The regulations apply to all ships of 400 gross tonnage
and above and are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2013. However, under
regulation 19, an Administration may waive the requirement for new ships of 400 gross
tonnage and above from complying with the EEDI requirements. This waiver may not be
applied to ships above 400 gross tonnage for which the building contract is placed four years
after the entry into force date of chapter 4. The amendments to MARPOL Annex VI
represent the first ever mandatory global GHG regime for an international industry sector or
transport mode.

The adoption by IMO of mandatory reduction measures for all ships from 2013 and onwards
will lead to significant emission reductions and also a striking cost saving for the shipping
industry. By 2020, up to 180 million tonnes of annual CO2 reductions are estimated from
the introduction of the EEDI for new ships and the SEEMP for all ships in operation, a figure
that, by 2030, will increase to
390 million tonnes of CO2 annually. In other words, the reductions will in 2020 be between
9 and 16%, and by 2030 between 17 and 25% compared with business as usual. The
reduction measures will also result in a significant saving in fuel costs to the shipping
industry, although these savings require deeper investments in more efficient ships and
more sophisticated technologies than the business as usual scenario. The annual fuel cost
saving estimates states a staggering figure of $34 to 60 billion by 2020, and even more
astonishing $85 – 150 billion by 2030.

The new chapter also includes a regulation on Promotion of technical co-operation and
transfer of technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships, which
requires Administrations, in co-operation with IMO and other international bodies, to
promote and provide, as appropriate, support directly or through IMO to States, especially
developing States, that request technical assistance. It also requires the Administration of a
Party to co-operate actively with other Parties, subject to its national laws, regulations and
policies, to promote the development and transfer of technology and exchange of
information to States, which request technical assistance, particularly developing States, in
respect of the implementation of measures to fulfill the requirements of chapter 4.
Model Course for energy efficient operation ships
IMO, together with the World Maritime University (WMU) have been developing a model
course on SEEMP promoting the energy efficient operation of ships. The first draft of the
model course was submitted to MEPC 62. It provides general background on the climate
change issue and IMO’s related work and aims at building the different operational and
technical tools into a manageable course programmer, which will promulgate best practice
throughout all sectors of the industry. The Course will help create benchmarks against
which operators can assess their own performance. The purpose of the IMO model courses
is to assist training providers and their teaching staff in organizing and introducing new
training courses, or in enhancing, updating or supplementing existing training material, so
that the quality and effectiveness of the training courses may thereby be improved.

MEPC 62 agreed that the draft model course was an excellent start to providing a structured
training course but that it required more work. MEPC 63 recognized that the draft model
course had been further developed to include some tutorial examples, but further work was
needed to align it with the 2012 guidelines adopted at this session.
source: www.imo.org
EEDI (Energy efficiency design index)
With the concept of EEDI, the aim of the IMO is to have the ships fitted with engines and
equipment’s that are less polluting.
EEDI is the measure of the amount of CO2 emitted by the ship per capacity mile (tonne-
mile).
Let me explain the term “tonne-mile”, just in case you have not heard it before.
Tonne-mile is the unit of work done by a ship.
Let us say that a ship with deadweight 20000 T travels 2 NM. It has done 40000 tonne-mile
of work.
Now coming back to EEDI.
EEDI is the amount of CO2 emitted by the ship (in grams) per tonne-mile of work.

As the name suggests, EEDI is the tool that is used during the design or construction stage of
the vessel.
If the ships need to be energy efficient as desired by IMO, IMO need to provide two things
The maximum value of EEDI required for the ship (Required EEDI)
The actual value of EEDI attained for the ship (Attained EEDI)
Required EEDI
MARPOL Annex VI, Chapter 4, Regulation 21 provides the formula for the required EEDI.
As per this regulation

As you can see from the formula, there are two key terms used
Reference line value
Reduction factor
Understanding the calculation of reference line value is complex.
But if you wish to understand how the reference line value is calculated, you can go through
the Resolution MEPC. 231(65): 2013 guidelines for calculation of reference lines for use with
the energy efficiency design index.
In brief, the reference line value is the function of
Deadweight of the ship
Type of ship
Over the period of time, IMO wants to reduce the required EEDI value for the ships so that
in future the ship’s engines are even more energy efficient.
For this, the regulation uses the “reduction factor” in the calculation of the required EEDI in
different phases.
We are now in phase 1. This means that for any ship built today, the required EEDI value will
be 10% less than the reference line value (required EEDI value in phase 0).

