Flag of Convenience

Flag of convenience
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Open register)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about merchant shipping. For the general business strategy, see Flag of
convenience (business).
The MOL Pride, owned and operated by the Japanese company Mitsui O.S.K. Lines flying the
flag of Liberia.[1]
The term flag of convenience describes the business practice of registering a merchant ship in a
sovereign state different from that of the ship's owners, and flying that state's civil ensign on the
ship. This is done "for purposes of reducing operating costs or avoiding government regulations"
of the owner's country.[2] The closely-related term open registry is used to describe an
organization that will register ships owned by foreign entities.
The term flag of convenience has been in use since the 1950s[3] and refers to the civil ensign a
ship flies to indicate its country of registration or flag state. A ship operates under the laws of its
flag state, and these laws are used if the ship is involved in an admiralty case.[4] The modern
practice of flagging ships in foreign countries began in the 1920s in the United States, when
shipowners frustrated by increased regulations and rising labor costs began to register their ships
to Panama. The use of flags of convenience steadily increased, and in 1968, Liberia grew to
surpass the United Kingdom as the world's largest shipping register. As of 2009[update], more than
half of the world’s merchant ships are registered under flags of convenience, and the
Panamanian, Liberian, and Marshallese flags of convenience account for almost 40% of the
entire world fleet, in terms of deadweight tonnage.[5]
Flag of convenience registries are often criticized. As of 2009[update], thirteen flag states have been
found by international shipping organizations to have substandard regulations. A basis for many
criticisms is that the flag of convenience system allows shipowners to be legally anonymous and
difficult to prosecute in civil and criminal actions. Flag of convenience ships have been found
engaging in crime and terrorism, frequently are found offering substandard working conditions,
and negatively impact the environment, primarily through illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing. As of 2009[update], ships of thirteen flags of convenience are targeted for special
enforcement by countries that they visit. Supporters of the practice point to economic and
regulatory advantages, and increased freedom in choosing employees from an international labor
pool.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Background
• 2 History
• 3 Extent of use
• 4 Criticism
○ 4.1 Concealed ownership
○ 4.2 Crime
○ 4.3 Terrorism
○ 4.4 Working conditions
○ 4.5 Environmental effects
• 5 Ratification of maritime conventions
• 6 Port state targeting
• 7 Wages
• 8 Footnotes
• 9 References
○ 9.1 General references
○ 9.2 News stories
○ 9.3 Fishing references
○ 9.4 Port state control organizations
• 10 Further reading
• 11 External links
[edit] Background
International law requires that every merchant ship be registered in a country.[6] This country in
which a ship is registered is called its flag state,[7] and the flag state gives the ship the right to fly
its civil ensign.[8] A ship's flag state exercises regulatory control over the vessel and is required to
inspect it regularly, certify the ship's equipment and crew, and issue safety and pollution
prevention documents. The organization which actually registers the ship is known as its
registry. Registries may be governmental or private agencies. In some cases, such as the United
States' Alternative Compliance Program, the registry can assign a third party to administer
inspections.[9]
The reasons for choosing an open register are varied and include tax avoidance,[10] the ability to
avoid national labor and environmental regulations,[10][11] and the ability to hire crews from
lower-wage countries.[10] National or closed registries typically require a ship be owned and
constructed by national interests, and at least partially crewed by its citizens. Conversely, open
registries frequently offer on-line registration, and some guarantee completion in less than a day.
[12]
The use of flags of convenience lowers registration and maintenance costs, which in turn
reduces overall transportation costs. The accumulated advantages can be significant, for example
in 1999, 28 of Sea-Land's fleet of 63 ships were foreign flagged, saving the company up to 3.5
million dollars per ship every year.[10]
The sinking of the Liberian-flagged Amoco Cadiz led to concerted ship inspections by port states
The environmental disaster caused by the 1978 sinking of the MV Amoco Cadiz, which flew the
Liberian flag of convenience, spurred the creation of a new type of maritime enforcement.[13]
Resulting from "strong political and public outcry" over the Cadiz sinking, fourteen European
nations signed the 1982 "Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control" or Paris
MOU.[13] Under port state control, ships in international trade became subject to inspection by the
states they visit. In addition to shipboard living and working conditions, these inspections cover
items concerning the safety of life at sea and the prevention of pollution by ships.[13] In cases
when a port state inspection uncovers problems with a ship, the port state may take actions
including detaining the ship.[14] In 2008, member states of the Paris MOU conducted 14,322
inspections with deficiencies, which resulted in vessels being detained 1,220 times that year.[15]
Member states of the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding conducted 13,298 ship inspections
in 2009, recording 86,820 deficiencies which resulted in 1,336 detentions.[16]
The principle that there be a "genuine link" between a ship's owners and its flag state dates back
to 1958, when Article 5(1) of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas also required that "the
state must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social
matters over ships flying its flag."[17] The principle was repeated in Article 91 of the 1982 treaty
called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and often referred to as UNCLOS.[6]
In 1986, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development attempted to solidify the
genuine link concept in the United Nations Convention for Registration of Ships.[18] The
Convention for Registration of Ships would require that a flag state be linked to its ships either
by having an economic stake in the ownership of its ships or by providing mariners to crew the
ships.[18] To come into force, the 1986 treaty requires 40 signatories whose combined tonnage
exceeds 25% of the world total.[18] As of 2006[update], only 14 countries have signed the treaty.[18]
[edit] History
Merchant ships have used false flags as a tactic to evade enemy warships since antiquity, and
examples can be found from as early as the Roman era through the Middle Ages.[19] More
recently, this technique was used by the British during the Napoleonic Wars and the United
States during the War of 1812.[20] However, the modern practice of registering ships in foreign
countries to gain economic advantage originated in the United States in the era of World War I.
The engineers of the Seamen's Act, from left to right, maritime labor leader Andrew Furuseth,
Senator La Follette, and muckraker Lincoln Steffens, circa 1915.
Between 1915 and 1922, several laws were passed in the United States to strengthen the United
States Merchant Marine and provide safeguards for its mariners.[21] During this period, U.S.-
flagged ships became subject to regular inspections undertaken by the American Bureau of
Shipping.[21] This was also the time of Robert LaFollette's Seamen's Act of 1915, which has been
described as the "Magna Carta of sailors' rights."[22] The Seamen's Act regulated mariners'
working hours, their payment, and established baseline requirements for shipboard food.[22] It
also reduced penalties for disobedience and abolished the practice of imprisoning sailors for the
offense of desertion.[22] Another aspect of the Seamen's Act was enforcement of safety standards,
with requirements on lifeboats, the number of qualified able seamen on board, and that officers
and seamen be able to speak the same language.[22]
These laws put U.S.-flagged vessels at an economic disadvantage against countries lacking such
safeguards.[21] By moving their ships to the Panamanian flag, owners could avoid providing these
protections.[21] The Belen Quezada, the first foreign ship flagged in the Panamanian registry, was
employed in running illegal alcohol between Canada and the United States during Prohibition.[23]
In addition to sidestepping the Seamen's Act, Panamanian-flagged ships in this early period paid
sailors on the Japanese wage scale, which was much lower than that of western merchant
powers.[23]
FOC Timeline
The Liberian open registry was the brainchild of Edward Stettinius, who had been Franklin D.
Roosevelt's Secretary of State during World War II.[24] Stettinius created a corporate structure
that included The Liberia Corporation, a joint-venture with the government of Liberia.[24] The
corporation was structured so that one-fourth of its revenue would go to the Liberian
government, another 10% went to fund social programs in Liberia, and the remainder returned to
Stettinius' corporation.[24] The Liberian registry was created at a time when the Panama's registry
was becoming less attractive for several reasons including its unpopularity with the U. S. labor
movement and European shipping concerns, political unrest in Panama, and increases in its fees
and regulations.[24]
On 11 March 1949, Greek shipping magnate Stavros Niarchos registered the first ship under the
Liberian flag of convenience, the World Peace. When Stettinius died in 1950, ownership of the
registry passed to the International Bank of Washington, led by General George Olmsted.[25]
Within 18 years, Liberia grew to surpass the United Kingdom as the world's largest register.[25]
Due to Liberia's 1989 and 1999 civil wars, its registry eventually fell second to Panama's flag of
convenience, but maritime funds continued to supply 70% of its total government revenue.[25]
After the civil war of 1990, Liberia joined with the Republic of the Marshall Islands to develop a
new maritime and corporate program.[25] The resulting company, International Registries, was
formed as a parent company, and in 1993 was bought out by its management.[25] After taking
over the Liberian government, Americo-Liberian warlord Charles Taylor signed a new registry
contract with the Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry, commonly known as
LISCR. LISCR was one of the few legal sources of income for Taylor's regime.[25] Taylor is now
on trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague on 11 counts of war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law.[26]
As of 2009[update], the Panamanian, Liberian, and Marshallese flags of convenience account for
almost 40% of the entire world fleet, in terms of deadweight tonnage[5] That same year, the top
ten flags of convenience registered 55% of the world's deadweight tonnage, including 61% of
bulk carriers and 56% of oil tankers.[5]
[edit] Extent of use
Top 11 flags of convenience account for almost 55% of the entire world fleet.[5][27]
For more details on this topic, see List of flags of convenience.
The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) maintains a list of 32 registries it
considers to be FOC registries.[28] In developing the list, the ITF considers "ability and
willingness of the flag state to enforce international minimum social standards on its vessels,"[27]
the "degree of ratification and enforcement of ILO Conventions and Recommendations,"[27] and
"safety and environmental record."[27] As of 2010[update] the list includes Antigua and Barbuda, the
Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Burma, Cambodia, the Cayman Island, Comoros,
Cyprus, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Gibraltar, Honduras, Jamaica, Lebanon, Liberia, Malta, the
Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Netherlands Antilles, North Korea, Panama, Sao Tome
and Príncipe, St Vincent, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Vanuatu, and the French and German International
Ship Registers.[28]
As of 2009[update], Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands are the worlds three largest registries
in terms of deadweight tonnage (DWT).[5] These three organizations registered 11,636 ships of
1,000 DWT and above, for a total of 468,405,000 DWT: more than 39% of the world's
shipbourne carrying capacity.[5] Panama dominates the scene with over 8,065 ships accounting
for almost 23% of the world's DWT.[5] Of the three, the Marshall Islands (with 1,265 registered
ships) had the greatest rate of DWT increase in 2009, increasing its tonnage by almost 15%.[5]
The Bahamanian flag ranks sixth worldwide, behind the Hong Kong and Greek registries, but is
similar in size to the Marshallese flag of convenience, with about 200 more ships but a carrying
capacity about 6,000,000 DWT lower.[5] Malta, at the ninth position worldwide, had about 100
more ships than the Bahamas, with a capacity of 50,666,000 DWT, representing 4% of the world
fleet with 12% growth that year.[5]
At the eleventh position, Cyprus registered 1,016 ships in 2009, 2.6% of world tonnage.[5] The
remaining top 11 flags of convenience are Antigua and Barbuda (#20), Bermuda (#22), Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines (#26), and the French International Ship Register (FIS) at number
#27.[5] Bermuda and the FIS have fewer than 200 ships apiece, but they are large: the average
Bermudan ship is 67,310 DWT and the average FIS ship is at 42,524 DWT.[5] (By way of
reference, the average capacity of ships in the U.S. and U.K. registers is 1,851 DWT and
9,517 DWT respectively.[5]) The registries of Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines both have over 1,000 ships with average capacity of 10,423 DWT and 7,334 DWT
respectively.[5]
The 21 other flags of convenience listed by the ITF each account for less than 1% of the world's
DWT.[5] As of 2008[update], more than half of the world’s merchant ships (measured by tonnage)
are registered under flags of convenience.[29]
[edit] Criticism
The drilling rig Deepwater Horizon flew a Marshallese flag of convenience.[30]

There are a number of common threads found in criticisms of the flag of convenience system.
One is that these flag states have insufficient regulations and that those regulations they do have
are poorly enforced. Another is that, in many cases, the flag state cannot identify a shipowner,
much less hold the owner civilly or criminally responsible for a ship's actions. As a result of this
lack of flag state control, flags of convenience are criticized on grounds of providing an
environment for conducting criminal activities, supporting terrorism, providing poor working
conditions for seafarers, and having an adverse effect on the environment.
[edit] Concealed ownership
Shipowners often establish shell corporations to be the legal owners of their ships.[31] To
distinguish between the actual shipowner and the shell corporations, the terms beneficial owner
or ultimate owner are often used. Webster's defines a beneficial owner as "one who enjoys the
benefit of a property of which another is the legal owner."[32] A ship's beneficial owner is legally
and financially responsible for the ship and its activities.[33]
The 2004 Report of the UN Secretary General’s Consultative Group on Flag State
Implementation reported that "It is very easy, and comparatively inexpensive, to establish a
complex web of corporate entities to provide very effective cover to the identities of beneficial
owners who do not want to be known."[34] According to a 2003 report by the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development report entitled "Ownership and Control of Ships",
these corporate structures are often multi-layered, spread across numerous jurisdictions, and
make the beneficial owner "almost impenetrable" to law enforcement officials and taxation.[31]
The report concludes that "regardless of the reasons why the cloak of anonymity is made
available, if it is provided it will also assist those who may wish to remain hidden because they
engage in illegal or criminal activities, including terrorists."[31]
The OECD report concludes that the use of bearer shares is "perhaps the single most important
(and perhaps the most widely used) mechanism" to protect the anonymity of a ship's beneficial
owner.[35] Physically possessing a bearer share accords ownership of the corporation.[35] There is
no requirement for reporting the transfer of bearer shares, and not every jurisdiction requires that
their serial numbers even be recorded.[35]
Two similar techniques to provide anonymity for a ship's beneficial owner are "nominee
shareholders" and "nominee directors." In some jurisdictions that require shareholder identities to
be reported, a loophole is created where the beneficial owner may appoint a nominee to be the
shareholder, and that nominee cannot legally be compelled to reveal the identity of the beneficial
owner.[36] All corporations are required to have at least one director, however many jurisdictions
allow this to be a nominee director.[37] A nominee director's name would appear on all corporate
paperwork in place of the beneficial owners, and like nominee shareholders, few jurisdictions
can compel a nominee director to divulge the identity of beneficial owners.[37] To further
complicate matters, some jurisdictions allow a corporation to fulfill the duties of a nominee
director.[37]
[edit] Crime
Arms smuggling, the ability to conceal large sums of money, trafficking in goods and people and other illegal
activities can also thrive in the unregulated havens which the flag of convenience system provides.
David Cockroft, general secretary of the ITF[12]
Flag of convenience ships have long been linked to crime on the high seas. For example, in 1982,
Honduras shut down its open registry operations because it had enabled "illegal traffic of all
kinds and had given Honduras a bad name."[38]
Ships registered by the Cambodia Shipping Corporation (CSC) were found smuggling drugs and
cigarettes in Europe, breaking the Iraq oil embargo, and engaging in human trafficking and
prostitution in Europe and Asia.[12] In response to these activities, in 2000, Ahamd Yahya of the
Cambodian Ministry of Public Works and Transport told industry publication Fairplay "We
don't know or care who owns the ships or whether they're doing 'white' or 'black' business ... it is
not our concern."[12] Less than two years later, French forces seized the Cambodian-flagged,
Greek-owned MV Winner for cocaine smuggling.[12] Shortly after the seizure, Cambodian Prime
Minister Hun Sen closed the registry to foreign ships,[12] and Cambodia canceled its contract with
CSC shortly thereafter.[39]
The North Korean flag of convenience has also garnered significant scrutiny. In 2003, the North
Korean freighter Pong-su reflagged to Tuvulu in the middle of a voyage shortly before being
seized by Australian authorities for smuggling heroin into that country.[12] That year thirteen
nations began monitoring vessels under the North Korean flag for "illicit cargos, like drugs,
missiles or nuclear weapon fuel."[39] In 2006, ships owned by Egyptian and Syrian interests,
flagged by North Korea, and based in the United States were discovered to be engaged in
smuggling migrants in Europe.[12]
[edit] Terrorism
The OECD report states that the possibility of terrorists using ships is "obvious" and "potentially
devastating" and goes on to list ways in which ships could be used.[40] One clear use would be to
move personnel, equipment, and weapons around the world.[40] Another would be to transport
bombs, such as a "container set to explode near a city."[40] Also, ships could be used as a weapon
in their own right, for example an oil tanker or liquefied natural gas carrier rigged as a floating
bomb.[40] Finally, the OECD discussed the possibility of criminal and terrorist organizations
using ships engaging in legal or illegal trade as a source of revenue to fund criminal activities.[41]
In 2002 in the United States, Democratic senator John Breaux of Louisiana proposed a bill to
prevent U.S. shipowners from using foreign flags as a counter-terrorism measure.[42]
[edit] Working conditions
These floating sweatshops are the building blocks of the notorious "Flag-of-Convenience" (FOC) system. It
exists for one reason and one reason only: to allow companies to avoid paying taxes and escape the minimum
health, safety and environmental standards of their home countries.
Maritime Trades Department of the AFL-CIO[43]
In the accompanying material of the United Nations' Maritime Labour Convention of 2006, the
International Labour Organization estimated that at that time there were approximately
1,200,000 working seafarers across the world.[44] This document goes on to say that when
working aboard ships flagged to states that do not "exercise effective jurisdiction and control"
over their ships that "seafarers often have to work under unacceptable conditions, to the
detriment of their well-being, health and safety and the safety of the ships on which they
work."[45]
The International Transport Workers' Federation goes further, stating that flags of convenience
"provide a means of avoiding labor regulation in the country of ownership, and become a vehicle
for paying low wages and forcing long hours of work and unsafe working conditions. Since FOC
ships have no real nationality, they are beyond the reach of any single national seafarers' trade
union."[46] They also say that these ships have low safety standards and no construction
requirements, that they "do not enforce safety standards, minimum social standards or trade
union rights for seafarers",[47] that they frequently fail to pay their crews,[10] have poor safety
records,[10] and engage in practices such as abandoning crewmen in distant ports.[10]
[edit] Environmental effects
The practice of flags of convenience, where owners register vessels in countries other than their own in order
to avoid binding regulations or controls, is a serious menace to today’s maritime world.
European Union Fisheries Commissioner, Franz Fischler[48]
While flag of convenience ships have been involved with some of the highest-profile oil spills in
history (such as the Maltese-flagged MV Erika,[49] the Bahamanian-flagged MV Prestige,[50] the
Marshallese-flagged Deepwater Horizon,[51] and the Liberian-flagged MV Amoco Cadiz[52] and
MV Sea Empress[53]) the most common environmental criticism they face regards illegal fishing.
These critics of the flag of convenience system argue that many of the FOC flag states lack the
resources or the will to properly monitor and control those vessels. The Environmental Justice
Foundation (EJF) contends that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) vessels use
flags of convenience to avoid fisheries regulations and controls. Flags of convenience help
reduce the operating costs associated with illegal fishing methods, and help illegal operators
avoid prosecution and hide beneficial ownership.[54] As a result, flags of convenience perpetuate
IUU fishing which has extensive environmental, social and economic impacts, particularly in
developing countries.[55] The EJF is campaigning to end the granting of flags of convenience to
fishing vessels as an effective measure to combat IUU fishing.
[edit] Ratification of maritime conventions
Non-ratification of
International
Conventions, 2009[56]
SO MA L IL CLC/
Flag
LA RP L O1 FUN
S OL 66 47 D92
Ant X
igua/Ba
rbuda
Ba X
hamas
Bol X X X X X
ivia
Ca X X
mbodia
No
rth X X X
Korea
Ge X X X
orgia
Ho X X X X X
nduras
Ja X
maica
Le X X X
banon
Ma X
lta
Mo X X
ngolia
St.
Vincent X
/Grenad
ines
Sri X X X X
Lanka
International regulations for the maritime industry are promulgated by agencies of the United
Nations, particularly the International Maritime Organization and International Labour
Organization. Flag states adopt these regulations for their ships by ratifying individual treaties.
One common criticism against flag of convenience countries is that they allow shipowners to
avoid these regulations by not ratifying important treaties or by failing to enforce them.
Maritime International Secretariat Services (MARISEC) issues a yearly report entitled the Flag
State Performance Table in association with industry groups the Baltic and International
Maritime Council, the International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners, the International
Chamber of Shipping, the International Shipping Federation, and the International Association of
Independent Tanker Owners.[57] The 2009 report identified the six "core" conventions
representing a minimum level of maritime regulation, from the viewpoint of shipowners, as
SOLAS, MARPOL, LL 66, STCW, ILO 147, and CLC/FUND92.[57] Five of these six core
conventions are not ratified by several flag of convenience countries.
The SOLAS and LL 66 conventions focus on shipboard safety issues. SOLAS is an acronym for
Safety of Life at Sea, or formally "International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as
amended, including the 1988 Protocol, the International Safety Management Code (ISM) and the
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS)". Originally ratified in response to the
sinking of the RMS Titanic, SOLAS sets regulations on lifeboats, emergency equipment and
safety procedures, including continuous radio watches. It has been updated to include regulations
on ship construction, fire protection systems, life-saving appliances, radio communications,
safety of navigation, management for the safe operation of ships, and other safety and security
concerns.[58] As of 2009[update], the Bolivian, Honduran, Lebanese, and Sri Lankan flags of
convenience have not ratified the SOLAS treaty.[56] LL 66 is an industry designation for the
"International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, including the 1988 Protocol".[56] This convention
sets standards for minimum buoyancy, hull stress, and ship's fittings, as well as establishing
navigational zones where extra precautions must be taken.[59] As of 2009[update], the Bahamanian,
Bolivian, Georgian, Honduran, and Sri Lankan flags of convenience have not ratified the LL 66
treaty.[56]
ILO147 is shorthand for the "International Labour Organization Merchant Shipping (Minimum
Standards) Convention 1976, including the 1996 Protocol". This convention sets safety and
competency standards, regulates work hours, manning, conditions of employment as well as
shipboard living arrangements.[60] As of 2009[update], the Antigua/Barbudan, Bolivian, Cambodian,
North Korean, Georgian, Honduran, Jamaican, Mongolian, Vincentian, and Sri Lankan flags of
convenience have not ratified the ILO147 treaty.[56]
MARPOL, CLC, and FUND are treaties related to pollution. MARPOL refers to the
"International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,1973 as modified by the
Protocol of 1978, including Annexes I – VI". This treaty regulates pollution by ships, including
oil and air pollution, shipboard sewage and garbage.[61] As of 2009[update], the Bahamanian,
Bolivian, Cambodian, North Korean, Georgian, Honduran, Lebanese, Maltese, and Sri Lankan
flags of convenience have not ratified the MARPOL treaty.[56] CLC and FUND92 refer to the
"International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992" and the
"International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for
Oil Pollution Damage, 1992". These two related conventions provide mechanisms to ensure
remuneration for victims of oil spills.[62][63] As of 2009[update], the Bolivian, North Korean,
Honduran, Lebanese, and, Mongolian flags of convenience have not ratified the CLC and FUND
treaties.[56]
[edit] Port state targeting
Port State Targeting, 2009[56]
Paris Tokyo US
Flag
Blacklist Blacklist Target List
X
Antigua/Barbuda
Bahamas X
X X
Belize
X
Bolivia
X X X
Cambodia
Cayman Islands X
North Korea X X
X X
Georgia
Honduras X X
X
Lebanon
X
Malta
Mongolia X X
X X
Panama
X
St. Vincent/Grenadines
In 1978, a number of European countries agreed in The Hague to audit labour conditions on
board vessels vis-a-vis the rules of the International Labour Organization. To this end, in 1982
the "Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control" (Paris MOU) was established,
setting port state control standards for what is now twenty-six European countries and Canada.
Several other regional Memoranda Of Understanding have been established based on the Paris
model, including the "Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific
Region", typically referred to as the "Tokyo MOU", and organizations for the Black Sea, the
Caribbean, the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean, and Latin America.[64] The Tokyo and Paris
organizations generate, based on deficiencies and detentions, black-, white-, and grey-lists of flag
states. The US Coast Guard, which handles port state control inspections in the US, maintains a
similar target list for underperforming flag states. As of 2009[update], fourteen of the thirty-one
flags of convenience listed by the ITF are targeted for special enforcement by the countries of the
Paris and Tokyo MOUs or U.S. Coast Guard: Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize,
Bolivia, Cambodia, the Cayman Islands, North Korea, Georgia, Honduras, Lebanon, Malta,
Mongolia, Lebanon, Malta, Mongolia, Panama, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.[56]
[edit] Wages
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, in its 2009 Report on Maritime
Trade, states that shipowners often register their ships under a foreign flag in order to employ
"seafarers from developing countries with lower wages."[65] The Philippines and the People's
Republic of China supply a large percentage of maritime labor in general,[66] and major flags of
convenience in particular. In 2009, the flag-states employing the highest number of expatriate-
Filipino seafarers were Panama, the Bahamas, Liberia and the Marshall Islands.[67] That year,
more than 150,000 Filipino sailors were employed by these four flags of convenience.[67] In a
2006 study by the the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), sailors from the
People's Republic of China comprised over 40% of the crews on surveyed ships flying the
Panamanian flag, and around 10% of those flying the Liberian flag.[68] The MARAD report
referred to both China and The Philippines as "low cost" crewing sources.[69]
The seafaring industry is often broken down in two employment groups: licensed mariners
including deck officers and marine engineers, and mariners that are not required to have licenses,
such as able seamen and cooks. The latter group is collectively known as unlicensed mariners or
ratings. Differences in wages can be seen in both groups, between "high cost" crewing sources
such as the United States, and "low cost" sources such as China and The Philippines.
For unlicensed mariners, 2009 statistics from the American Bureau of Labor Statistics give
median earnings for able and ordinary seamen as US$35,810, varying from $21,640 (at the 10th
percentile) to $55,360 (at the 90th percentile).[70] This can be compared with 2006 statistics from
the International Labour Organization, giving average yearly earnings for Filipino and Chinese
able seamen around $2,000 to $3,000 per year (PHP9,900 per month and CNY3,071 per year).[71]
[72]
Among licensed mariners, American chief engineers earned a median $63,630, varying from
$35,030 to $109,310 while their Filipino counterparts averaged $5,500 per year (PHP21,342 per
month).[72][73]
[edit] Footnotes
1. ^ Ministry of Transport (2010). "MOL Pride". Equasis. Government of France.
http://www.equasis.org/EquasisWeb/restricted/ShipList?
fs=ShipSearch&P_PAGE=1&P_IMO=8705541. Retrieved 2010-07-23. (Registration required)
2. ^ American Heritage Dictionary, 2000.
3. ^ Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 2003, p.474.
4. ^ Hamzah, 2004, p.4.
5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p "Chapter 2, Structure and ownership of the world fleet" (PDF). Review of
Maritime Transport 2009 (UNCTAD): 36. December 2009.
http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/rmt2009_en.pdf. Retrieved 2010-06-21.
6. ^ a b ICFTU et al., 2002, p. 7.
7. ^ Bernaert, 2006, p. 104.
8. ^ That the flag state gives the right to fly its flag, see United Nations, 1982, Article 91. That this
flag is called a civil ensign, see De Kleer, 2007, p. 37.
9. ^ "U.S. Coast Guard Alternative Compliance Program". United States Coast Guard.
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/acp/. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
10.^ a b c d e f g Working, 1999.
11.^ Dempsey and Helling, 1980.
12.^ a b c d e f g h Neff, 2007.
13.^ a b c Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (2010) "A
short history of the Paris MOU" Paris: Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State
Control http://www.parismou.org/ParisMOU/Organisation/About+Us/History/default.aspx.
Retrieved 2010-07-01
14.^ Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, 2009.
15.^ Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, 2009, p 27.
16.^ Secretariat of the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding, 2009, p 22.
17.^ D'Andrea 2006, p.2.
18.^ a b c d D'Andrea 2006, p.6.
19.^ Wiswall 1996, p. 113.
20.^ Kemp, 1976.
21.^ a b c d DeSombre 2006, p. 75.
22.^ a b c d Marquis, Greg (2007). "Brutality on Trial (review)". Law and Politics Book Review.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/gibson0107.htm. Retrieved 2010-05-25.
23.^ a b DeSombre 2006, p. 76.