Attained EEDI
We know what is required from the vessel (required EEDI) with respect to the energy
efficiency.
We now need to know the actual EEDI value (Attained EEDI) of the ship.
And when we have that value, the attained EEDI need to be less than the required EEDI.
Again the formula and process to calculate the attained EEDI is complex and we do not need
to go in that direction in this blog.
But if you are interested to know about it you can go through the resolution
MEPC.245(66) IMO Guidelines on the calculation of attained EEDI.
Here are few factors on which the actual EEDI value of the ship (attained EEDI) would
depend upon.
1. Specific fuel consumption of engines
For producing the same amount of power, if an engine uses less fuel it would be more
energy efficient as it would emit less CO2 too.
Specific fuel consumption is the measure of fuel consumed for generating a unit of power.
So attained EEDI would depend upon the specific Fuel consumption of ship’s engines.
2. Type of fuel used
If the engines and other equipment’s work on fuel that produces less CO2, the vessel will be
more energy efficient and will have lower attained EEDI value.
3. The speed of the ship
If the ship makes more speed with the same amount of engine power, the ship will be more
energy efficient.
Higher ship’s speeds mean lesser attained EEDI value.
4. Deadweight of the vessel
5. Innovative mechanical energy efficient technology used
If the ship uses some innovative technology that reduces the wastage of the mechanical
energy produced or that increases the efficiency of the engines, the ship would be more
energy efficient and hence will contribute towards lesser attained EEDI value.
Above are only few factors and calculation of attained EEDI uses many other factors.
EEDI technical file
If we need to calculate the EEDI value for the engines fitted on board, many parameters
related to these engines would be required.
All these parameters are provided in a booklet called “EEDI technical file“.
Marpol Annex VI, chapter 4 requires that each new ship for which chapter 4 is applicable
need to be provided with EEDI technical file.
EEDI technical file is first created during the design stage of the vessel. During the design
stage, a model test is done and the EEDI is computed on the basis of that.
A verifier (usually classification society on behalf of the flag) witnesses the model test,
verifies the EEDI computation and reviews the initial EEDI technical file.
During actual sea trials, the actual parameters are measured and EEDI technical file is
revised if required.
The attained EEDI value is also calculated based on this revised EEDI technical file.
Ship energy efficiency management plan
EEDI deals with the hardware part of the energy efficiency.
With the concept of EEDI, the new ships will now have energy efficient equipment’s that
would generate lesser CO2 to the environment.
But having the good equipment’s is not the only way to be energy efficient.
There are many ways that are related to “how we operate the equipment’s and not on
“What equipment’s we have”.
For example, it is more energy efficient to run two auxiliary engines at higher loads than run
three auxiliary engines at lower loads.
Or it may be more energy efficient to take longer but good weather route than to take
shorter but bad weather route.
There could be hundreds of good practices that can save fuel and thus emit less CO2 to the
environment in transporting the same amount of cargo to the same distance.
SEEMP is the plan of all such practices that can be performed to achieve better energy
efficiency.
Ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP) is a ship specific plan that provides a
mechanism to improve the energy efficiency of a ship in a cost-effective manner.
SEEMP has been made mandatory for all ships as per Marpol Annex 4, regulation 22.
MEPC 280(70) provides the guidelines on the development of ship energy efficiency
management plan.
SEEMP is divided into two parts.
The first parts list the ship specific measures that have been adopted by the company to
improve energy efficiency.
It also defines the responsible person for each adopted energy efficiency measure.
Some of these measures could be…