24.^ a b c d DeSombre 2006, p. 74.
25.^ a b c d e f Pike, 2008.
26.^ "Charles Taylor Trial Background". Charlestaylortrial.org.
http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/trial-background/. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
27.^ a b c d International Transport Workers' Federation. "What are Flags of Convenience?".
http://www.itfglobal.org/flags-convenience/sub-page.cfm. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
28.^ a b "FOC Countries". International Transport Workers' Federation. 2005-06-06.
http://www.itfglobal.org/flags-convenience/flags-convenien-183.cfm. Retrieved 2010-07-02.
29.^ ISL: Shipping Statistics Yearbook 2008, page 27. Institute of Shipping Economics and
Logistics, 2009.
30.^ American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) (2010). "Deepwater Horizon (Vessel Details)". ABS
Record. American Bureau of Shipping.
http://www.eagle.org/safenet/record/record_vesseldetailsprinparticular?
Classno=0139290&Accesstype=PUBLIC&ReferrerApplication=PUBLIC2. Retrieved 2010-06-
12.
31.^ a b c Gianni 2008, p. 20.
32.^ "Beneficial Owner". Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster's Inc.. 1996.
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?
co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=b9/b937a76fa541981941f5f389cd3fba2e. Retrieved June
24, 2010.
33.^ OECD 2003, p. 4.
34.^ Gianni 2008, p. 19.
35.^ a b c OECD 2003, p. 8.
36.^ OECD 2003, pp. 8–9.
37.^ a b c OECD 2009, p. 9.
38.^ Reuters, 1982.
39.^ a b Brooke, 2004.
40.^ a b c d OECD 2003, p.5.
41.^ OECD 2003, pp. 6.
42.^ The Economist, 2002.
43.^ Maritime Trades Department (2007-09-16). "Flags-of-Convenience Campaign". AFL-CIO.
http://www.maritimetrades.org/article.php?sid=33. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
44.^ International Labour Organization, "Maritime Labour Convention 2006, Frequently Asked
Questions", p. 5.
45.^ International Labour Organization, "Maritime Labour Convention 2006, Frequently Asked
Questions", pp. 4–5.
46.^ International Transport Workers' Federation. "Flags of Convenience campaign".
47.^ What do FOC's mean to seafarers? International Transport Workers' Federation
48.^ ICFTU et al., 2002. Page 5.
49.^ Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution
(CEDRE) (November 2009). "Erika". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and
Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. http://www.cedre.fr/en/spill/erika/erika.php.
Retrieved 2010-06-30.
(CEDRE) (April 2006). "Prestige". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and
Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution.
http://www.cedre.fr/en/spill/prestige/prestige.php. Retrieved 2010-06-30.
(CEDRE) (June 2010). "Deepwater Horizon". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and
http://www.cedre.fr/en/spill/deepwater_horizon/deepwater_horizon.php. Retrieved 2010-06-30.
(CEDRE) (April 2006a). "Amoco Cadiz". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and
Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. http://www.cedre.fr/en/spill/amoco/amoco.php.
(CEDRE) (April 2006b). "Sea Empress". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and
http://www.cedre.fr/en/spill/sea_emp/sea_empress.php. Retrieved 2010-06-30.
54.^ Gianni & Simpson, 2005.
55.^ Environmental Justice Foundation, 2009.
56.^ a b c d e f g h i MARISEC, 2009.
57.^ a b MARISEC 2009, p.1.
58.^ "International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea". International Maritime Organization.
http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=257&doc_id=647. Retrieved 2010-07-
01.
59.^ "International Convention on Load Lines, 1966". International Maritime Organization.
http://www.imo.org/conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=254. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
60.^ "Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976". International Labour
Organization. http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C147. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
61.^ "International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the
Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78)". International Maritime Organization.
http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=258&doc_id=678. Retrieved 2010-07-
01.
62.^ "International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969".
International Maritime Organization. http://www.imo.org/conventions/contents.asp?
doc_id=660&topic_id=256#4. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
63.^ "International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for
Oil Pollution Damage (FUND), 1971". International Maritime Organization.
http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=661&topic_id=256. Retrieved 2010-07-
02.
64.^ Tokyo MOU Secretariat, 2008.
65.^ "Chapter 2, Structure and ownership of the world fleet" (PDF). Review of Maritime Transport
2009 (UNCTAD): 57. December 2009. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/rmt2009_en.pdf.
66.^ "Numbers and nationality of world's seafarers" Shipping and World Trade London: Maritime
International Secretariat Services 2005 http://www.marisec.org/shippingfacts/worldtrade/world-
seafarers.php
67.^ a b Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (2009) "Overseas Employment Statistics"
Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Republic of the Philippines p. 28
http://www.poea.gov.ph/stats/2009_OFW%20Statistics.pdf
68.^ Maritime Administration, 2006, p. 14.
69.^ Maritime Administration, 2006, p. 13-14.
70.^ "Sailors and Marine Oilers". Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010-05-14.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2009/may/oes535011.htm. Retrieved 2010-07-02.
71.^ From Department of Statistics (2006) "LABORSTA" Geneva: International Labour Office
http://laborsta.ilo.org/. Retrieved 2010-07-01 . Expand "Wages" tab. Select "Wages and hours of
work in 159 occupations." Select "China" and click "Go." Click "view." Data under "Able
seaman".
72.^ a b From Department of Statistics (2006) "LABORSTA" Geneva: International Labour Office
http://laborsta.ilo.org/. Retrieved 2010-07-01 . Expand "Wages" tab. Select "Wages and hours of
work in 159 occupations." Select "Philippines" and click "Go." Click "view." Data under "Ship's
chief engineer" and "Able seaman".
73.^ "Ship Engineers". Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010-05-14.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2009/may/oes535031.htm. Retrieved 2010-07-02.
[edit] References
[edit] General references
• Bernaert, Andy (2006) [1988]. Bernaerts' Guide to the 1982 United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea. Victoria, B.C., Canada: Trafford Publishing. ISBN 1-4120-7665-x.
http://books.google.com/books?id=F0z8Z3zZEh8C&pg=PA104&dq=flag-state+
%22flag+of+convenience
%22&hl=en&ei=nDhnTOP8GoSnnge14LHBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&res
num=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=flag-state%20%22flag%20of
%20convenience%22&f=false. Retrieved 2010-08-14.
• D'Andrea, Ariella (November 2006) The "Genuine Link" Concept in Responsible
Fisheries [Legal Aspects and Recent Developments] FAO Legal Papers Online 61 Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization http://www.fao.org/legal/prs-ol/lpo61.pdf. Retrieved
2010-06-30
• De Kleer, Vicki (2007). Flags of the World: A Visual Guide To The. London: Chatham
Publishing. ISBN 1-86176-305-0. http://books.google.com/books?
id=KIzejlnvl6wC&pg=PA37&dq=%22civil+ensign
%22&hl=en&ei=8ytnTJrmKtOMnQeomOzBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&res
num=5&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22civil%20ensign%22&f=false.
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 0395825172. http://www.yourdictionary.com/flag-of-
convenience. Retrieved 2010-08-14.
• Dempsey, P.S.; Helling, L.L. (September 1, 1980). "Oil pollution by ocean vessels – an
environmental tragedy: the legal regime of flags of convenience, multilateral
conventions, and coastal states". Denver Journal of International Law Policy 10 (1): 37–
87. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6339199.
• DeSombre, Elizabeth (2006). Flagging Standards : Globalization and Environmental,
Safety, and Labor Regulations at Sea. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
ISBN 9780262541909. http://books.google.com/?id=MRe0ig0-nO8C&lpg=PA76&dq=
%22Belen%20Quezada%22%20%2BPanama&pg=PA76#v=onepage&q=%22Belen
%20Quezada%22%20+Panama. Retrieved 2010-06-13.
• Gianni, Matthew (2008). "Real and Present Danger: Flag State Failure and Maritime
Security and Safety". Oslo & London: International Transport Worker's Federation.
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/flag_state_performance.pdf. Retrieved 24 June 2010.
• International Confederation of Free Trade Unions; Trade Union Advisory Committee to
the OECD; International Transport Workers’ Federation; Greenpeace International
(2002). More Troubled Waters: Fishing, Pollution, and FOCs. Johannesburg: 2002
World Summit on Sustainable Development. http://www.illegal-
fishing.info/uploads/greenpeace_itf_more_troubled_waters2.pdf. Retrieved 2010-08-14.
• International Labour Organization. FAQ regarding the Consolidated Maritime
Convention of 2006. Geneva: International Labour Organization. ISBN 9221186431.
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---
normes/documents/publication/wcms_088042.pdf. Retrieved 2010-06-12.
• Maritime Administration (November 2006) "A Review of Crewing Practices in U.S.-
Foreign Ocean Cargo Shipping" Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation p.
9 http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Crewing_Report_Internet_Version_in_Word-
update-Jan_final.pdf. Retrieved 2010-08-15
• Maritime Transport Committee (2003) "Ownership and Control of Ships" Directorate for
Science, Technology and Industry Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/9/17846120.pdf. Retrieved 2010-06-25
• Merriam-Webster Incorporated (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary.
Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc. ISBN 0-87779-808-7.
http://books.google.com/books?id=TAnheeIPcAEC&pg=RA1-PA474&lpg=RA1-
PA474&dq=
%22registry+of+a+merchant+ship+under+a+foreign+flag+in+order+to+profit+from+less
+restrictive+regulations
%22&source=bl&ots=38_dJ71iV0&sig=FvfWuQaB8gbEXy_67FEbRl9Q6Iw&hl=en&ei
=YZVnTMiLKtKGnQf7t9XBBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0
CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22registry%20of%20a%20merchant%20ship
%20under%20a%20foreign%20flag%20in%20order%20to%20profit%20from%20less
%20restrictive%20regulations%22&f=false. Retrieved 2010-08-14.
• Kemp, Peter (1976). The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea. London: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0192820846. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O225-
flagsofconvenience.html. Retrieved 2010-06-13.
• International Transport Workers' Federation. "What are Flags of Convenience?".
http://www.itfglobal.org/flags-convenience/sub-page.cfm. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
• International Transport Workers' Federation. "FOC Countries".
http://www.itfglobal.org/flags-convenience/flags-convenien-183.cfm. Retrieved 2007-05-
04.
• Hamzah, B.A. (July 7, 2004). "Ports and Sustainable Development: Initial Thoughts"
(PDF). United Nations Institute for Training and Research. p. 4.
http://www2.unitar.org/hiroshima/programmes/shs04/Presentations
%20SHS/7%20July/Hamzah_doc.pdf. Retrieved 2007-05-07.
• Foreign Flag Crewing Practices. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.
2006.
http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Crewing_Report_Internet_Version_in_Word-
update-Jan_final.pdf. Retrieved 2010-06-12.
• MARISEC (2009). Shipping Industry Flag State Performance Table. London: Maritime
International Secretariat Services. pp. 1–2.
http://www.marisec.org/shippingfacts/uploads/File/FlagStatePerformanceTable09.pdf?
SID=lghwfzybi. Retrieved 2010-06-12.
• MARISEC (2009b). Shipping Industry Guidelines on Flag State Performance, Second
Edition. London: Maritime International Secretariat Services.
http://www.marisec.org/flag-performance.pdf. Retrieved 2010-06-12.
• Pike, John (2008). "History of Liberian Ship Registry". GlobalSecurity.org.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/liberia/registry.htm. Retrieved 2010-06-20.
• United Nations (1982). "Part VII: The High Seas". United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). United Nations.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm. Retrieved
2010-06-14.
• Wiswall, Frank, Jr. (1996) "Flags of Convenience" in Lovett, William United States
Shipping Policies and the World Market Westport, CT: Quorum ISBN 0899309453
http://books.google.com/?id=2gXpKzu1wz4C&lpg=PP1&dq=United%20States
%20shipping%20policies%20and%20the%20world%20market&pg=PP4#v=onepage&q
[edit] News stories
• Brooke, James (07-02-2004). "Landlocked Mongolia's Seafaring Tradition". New York
Times. New York Times.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/flags/2004/0702landlocked.htm. Retrieved 2010-06-
12.
• The Economist (May 16, 2002). "Brassed Off: How the war on terrorism could change
the shape of shipping". The Economist.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/flags/2002/0520osama.htm.
• Fleshman, Michael (2001). "Conflict diamonds evade UN sanctions: Improvements in
Sierra Leone, but continuing violations in Angola and Liberia". Africa Recovery (United
Nations) 15 (4): 15. http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no4/154diam.htm.
• Neff, Robert (2007-04-20). "Flags That Hide the Dirty Truth". Asia Times. Asia Times
Online. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/ID20Dg03.html. Retrieved 2010-06-12.
• Reuters (11-09-1982). "Honduras Cuts Ship Registry". New York Times (New York
Times). http://www.nytimes.com/1982/11/09/world/honduras-cuts-ship-registry.html.
• Working, Russell (May 22, 1999). "Flags of Inconvenience; Union Campaigns Against
Some Foreign Ship Registry". New York Times.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/union99.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
[edit] Fishing references
• Environmental Justice Foundation. Lowering The Flag: Ending the Use of Flags of
Convenience by Pirate Fishing Vessels. London. ISBN 1904523196. http://www.illegal-
fishing.info/uploads/Loweringtheflagfinal.pdf. Retrieved 06-12-2010.
• Gianni, Matthew; Simpson, Walt (10-01-2005). The Changing Nature of High Seas
Fishing [How flags of convenience provide cover for illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing]. Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, International
Transport Workers’ Federation, and WWF International.
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/iiumr.pdf. Retrieved 2010-06-12.
[edit] Port state control organizations
• Secretariat of the Black Sea Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (2008)
"Annual Report for 2008" Istanbul: Black Sea Memorandum of Understanding on Port
State Control http://www.bsmou.org/files.php?file=PDF/ANNUALREPORT2008.pdf.
• Secretariat of the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Caribbean
Region (2007) "Annual Report of the Caribbean Memorandum of Understanding on Port
State Control" Kingston, Jamaica: Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control
in the Caribbean Region http://www.caribbeanmou.org/docs/annual_report_07.pdf.
• Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding Secretariat (2009) "Annual Report 2009"
Goa, India: Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding
http://www.iomou.org/php/xmldata/annrep09.pdf. Retrieved 2010-06-29
• Secretariat of the Mediterranean Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control
(2007) "Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Mediterranean
Region" Alexandria http://81.192.52.75/Med_MoU_Text.html. Retrieved 2010-06-29
• Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (2009) "Annual Report 2008
[Port State Control: Making Headway]" Paris: Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum on
Port State Control http://www.parismou.org/upload/anrep/Annual%20Report
%202008.pdf. Retrieved 2010-06-29
• Tokyo MOU Secretariat (2010) "Annual Report on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific
Region" Tokyo: Port State Control Committee of the Memorandum of Understanding on
Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region (Tokyo MOU) http://www.tokyo-
mou.org/ANN09.pdf. Retrieved 2010-06-29
• Secretary of the Latin American Agreement on Port State Control (2008) "Latin
American Agreement on Port State Control of Vessels (Acuerdo de Viña del Mar)"
Buenos Aires http://200.45.69.62/informes/EN/INFORME_ANUAL_2008.zip. Retrieved
2010-06-29
• United States Coast Guard (2010-060-29) "Annual Targeted Flag List" Washington,
D.C.: United States Department of Homeland Security
http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/contentView.do?channelId=-
18371&contentId=21904&programId=21428&programPage=%2Fep%2Fprogram
%2Feditorial.jsp&pageTypeId=13489&contentType=EDITORIAL. Retrieved 2010-06-
29
[edit] Further reading
• Alderton, A.F.; Winchester, N. (2002). "Globalisation and De-Regulation in the Maritime
Industry". Marine Policy 26 (1): 35–43. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00034-3.
• Alderton, A.F.; Winchester, N. (September 2002). "Regulation, Representation and the
Flag Market". Journal of Maritime Research. http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk/server.php?
navId=009.
• Alderton, A.F.; Winchester, N. (2002). "Flag States and Safety, 1997–1999". Maritime
Policy and Management 29 (2): 151–162. doi:10.1080/03088830110090586.
• Carlisle, Rodney. (1981). Sovereignty for Sale: The Origin and Evolution of the
Panamanian and Liberian Flags of Convenience. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
ISBN 0-87021-668-6
• Carlisle, Rodney. (2009). Second Registers: Maritime Nations Respond to Flags of
Convenience, 1984–1998. The Northern Mariner/Le marin du nord, 19:3, 319–340.
• The Economist (May 27, 2000). "Bolivia Waves the Flag". The Economist.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/flags.htm.
• Toweh, Alphonso. (March 3, 2008). "Shipping’s flag of convenience pays off for
Liberia". Business Day (Rosebank, South Africa: BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd.).
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=1494&Itemid=32. Retrieved 2008-03-13.
• United Nations (February 7, 1986). "United Nations Convention on Conditions for
Registration of Ships". http://r0.unctad.org/ttl/docs-legal/unc-cml/United%20Nations
%20%20Convention%20on%20Conditions%20for%20Registration%20of%20Ships,
%201986.pdf. Retrieved 2007-05-05.
• United States House Committee on Armed Services (June 13, 2002). "HASC No. 107-42,
Vessel Operations Under Flags of Convenience". United States House of
Representatives.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has164220.000/has164220_0.HTM.
• United States Senate (September 6, 2000). "Senate Report 106-396 – United States
Cruise Vessel Act". http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?
&sid=cp106BRzkB&refer=&r_n=sr396.106&db_id=106&item=&sel=TOC_3674&.
[edit] External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Flag of convenience
• Database on reported incidents of abandonment of seafarers

• Flag of Convenience Cyprus: Prestige Oil Spill
• List of flag State comments on detentions for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience"
Categories: Business terms | Flags | International economics | International taxation |
International trade | Law of the sea | Offshore finance | Offshoring
Hidden categories: Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2009 | All articles
containing potentially dated statements | Articles containing potentially dated statements from
2006 | Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2010 | Articles containing
potentially dated statements from 2008
Personal tools
• New features
• Log in / create account
Namespaces
• Article
• Discussion
Variants
Views
• Read
• Edit
• View history
Actions
Search
Top of Form
Special:Search
Search
Bottom of Form
Navigation
• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
Interaction
• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
• Donate to Wikipedia
• Help
Toolbox
• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link
• Cite this page
Print/export
• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version
Languages
• Català
• Dansk
• Deutsch
• Ελληνικά
• Español
• Eesti
• ‫فارسی‬
• Suomi
• Français
• Gaeilge
• ‫עברית‬
• Italiano
• 日本語
• Nederlands
• Norsk (bokmål)
• Polski
• Português
• Русский
• Simple English
• Svenska
• This page was last modified on 21 August 2010 at 21:44.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.
• Contact us
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers
•
•
>The Hong Kong Shipping Register
Home > Public services > The Hong Kong Shipping Register > Users' Handbook
Hong Kong Shipping Register User's Handbook