Fuel efficient operations

SEEMP can provide the ship specific way in which the ship operations can be carried out in a
fuel-efficient way.
Weather routing system
SEEMP may suggest the master to take into account the guidance provided by the weather
routing services that the company has subscribed to.
Engine performance
A well-maintained engine would give optimum efficiency and save fuel. SEEMP may suggest
completing the PMS jobs of engines on time.
Boiler use management
The consumption of the auxiliary boiler is significant. By smartly managing the use of boiler,
a significant amount of fuel can be saved.
Some companies have preferred to install electric heaters for fuel heating to further reduce
the need for boiler and thus saving fuel.
SEEMP may provide the ship with specific ways to use the boiler efficiently.
Draft and trim optimization
With the same deadweight, a ship at different trim may consume a different amount of fuel.
Many companies conduct tests to get to know the optimum draft and trim for each ship.
SEEMP can suggest the ship specific draft and trim to maintain (whenever possible) for less
fuel consumption.
Propeller and hull inspection/cleaning
A clean propeller and clean hull offer lesser resistance and thus better fuel efficiency.
SEEMP can include the plan for regular underwater hull inspections and cleaning of hull and
propeller.

5
Short notes on ILO and UNCTAD and BIMCO
International Labour Organisation (ILO)
Due to the unique character of seafaring, most maritime countries have special laws and
regulations covering this occupation. Consequently, the ILO, since its founding, has had
special "machinery" for seafarers. The machinery includes the Joint Maritime Commission,
which advises the Governing Body on maritime issues, and special Maritime Sessions of the
International Labour Conference (ILC), which focus solely on the preparation, and adoption
of maritime labor standards. The main focus of ILO maritime programmer concerns the
promotion of the maritime labor standards. An important maritime labor instrument is the
Maritime Labour Convention; 2006, which came into force on 20th August 2013. In ports,
ILO deals with the social and labor conditions of port workers. Most of these are aimed at
improving the safety of dock work. Among the most important of these are the
Dock Work Convention, 1973 (No. 137), the Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work)
Convention, 1979 (No. 152).

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

In the early 1960s, growing concerns about the place of developing countries in
international trade led many of these countries to call for the convening of a full-fledged
conference specifically devoted to tackling these problems and identifying appropriate
international actions. The first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) was held in Geneva in 1964. Given the magnitude of the problems at stake and
the need to address them, the conference was institutionalized to meet every four years,
with intergovernmental bodies meeting between sessions and a permanent secretariat
providing the necessary substantive and logistical support. In recent years, UNCTAD has:
1. Further focused its analytical research on the linkages between trade, investment,
and technology and enterprise development.
2. Put forward a "positive agenda" for developing countries in international trade
negotiations, designed to assist developing countries in better understanding the
complexity of the multilateral trade negotiations and in formulating their positions.
3. Expanded work on international investment issues, following the merger into
UNCTAD of the New York–based United Nations Centre on Transnational
Corporations in 1993.
4. Expanded and diversified its technical assistance, which today covers a wide range
of areas, including training trade negotiators and addressing trade-related issues;
debt management, investment policy reviews and the promotion of
entrepreneurship; commodities; competition law and policy; and trade and
environment
The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
From 16 to 18 February 1905, 112 distinguished gentlemen assembled in Copenhagen and
formed what is today the world’s largest and most diverse private shipping organization
BIMCO. Its objective of uniting shipping interests and pursuing the issues affecting its
members remain as clear now as they were at the start. BIMCO is one of the leading interest
groups and membership organization offering practical and tangible services to ship owners,
managers, brokers, agents, operators, associations and other entities associated with the
shipping industry.
BIMCO aim is that of free trade, access to markets, trade facilitation and harmonization,
promotion of safety and quality and security. BIMCO focus is on promotion of high shi pping
standards and support of existing measures to ensure quality shipping as well as, the
standardization of regulations and a worldwide implementation regime.
Today, BIMCO membership spans 123 countries and includes more than 2,550 companies.
Owner members alone control 65% of the world merchant fleet, while 1,500 brokers and
agents and 100 club and associate members complete BIMCO international coverage. It is
on behalf of these members that BIMCO carries out its tasks - ranging from involvement in
international debates on issues affecting the industry to providing assistance in recovering
unpaid balances. Membership in BIMCO is open to companies involved in all sectors of
shipping. Its Indian membership includes 18 owner-members operating 423 vessels of 12.6
million tons deadweight and a further 26 broker-members.

7
With respect to UNCLOS, Discuss the following:
i) Provisions regarding Archipelagos.
ii) Difference between Transit Passage and Innocent Passage
iii) Functions of Flag State under Article 94

Part IV - Archipelagic states

Article 46
Use of terms
For the purposes of this Convention:
a.
"archipelagic State" means a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may
include other islands;
b.
"archipelago" means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters
and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and
other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which
historically have been regarded as such.
Article 47
Archipelagic baselines
1.
An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points
of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such
baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the
water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1.
2.
The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per
cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up
to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles.
3.
The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago.
4.
Such baselines shall not be drawn to and from low-tide elevations, unless lighthouses or
similar installations which are permanently above sea level have been built on them or
where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the
breadth of the territorial sea from the nearest island.
5.
The system of such baselines shall not be applied by an archipelagic State in such a manner
as to cut off from the high seas or the exclusive economic zone the territorial sea of another
State.
6.
If a part of the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State lies between two parts of an
immediately adjacent neighboring State, existing rights and all other legitimate interests
which the latter State has traditionally exercised in such waters and all rights stipulated by
agreement between those States shall continue and be respected.
7.
For the purpose of computing the ratio of water to land under paragraph l, land areas may
include waters lying within the fringing reefs of islands and atolls, including that part of a
steep-sided oceanic plateau which is enclosed or nearly enclosed by a chain of limestone
islands and drying reefs lying on the perimeter of the plateau.
8.
The baselines drawn in accordance with this article shall be shown on charts of a scale or
scales adequate for ascertaining their position. Alternatively, lists of geographical
coordinates of points, specifying the geodetic datum, may be substituted.
9.
The archipelagic State shall give due publicity to such charts or lists of geographical
coordinates and shall deposit a copy of each such chart or list with the Secretary-General of
the United Nations.

Transit Passage vs. Innocent Passage

SECTION 2. TRANSIT PASSAGE

Article37
Scope of this section
This section applies to straits which are used for international navigation between one part
of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an
exclusive economic zone.

Article38
Right of transit passage
1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage,
which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State
bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward
of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar
convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.
2. Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of
navigation and over flight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the
strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of
the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous a nd
expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering,
leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to
that State.
3. Any activity which is not an exercise of the right of transit passage through a strait
remains subject to the other applicable provisions of this Convention.

Article39
Duties of ships and aircraft during transit passage
1. Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:
(a) proceed without delay through or over the strait;
(b) refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty,
territorial integrity or political independence of States bordering the
strait, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of
international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(c) refrain from any activities other than those incident to their
normal modes of continuous and expeditious transit unless rendered
necessary by force majeure or by distress;
(d) comply with other relevant provisions of this Part.
2. Ships in transit passage shall:
(a) comply with generally accepted international regulations,
procedures and practices for safety at sea, including the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea;
(b) comply with generally accepted international regulations,
procedures and practices for the prevention, reduction and control of
pollution from ships.
3. Aircraft in transit passage shall:
(a) observe the Rules of the Air established by the International Civil
Aviation Organization as they apply to civil aircraft; state aircraft will
normally comply with such safety measures and will at all times
operate with due regard for the safety of navigation;
 (b) at all times monitor the radio frequency assigned by the
competent internationally designated air traffic control authority or
the appropriate international distress radio frequency.