Section 1 - General
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Application for ship registration in Hong Kong
1.3 Definition of a ship
1.4 Key matters relating to registration of ships in Hong Kong
1.5 Registrable ship
1.6 Definition of a "qualified person"
1.7 Appointment of a representative person
1.8 Modes of ship registration
1.9 Types of registration
1.10 Forms
1.11 Fees
1.12 Annual Tonnage Charge (ATC) Reduction Scheme
1.13 Ship's name and marking
1.14 Colours of a registered ship
1.15 Changes must be notified to the Registrar
1.16 Taxation of shipping profits
1.17 Preferential port dues
1.18 Consular assistance
1.1 Introduction
The autonomous Hong Kong Shipping Register was set up on 3 December 1990 under the Hong Kong
Merchant Shipping (Registration) Ordinance [http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/publication/home.html]. Upon
reunification with the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1997, the Hong Kong Special Administrative R
(HKSAR) is authorized by the Government of the People's Republic of China to maintain a separate shipp
register and issue certificates using the name quot;HONG KONG, CHINA.quot;
1.2 Application for ship registration in Hong Kong

Address : Hong Kong Shipping Registry
Marine Department
Room 302, 3/F, Harbour Building
38 Pier Road, Central
Hong Kong
Web : http://www.mardep.gov.hk
Tel : (852) 2852 4387
Fax : (852) 2541 8842
Telex : 64553 MARHQ HX
E-mail : hksr@mardep.gov.hk
The normal office hour of the Hong Kong Shipping Registry , is from 8.30 a.m. to 5.45 p.m. (Monday to Fr
except public holidays.
The Hong Kong Shipping Registry provides also 24-hour and 365-day (including public holidays) service
ship/mortgage registration or ship de-registration upon the receipt of special request from shipowners 24
in advance. This special service is chargeable in accordance with the Merchant Shipping (Registration) (F
and Charges) Regulations (http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/publication/home.html).
Receipt and transmission of documents are also available at HKSAR's overseas Economic and Trade Of
1.3 Definition of a Ship
A ship is a vessel capable of navigating in water not propelled by oars, including air-cushion vehicle.
1.4 Key matters relating to registration of ships in Hong Kong
The registration of a ship on the Hong Kong Shipping Register is entirely on a voluntary basis. Once a sh
registered in Hong Kong :
• the ship can enjoy the benefits in connection with flying Hong Kong flag;
• the Government of HKSAR will exercise its jurisdiction over the ship;
• the ship’s title and mortgage must only be registered on the Hong Kong Shipping Register with l
binding under the Merchant Shipping (Registration) Ordinance;
1.5 Registrable ships
A ship is registrable in Hong Kong when :
a majority interest in the ship is owned by one or more “qualified persons”, or operated under a demise ch
(bare boat charter) by a corporation that is a "qualified person";
• not registered elsewhere;
• the vessel (G.N.4653 dated 16 September 2005) is not a
(i) non self-propelled barge carrying petroleum products or dangerous goods of any substan
which falls within the purview of the International Convention of Pollution from ships Anne
or III;
(ii) accommodation barge;
(iii) fishing vessel;
(iv) ship engaged in processing living resources of the sea, including whale and fish factories
aqua farming vessel;
(v) specialised ship engaged in research, expeditions or survey;
(vi) non-convention ship serving exclusively within the domestic waters of a country (other th
Kong and Mainland waters) and not proceeding to sea;
(vii) ship propelled by nuclear energy;
(viii) mobile offshore drilling unit.
• a representative person is appointed in relation to the ship.
1.6 Definition of a "qualified person"
A qualified person must be