Article40
Research and survey activities
During transit passage, foreign ships, including marine scientific research and hydrographic
survey ships, may not carry out any research or survey activities without the prior
authorization of the States bordering straits.

Article41
Sea lanes and traffic separation schemes in straits
used for international navigation
1. In conformity with this Part, States bordering straits may designate sea lanes and
prescribe traffic separation schemes for navigation in straits where necessary to promote
the safe passage of ships.
2. Such States may, when circumstances require, and after giving due publicity thereto,
substitute other sea lanes or traffic separation schemes for any sea lanes or traffic
separation schemes previously designated or prescribed by them.
3. Such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes shall conform to generally accepted
international regulations.
4. Before designating or substituting sea lanes or prescribing or substituting traffic
separation schemes, States bordering straits shall refer proposals to the competent
international organization with a view to their adoption. The organization may adopt only
such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as may be agreed with the States bordering
the straits, after which the States may designate, prescribe or substitute them.
5. In respect of a strait where sea lanes or traffic separation schemes through the waters of
two or more States bordering the strait are being proposed, the States concerned shall
cooperate in formulating proposals in consultation with the competent international
organization.
6. States bordering straits shall clearly indicate all sea lanes and traffic separation schemes
designated or prescribed by them on charts to which due publicity shall be given.
7. Ships in transit passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traffic separation schemes
established in accordance with this article.

Article42
Laws and regulations of States bordering straits
relating to transit passage
1. Subject to the provisions of this section, States bordering straits may adopt laws and
regulations relating to transit passage through straits, in respect of all or any of the
following:
(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic, as
provided in article 41;
(b) the prevention, reduction and control of pollution, by giving effect
to applicable international regulations regarding the discharge of oil,
oily wastes and other noxious substances in the strait;
(c) with respect to fishing vessels, the prevention of fishing, including
the stowage of fishing gear;
(d) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person in
contravention of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and
regulations of States bordering straits.
2. Such laws and regulations shall not discriminate in form or in fact among foreign ships or
in their application have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of
transit passage as defined in this section.
3. States bordering straits shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations.
4. Foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply with such laws and
regulations.
5. The flag State of a ship or the State of registry of an aircraft entitled to sovereign
immunity which acts in a manner contrary to such laws and regulations or other provisions
of this Part shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage which results to
States bordering straits.

Article43
Navigational and safety aids and other improvements
 and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution
User States and States bordering a strait should by agreement cooperate:
(a) in the establishment and maintenance in a strait of necessary navigational
and safety aids or other improvements in aid of international navigation; and
(b) for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from ships.

Article44
Duties of States bordering straits
States bordering straits shall not hamper transit passage and shall give appropriate publicity
to any danger to navigation or over flight within or over the strait of which they have
knowledge. There shall be no suspension of transit passage.

SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE

Article45
Innocent passage
1. The regime of innocent passage, in accordance with Part II, section 3, shall apply in straits
used for international navigation:
(a) excluded from the application of the regime of transit passage
under article 38, paragraph 1; or
(b) between a part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and
the territorial sea of a foreign State.
2. There shall be no suspension of innocent passage through such straits.

8
What are the duties of the classification societies?

The Purpose Of Classification of a Ship is for Insurance Purposes, Therefore, when the vessel
is being built, it has now become imperative by tradition and practice of the shipping world
over the years that the ship is classed by a classification society. The classification society
starts its work from the approval of plans prior to the commencement of construction.
During the entire period the ship is under construction, a classification surveyor will survey
the workmanship of construction. The objective here is of course from the future insurance
point of view, but a ship owner today cannot afford to function without the certification
from a classification society. So, in a nutshell, the scope of classification is:

Ø A technical review of the design plans and related documents for a new vessel to verify
compliance with the applicable rules.
Ø Attendance at the construction of the vessel in the shipyard by a classification society
surveyor(s), and at the relevant production facilities that provide key components such as
the steel, engine, generators and castings, to verify that the vessel is constructed in
accordance with the classification rules
Ø Upon satisfactory completion of the above, the ship owners request for the issuance of a
class certificate will be considered by the relevant classification committee, or another
body, of the class society and, if deemed satisfactory, the assignment of class will be
approved and a certificate of classification issued.
Ø Once in service, the owner must submit the vessel to a clearly specified program of
periodical class surveys, carried out onboard the vessel, to verify that the ship continues to
meet the relevant rule conditions for continuation of class.

Classification is part of a life-long process to assure a ship is built and maintained to industry
accepted standards.

There are four steps to it:

1. Development of Rules of Classification: Rules are developed in accordance with field and
engineering experience and are reviewed and approved by an extensive committee system
off or most industry experts. Thus the Rules are acceptable to a broad spectrum of owners,
charterers, operators, and the class society’s in-house experts. Not all classification societies
have such a "public" Rule-making process.
2. Design Review: Designers of marine vessels submit their designs to classification society
(of their choice) engineers to verify that requirements have been met. Lists of requirements
for submittals are found in each society’s set of Rules or Guides.
3. Survey during construction. Approved design drawings are sent to classification surveyors
at vendor shops and fabrication yards. There the surveyors confirm that the equipment as
built conforms to the requirements and the approved drawings.
4. Surveys after construction. Once commissioned, periodic surveys as well as damage and
repair surveys, are performed throughout the life of the ship to ensure that the ship remains
incompliance with the classification rules, thereby enhancing the safety of the ship and the
protection of the environment.

Classification surveyors visit each vessel at least every 15months over a five-year cycle. An
"Intermediate" survey is conducted after two and a half years. Once each five years a
comprehensive survey is performed, a "Special" survey, including dry-docking.

Recognized Organizations (RO)

SOLAS and the other International Conventions permit the flag Administration to delegate
the inspection and survey of ships to a Recognized Organization (RO). This is in recognition
of the fact that many flag Administrations do not have adequate technical experience,
manpower or global coverage to undertake all the necessary statutory ins pections and
surveys using its own staff. The degree to which a flag State may choose to delegate
authority to a RO (Class Society) is for each flag State to decide, with the authority granted
being clearly identified in the relevant memoranda of understanding agreed between the
Class Society and the Administration. In most cases the RO is empowered to require repairs
or other corrective action to a ship and to withdraw or invalidate the relevant certificate if
the necessary action is not taken (e.g. SOLAS Chapter I, Reg 6). IMO Resolution A.739(18)
lays down mandatory minimum requirements for ROs. Fundamentally it requires the
organization to demonstrate its technical competence and to be governed by the principles
of ethical behavior. The RO is to be subject to the certification of its quality system by an
independent body of auditors accepted by the Administration.
Recognized Security Organisation (RSO)
Criteria for verification of compliance with the requirements of the ISPS Code shall be
In accordance with the applicable sections of the SOLAS XI-2 and the ISPS Code Part A.
A Classification Society performing verification of compliance with the requirements of
the ISPS Code shall meet all the requirements. If a Classification Society, acting as RSO,
has been involved in either the conduct of the SSA or the development of the SSP or any
amendments for a specific ship, that Classification Society shall not, due to potential conflict
of interest, approve the SSP or conduct verifications for the certification of the ship.
A Classification Society that approves a SSP or issues an ISSC shall have implemented a
documented system for the qualification and continuous updating of the knowledge and
competence of auditors who perform such approvals or verifications in compliance.
Only auditors who are qualified as required by PR 10 shall carry out approvals and
verifications. A Classification Society, as RSO, that approves a SSP or issues an ISSC shall
have implemented a documented system for the performance of the processes involved in
accordance with this Procedural Requirement. This system shall, inter alia, include
procedures and instructions for the following:

 The establishment of contract agreements with Companies in Respect of Their ships.