• an individual who holds a valid Hong Kong Identity Card and who is ordinarily resident in Hong K
or
• a body corporate incorporated in Hong Kong; or
• an overseas company registered in the Hong Kong Companies Registry (http://www.info.gov.hk/
under Part XI of the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance.
1.7 Appointment of a representative person
• A qualified person (paragraph 1.6) who is the owner or part owner of the ship; or
• a body corporate incorporated in Hong Kong engaging in the business of managing, or acting as
for, ships.
1.8 Modes of ship registration
• The interest of a ship may be divided into any number of shares or parts. However, a majority in
in the ship shall be owned by one or more qualified persons, unless it is a Demise Charter
Registration;
• A body corporate should register as an owner of the ship by its corporate name.
1.9 Types of registration
There are three types of registration, viz:

• Full Registration;
• Provisional Registration;
• Demise Charter (Bare Boat Charter) Registration.
Sections 2 to 4 refer to the registration procedures.
1.10 Forms
All forms, such as application forms, and other specified forms for ship registration are obtainable free of
from the Hong Kong Shipping Registry in Hong Kong or the office of the Marine Adviser (Permanent
Representative to the International Maritime Organization in London) or can be downloaded from the Mar
Department's website - http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/forms/home.html].
1.11 Fees
There is a registration fee and an annual tonnage fee for ships on the Register (Section 11). Only a few it
for miscellaneous service are chargeable.
1.12 Annual Tonnage Charge (ATC) Reduction Scheme
In order to encourage a long term and stable registration of a ship on the Hong Kong Shipping Register, a
reduction scheme is in place on 1 February 2006. In general, for every two years (the qualifying period) th
ship is continuously registered with the Hong Kong Shipping Register and provided that the ship has no
detention record under any port State control (PSC) regime during such period, the registered owner of th
will be able to enjoy a six-month ATC reduction for the following year.
Reference: Merchant Shipping Information Note No. 9/2006

http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/msnote/msin.html
1.13 Ship's name and marking
Under the Merchant Shipping (Registration) Ordinance, a Hong Kong registered ship must have a name i
English alphabetic characters which may include numerals, or may have in addition, a name in Chinese,
which case each shall be a separate name for the purpose of the Ordinance. A name may be reserved fo
period of up to three years free of charge.
A ship's name in English or in English and Chinese must be marked on each side of the bow, and its nam
port of registry (HONG KONG) marked on the stern.
1.14 Colours of a registered ship
The proper colours of a Hong Kong registered ship are the national flag of the People's Republic of China
directly above the regional flag of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
http://www.protocol.gov.hk/flags/eng/n_flag/spec.html
http://www.protocol.gov.hk/flags/eng/r_flag/spec.html
1.15 Changes must be notified to the Registrar
Any changes to the particulars of the ship or the names and addresses of the registered owners or mortg
must be notified in writing to the Registrar who will advise on the evidence to be produced and upon paym
the relevant fee(s), where applicable, will effect the changes on the Register and issue a new Certificate o
Registry.
1.16 Taxation of shipping profits
In accordance with the Inland Revenue Ordinance, income derived from the international operation of Ho
Kong registered ships is exempt from the profits tax. Hong Kong has also entered into double taxation rel
agreement with 12 major trading partners (i.e. Belgium, China, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, Netherla
Singapore, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, U.S.A, U.K. and Germany) for income derived from internationa
operation of ships.