 The scheduling And performance Of SSP approvals and verifications.
 The reporting of the Results of SSP approvals and verifications.
 The issue of interim and full term ISSC certificates.

HSSC
A harmonized system of survey and certification covering international shipping reg ulations
adopted by the International Maritime Organization enters into force on 3 February 2000. It
harmonizes survey procedures and survey dates for all major ship certificates, instead of
having different survey procedures and dates for certificates under different conventions.
Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (HSSC) was brought about with the sole
objective of simplifying and systemizing the survey and certification of ships. This will ensure
that survey works will not be duplicated e.g. survey for load line or cargo ship safety
construction is more or less same with logical changes. If a ship undergoes survey of one,
the survey of other will only overlap and once conducted can be valid for both. Needless to
say, a single survey covering both certifications will save a lot of time and money. This will
also allow the ship to plan the survey in a more relaxed and professional manner. The total
number of surveys will be reduced and maintenance and work on board will be more
systematic and ships will not be out of service at different times for different
surveys. Though it is a mandatory system it is implemented on individual ships on different
dates. It may be implemented by the FSA ( Formal Safety Assessment ) on or after 3rd
February 2000.
IMO Resolution A.1104 (29) gives the Survey Guidelines under the HSSC system adopted on
2 December 2015.

Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (HSSC) covers the following certification
under the modified or amended instruments:

1. SOLAS 1974 as modified by its 1988 protocol

2. LLC 1966 as modified by its 1988 protocol
3. MARPOL 1973 and 1978 as amended by 1990 resolution (MARPOL 73/78/90)
4. IBC Code
5. IGC Code
6. BCH Code

It covers the following certificates:

1. Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate

2. Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate
3. Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate
4. International Load Line Certificate
5. International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate
6. International Pollution Prevention Certificate for Carriage of Noxious Liquid
Substances in Bulk
7. International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate
8. International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate
9. International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk or
the Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk
 10. International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk
11. Passenger Ship Safety Certificate

Surveys for the issuance of these certificates, under the SOLAS, MARPOL, the Load Line
Convention and the Gas and Chemical Tanker Codes are as follows:

Types of Ship Survey

Initial survey

The initial survey should include a complete inspection, with tests when necessary, of the
structure, machinery, and equipment to ensure that the requirements relevant to the
particular certificate are complied with and that the structure, machinery, and equipment
are fit for the service for which the ship is intended.
The initial survey should consist of:

1. An examination of the plans, diagrams, specifications, calculations and other technical

documentation to verify that the structure, machinery, and equipment comply with
the requirements relevant to the particular certificate.
2. an inspection of the structure, machinery and equipment to ensure that the materials,
scantlings, construction and arrangements, as appropriate, are in accordance with the
approved plans, diagrams, specifications, calculations and other technical
documentation and that the workmanship and installation are in all respects
satisfactory; and
3. a check that all the certificates, record books, operating manuals and
other instructions and documentation specified in the requirements relevant to
the particular certificate have been placed on board the ship.

Annual survey

General inspection of the items relating to the particular certificate to ensure that they have
been maintained and remain satisfactory for the service for which the ship is intended in
accordance with the relevant requirements. The annual survey, as required by the relevant
regulations should be held within three months before or after each anniversary date of the
certificate.
The scope of the annual survey should be as follows:

1. it should consist of a certificate examination, a visual examination of a sufficient

extent of the ship and its equipment, and certain tests to confirm that their condition
is being properly maintained;
2. it should also include a visual examination to confirm that no unapproved
modifications have been made to the ship and its equipment;
3. The content of each annual survey is given in the respective guidelines. The
thoroughness and stringency of the survey should depend upon the condition of the
ship and its equipment; and
4. Should any doubt arise as to the maintenance of the condition of the ship or its
equipment, further examination and testing should be conducted as considered
necessary.

Intermediate survey

The intermediate survey should be an inspection of items relevant to the particular

certificate to ensure that they are in a satisfactory condition and are fit for the service for
which the ship is intended.
The intermediate survey, as required by the relevant regulations should be held within three
months before or after the second anniversary date or within three months before or after
the third anniversary date of the appropriate certificate and should take the place of one of
the annual surveys.

Periodical survey

Inspection of the items relating to the particular certificate to ensure that they are in a
satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which the ship is intended. The periodical
survey should also consist of a check that all the certificates, record books, operating
manuals and other instructions and documentation specified in the requirements relevant
to the particular certificate are on board the ship.
The periodical survey, as required by the relevant regulations should be held within three
months before or after the second anniversary date or within three months before or after
the third anniversary date in the case of the cargo ship safety equipment certificate and
should take the place of one of the annual surveys and within three months before or after
each anniversary date in the case of the cargo ship safety radio certificate.

Renewal survey

As per periodical survey but leads to the issue of a new certificate and to be held before the
appropriate certificate is renewed. The cargo ship safety construction renewal survey may
be commenced at the fourth annual survey and may be progressed during the succeeding
year with a view to completion by the fifth anniversary date. The survey items of the fourth
annual survey should not be credited to the completion of the renewal survey.
The renewal survey should consist of:

1. an inspection, with tests when necessary, of the structure, machinery, and equipment
to ensure that the requirements relevant to the particular certificate are complied
with and that they are in a satisfactory condition and are fit for the service for which
the ship is intended.
2. Also consist of a check that all the certificates, record books, operating manuals and
other instructions and documentation specified in the requirements relevant to the
particular certificate are on board the ship.
3. Concurrent crediting to both intermediate and renewal safety construction survey for
surveys of spaces should not be acceptable.

Inspection of the outside of the ship’s bottom

There should be a minimum of two inspections of the outside of the ship’s bottom during
any five-year period. One such inspection should be carried out on or after the fourth
annual survey in conjunction with the renewal of the Cargo Ship Safety Construction
Certificate or the Cargo Ship Safety Certificate. Where the Cargo Ship Safety Construction
Certificate or the Cargo Ship Safety Certificate has been extended, this five-year period may
be extended to coincide with the validity of the certificate. In all cases, the interval between
any two such inspections should not exceed 36 months. The inspection of the outside of the
ship’s bottom and the survey of related items should include an inspection to ensure that
they are in a satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which the ship is intended.
Inspections of the outside of the ship’s bottom should normally be carried out with the s hip
in a dry dock. However, consideration may be given to alternate inspections being carried
out with the ship afloat.

Additional survey

Inspection, either general or partial according to the circumstances, to be made after a

repair resulting from casualty investigations or whenever any important repairs or renewals
are made.

The harmonized system provides for:

One year standard interval between surveys based on initial, annual,

intermediate, periodical and renewal surveys as appropriate. A scheme for providing the
necessary flexibility for the execution of each survey with the provision that:

1. The renewal survey may be completed within 3 months before the expiry date of
the existing certificate with no loss of the period of validity.
2. There is a “window period” of 6 months, from 3 months before to 3 months after
the anniversary date of the certificate for annual, intermediate and periodical surveys.
 A maximum period of validity of 5 years for all certificates for cargo ships
 A maximum period of validity of 12 months for the Passenger Ship Safety Certificate
 A system for the extension of certificates limited to 3 months to enable a ship
to complete its voyage or one month for ships engaged on short voyages
 The period of validity of the new certificate starts from the expiry of the
existing certificate before its extension if the extension was granted
 A flexible system for the inspection of the outside of the ship’s bottom on
the following conditions:

1. A minimum of two inspections during any 5 year period

2. The interval between any two such inspections may not exceed 36 months

 A provision for a Cargo Ship Safety Certificate, as an alternative to separate Cargo Ship
Safety Construction, Cargo Ship Safety Equipment and Cargo Ship Radio Certificates.
 A flexible system concerning the frequency and the period of validity of
certificates provided that the minimum pattern of the survey is maintained.