In addition, double taxation relief arrangements with more trading partners are expected.
1.17 Preferential port dues
Hong Kong registered ships can enjoy up to 29% preferential port dues in mainland China port since Janu
2000. Agreements with other countries having two-tier charging system are also expected for reduced po
light dues for Hong Kong registered ships calling their ports.

1.18 Consular assistance
Hong Kong registered ships are accorded with the necessary assistance from the Consulates of the Peop
Republic of China when required.
Reference: Merchant Shipping Information Note 33/2004

Last revision date : 17 Septem

2009 | Important notices | Privacy Policy
Flag State
Flag State refers to the authority under which a country exercises regulatory control over the
commercial vessel which is registered under its flag. This involves the inspection, certification,
and issuance of safety and pollution prevention documents
Hide
Wikipedia is getting a new look.
Help us find bugs and complete user interface translations (before 25/08/2010).
Port State Control

(Redirected from Port State)
Signatories to the Paris MOU (blue), Tokyo MOU (red), Indian Ocean MOU (green),
Mediterranean MOU (dark green), Acuerdo Latino (yellow), Caribbean MOU (olive), Abuja
MOU (dark red), Black Sea MOU (cyan) and Riyadh MOU (navy).
Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships in other national ports by PSC
officers (inspectors) for the purpose of verifying that the competency of the master and officers
onboard, the condition of a ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international
conventions (e.g. SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, etc.) and that the vessel is manned and operated in
compliance with applicable international law.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 History
• 2 Detention of ship under Port State Control
• 3 Contract being discharged under detention
• 4 Contract discharged by frustration
• 5 Self-induced detention cannot discharge the contract through frustration
• 6 Short period of detention cannot discharge the contract through frustration
• 7 Discharge of contract under detention in PSC usually do not frustrate the voyage
contract
• 8 Paris MOU NIR
• 9 References
[edit] History
In 1978, a number of European countries agreed in The Hague on memorandum that agreed to
audit whether the labour conditions on board vessels were according the rules of the ILO. After
the Amoco Cadiz sank that year, it was decided to also audit on safety and pollution. To this end,
in 1982 the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MoU) was agreed upon, establishing
Port State Control, nowadays 26 European countries and Canada. In practice, this was a reaction
on the failure of the flag states - especially flags of convenience that have delegated their task to
classification societies - to comply with their inspection duties.
The current Member States of the Paris MOU region are, in alphabetical order: Belgium |
Bulgaria | Canada | Croatia | Cyprus | Denmark | Estonia | Finland | France | Germany | Greece |
Iceland | Ireland | Italy | Latvia | Lithuania | Malta | Netherlands | Norway | Poland | Portugal |
Romania | Russian Federation | Slovenia | Spain | Sweden | United Kingdom
Following on the foundation built by the Paris MOU, several other regional MOUs have been
signed, including the Tokyo MOU (Pacific Ocean)[1], Acuerdo Latino or Acuerdo de Viña del
Mar (South and Central America)[2], the Caribbean MOU[3], the Mediterranean MOU[4], the
Indian Ocean MOU[5], the Abuja MOU (West and Central Atlantic Africa)[6], the Black Sea
MOU[7], and the Riyadh MOU (Persian Gulf)[8].
The United States Coast Guard verifies that all foreign vessels operating in United States waters
are in substantial compliance with international conventions, as well as all applicable U.S. laws,
regulations and treaties. The U.S. is not a member of any Port State Control MOU.
[edit] Detention of ship under Port State Control
Under Port State Control (PSC), inspection of ships in port would be taken by Port State Control
Officer (PSCO). Annual report of Paris MoU reported a total of 74,713 deficiencies were
recorded during port state control inspections in 2007. These deficiencies resulted in 1,250
detentions in the same year.[9] Detention of the ship is the last course of action that a PSCO
would take upon finding deficiencies aboard the vessel.
Courses of action a PSCO may impose on a ship with deficiencies:[10]
1. Deficiencies must be rectified before the ship can depart the port;
2. Under specific conditions, deficiencies can be rectified when the ship arrives at the next port
3. Deficiencies can be rectified within 14 days for minor infractions
4. Detention of the ship
[edit] Contract being discharged under detention
Ships taking visit to port are usually under a certain kind of contract, chartered or responsible for
carrying goods as a carrier. Detention means the ship and the cargo would not be able to perform
the contract according to what is agreed. Ships under detention cannot continue the voyage and
arrive at the destination port as stated in the contract in the specific time assigned in the contract.
As a result of detention the contract is discharged, and it may or may not be discharged by
frustration.
[edit] Contract discharged by frustration
A contract discharged by frustration is well defined in Taylor v Caldwell[11], where the contract
between Taylor and Caldwell is held frustrated. It is because the concert hall which is hired by
Taylor from Caldwell is destructed without fault of either party [12] and the contract is therefore
discharged by frustration.
Discharged by frustration for being out of control
A voyage contract can be discharged by frustration if the ship is beyond the control of the party
involved in the contract.
According to Texas Company v. Hogarth Shipping Corp[13], a voyage charter is carrying out in
1915 while the British government take control of the vessel while the vessel is in British waters.
This requisition resulted in another vessel being hired to perform the contract. The court held that
the original contract is being frustrated as the original vessel is beyond the control of the party
involved.
The case demonstrated the contract can be discharged by frustration while the control of the
subject vessel is under control of a third party which has no relation with the contracted parties.
Discharged by frustration for extremely long time delay
The contract can be discharged by frustration if the detention lasts long enough for the frustration
doctrine to be invoked.[10]
In Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co[14], the contract is held frustrated. When the vessel went
aground and require a time of 8 months to repair the ship, the delay is too long, the cargo can be
shipped by another charter in a much shorter time. The length of the delay is long enough to
provoked the frustration doctrine.
[edit] Self-induced detention cannot discharge the contract
through frustration
The contract cannot be discharged by frustration if it is caused by self-induced false.
Criteria for detaining a ship by PSCO
The main criteria for detention is that the ship is deemed unsafe to proceed to sea and that the
deficiencies on a ship are considered serious by the inspector. These deficiencies must be
rectified before the ship may sail again. In the annual report of Paris MOU [9], it stated that the
major deficiencies are:
1. Certification of crew
2. Safety
3. Maritime Security
4. Marine Pollution and Environment
5. Working and Living Condition
6. Operational
7. Management
These deficiencies are the most common concern of a PSCO. When these deficiencies are clearly
hazardous to safety, health, or the environment, the PSCO would require the hazard to be
rectified before the ship can sail or detain the vessel or even issue a formal prohibition of the ship
to operate.[15]
As these deficiencies are self-induced by the ship operator or the ship owner, detention under
PSC for the reasons listed above is not able to reach a frustration to discharge the contract on the
vessel.
[edit] Short period of detention cannot discharge the
contract through frustration
The contract cannot be discharged by frustration if the time under detention is not long enough to
provoked the frustration doctrine.
PSC requirement upon detaining a ship
The PSC [15] require a ship being detained to remedy the deficiencies which caused the detention.
If the deficiencies cannot be remedied in the port of inspection, the port state would allow the
ship to proceed to another port under special condition. The ship become free of detention only
when all the fee induced by the inspection and detention is paid by the ship-owner.
No party want a long detention
Rationally, both the port state and the ship-owner do not want the ship to be detained for a long
time. For the port state, the hazard of the ship might affect the condition of the port, and the ship-
owner understand the vessel can only make money when it is sailing. Neither party would have
the intention to keep the vessel being detained for an extremely long period of time. Therefore,
the time of detention os normally not long enough to provoke the detention doctrine to discharge
a contract.
[edit] Discharge of contract under detention in PSC usually
do not frustrate the voyage contract
In conclusion, a voyage contract can be frustrated when: The vessel is beyond the control of the
parties in the contract The time delayed is long enough to provoke the frustration doctrine
Under PSC, detention is mostly caused by self-induced deficiencies which is neither
unforeseeable and unexpected, and the time for detention is not likely being long enough to
provoke the frustration doctrine.
Therefore, detention a ship by PSC cannot discharge a voyage contract by frustration.
[edit] Paris MOU NIR
Paris MOU New Inspection Regime [1] is the new point system that the port state control
authorities will use to evaluate vessels risk profile and their management companies
performance. The new evaluation system which will be effective from 1 January 2011. Vessels
are categorized in to three risk profiles. Low, Medium and High risk profile. Depending on the
vessels risk profile the frequency of inspections by the port state control is determined. Free
calculators are available in the web to help managers to evaluate their companies and vessels
performance.
[edit] References
1. ^ "Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region", as
amended 20 November 2008. Available from: http://www.tokyo-mou.org/
2. ^ "Latin American Agreement on Port State Control of Vessels (Viña del Mar, 1992)", as
amended 2008. Available from: http://www.acuerdolatino.int.ar/
3. ^ "Caribbean Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control", 1996. Available
from: http://www.caribbeanmou.org
4. ^ "Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Mediterranean Region",
as amended 27 November 2006. Available from: http://www.medmou.org
5. ^ "Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control", as amended
October 2003. Available from: http://www.iomou.org.
6. ^ "Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control for the West & Central African
Region", 30 October 1998. Available from: http://www.abujamou.org
7. ^ "Black Sea Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control", as amended 01
January 2006. Available from: http://www.bsmou.org
8. ^ "Riyadh Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Gulf Region",
June 2005. Available from: http://www.riyadhmou.org/
9. ^ a b Paris Mou (2007), "Deficiencies per major category", Annual Report 2007 - Paris
MoU on Port State Control, Month Date, pp.22-23.
10. ^ a b Özçayir, Z.O. (2004), "Practical Implication of Port State Control: The Contractual
Effect of Port State Control Detentions". In Mitropoulos, E.E. Port State Control, 2nd ed,
LLP, London, pp.509, 520-521
11. ^ Taylor v Caldwell [1863] 122 ER 309
12. ^ Owen, T. (2009), "Contract Law Concept", [LGT4016] Maritime Law Lecture Note,
p.61.
13. ^ Texas Company v. Hogarth Shipping Corp (1921) 256 U.S. 619
14. ^ Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co (1874) L.R. 10 C.P. 125
15. ^ a b Paris Mou (2009), The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control.
Deficiencies, detentions and rectifications. Available from:
http://www.parismou.org/ParisMOU/Organisation/About+Us/Detention/xp/menu.3961/d
efault.aspx [Accessed: March 11, 2009].
• The Paris Memorandum on Port State Control
• The International Maritime Organization's Port State Control
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_State_Control"
Categories: Port authorities | Ports and harbours | Law of the sea | International law
Personal tools
• New features
Namespaces
• Article
• Discussion
Variants
Views
• Read
• Edit
• View history
Actions
Search
Top of Form
Special:Search
Search
Bottom of Form
Navigation
• Main page
• Contents
• Current events
• Random article
Interaction
• About Wikipedia
• Recent changes
• Help
Toolbox
• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link
• Cite this page
Print/export
• Create a book
• Download as PDF
Languages
• Español
• Nederlands
• 日本語
• Norsk (bokmål)
• Polski
• Svenska
• 中文
• This page was last modified on 28 July 2010 at 04:35.
organization.
• Contact us
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers
Hide
International Maritime Organization

International Maritime
Organization
The IMO flag
Org type UN agency
Acronyms IMO
Head Efthimios E. Mitropoulos
Status active
Established 1959
Headquarters London, United Kingdom
Website www.imo.org
IMO participation Members Associate members Candidates

IMO headquarters in London
Admiralty law
History
Ordinamenta et consuetudo maris

Amalfian Laws
Hanseatic League
Features
Freight rate · General average

Marine insurance · Marine salvage
Maritime lien · Ship mortgage
Ship registration · Ship transport
Shipping
Contracts of affreightment
Bill of lading · Charter-party
Types of charter-party
Bareboat charter · Demise charter

Time charter · Voyage charter
Parties
Carrier · Charterer · Consignee

Consignor · Shipbroker · Ship-
manager
Ship-owner · Shipper · Stevedore
Judiciary
Admiralty court
Vice admiralty court
International conventions
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act

Hague-Visby Rules
Hamburg Rules
Rotterdam Rules
UNCLOS
International organisations
International Maritime
Organization
London Maritime Arbitrators
Association
v • d • e
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), formerly known as the Inter-
Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), was established in Geneva in
1948,[1] and came into force ten years later, meeting for the first time in 1959. The IMCO name
was changed to IMO in 1982.[2]
Headquartered in London, United Kingdom, the IMO is a specialized agency of the United
Nations with 169 Member States and three Associate Members.[2] The IMO's primary purpose is
to develop and maintain a comprehensive regulatory framework for shipping and its remit today
includes safety, environmental concerns, legal matters, technical co-operation, maritime security
and the efficiency of shipping. IMO is governed by an Assembly of members and is financially
administered by a Council of members elected from the Assembly. The work of IMO is
conducted through five committees and these are supported by technical subcommittees.
Member organizations of the UN organizational family may observe the proceedings of the IMO.
Observer status is granted to qualified non-governmental organizations.
The IMO is supported by a permanent secretariat of employees who are representative of its
members. The secretariat is composed of a Secretary-General who is periodically elected by the
Assembly, and various divisions such as those for marine safety, environmental protection, and a
conference section.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 History
• 2 Legal instruments
• 3 Current issues
• 4 Governing bodies
• 5 Secretary-General
• 6 Technical Committees
○ 6.1 Maritime Safety Committee
 6.1.1 Resolutions
• 7 See also
• 8 Notes and references
• 9 Further reading
[edit] History
IMCO was formed to fulfill a desire to bring the regulation of the safety of shipping into an
international framework, for which the creation of the United Nations provided an opportunity.
Hitherto such international conventions had been initiated piecemeal, notably the Safety of Life
at Sea Convention (SOLAS), first adopted in 1914 following the Titanic disaster.[2] IMCO's first
task was to update that Convention; the resulting 1960 Convention was subsequently recast and
updated in 1974 and it is that Convention that has been subsequently modified and updated to
adapt to changes in safety requirements and technology.
When IMCO began its operations in 1958 certain other pre-existing instruments were brought
under its aegis, most notable the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the
Sea by Oil (OILPOL) 1954. Throughout its existence IMCO, renamed the IMO in 1982, has
continued to produce new and updated instruments across a wide range of maritime issues
covering not only safety of life and marine pollution but also encompassing safe navigation,
search and rescue, wreck removal, tonnage measurement, liability and compensation, ship
recycling, the training and certification of seafarers, and piracy. More recently SOLAS has been
amended to bring an increased focus on maritime security through the International Ship and
Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. The IMO has also increased its focus on air emissions from
ships.
In 1983 the IMO established the World Maritime University in Malmö, Sweden.
[edit] Legal instruments
IMO is the source of approximately 60 legal instruments that guide the regulatory development
of its member states to improve safety at sea, facilitate trade among seafaring states and protect
the maritime environment. The most well known is the International Convention for the Safety
of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
IMO regularly enacts regulations, which are broadly enforced by national and local maritime
authorities in member countries, such as the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions
at Sea (COLREG). The IMO has also enacted a Port State Control (PSC) authority, allowing
domestic maritime authorities such as coast guards to inspect foreign-flag ships calling at ports
of the many port states. Memoranda of Understanding (protocols) were signed by some countries
unifying Port State Control procedures among the signatories.
[edit] Current issues
Recent initiatives at the IMO have included amendments to SOLAS, which upgraded fire
protection standards on passenger ships, the International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) which establishes basic requirements on
training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers and to the Convention on the Prevention of
Maritime Pollution (MARPOL 73/78), which required double hulls on all tankers.
In December 2002, new amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention were enacted. These
amendments gave rise to the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, which
went into effect on 1 July 2004. The concept of the code is to provide layered and redundant
defenses against smuggling, terrorism, piracy, stowaways, etc. The ISPS Code required most
ships and port facilities engaged in international trade to establish and maintain strict security
procedures as specified in ship and port specific Ship Security Plans and Port Facility Security
Plans.
The IMO is also responsible for publishing the International Code of Signals for use between
merchant and naval vessels.
The First Intersessional Meeting of IMO’s Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Ships took place in Oslo, Norway (23–27 June 2008), tasked with developing the technical basis
for the reduction mechanisms that may form part of a future IMO regime to control greenhouse
gas emissions from international shipping, and a draft of the actual reduction mechanisms
themselves, for further consideration by IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC).[3]
The IMO has also served as a key partner and enabler of U.S. international and interagency
efforts to establish Maritime Domain Awareness.
[edit] Governing bodies
The governing body of the International Maritime Organisation is the Assembly which meets
every two years. In between Assembly sessions a Council, consisting of 40 Member States
elected by the Assembly, acts as the governing body. The technical work of the International
Maritime Organisation is carried out by a series of Committees. The Secretariat consists of some
300 international civil servants headed by a Secretary-General.[4]
[edit] Secretary-General
The current Secretary-General is Efthimios E. Mitropoulos, elected for a four-year term on 18
June 2003. On 9 November 2006 at the ninety-seventh session of the IMO Council, Mr.
Mitropoulos' mandate was renewed for a further four years until 31 December 2011.[1]
Previous Secretaries-General were:
• 1959 Ove Nielsen (Denmark)
• 1961 William Graham (United Kingdom; acting, following death of Mr Nielsen)
• 1963 Jean Roulier (France)
• 1968 Colin Goad (United Kingdom)
• 1974 C P Srivastava (India)
• 1990 William O'Neil (Canada)
[edit] Technical Committees

The technical work of the International Maritime Organisation is carried out by a series of
Committees. This includes:[4]
• The Marine environment Protection Committee (MEPC)
• The Legal Committee
• The Technical Cooperation Committee, for capacity building
• The Facilitation Committee, to simplify the documentation and formalities
required in international shipping.
[edit] Maritime Safety Committee
It is regulated in the Article 28(b) of the Convention on the IMO:.
The Maritime Safety Committee is the most senior of these and is the main Technical
Committee; it oversees the work of its nine sub-committees and initiates new topics. One broad
topic it deals with is the effect of the human element on casualties; this work has been put to all
of the sub-committees, but meanwhile, the Maritime Safety Committee has developed a code for
the management of ships which will ensure that agreed operational procedures are in place and
followed by the ship and shore-side staff.[4]
The work of the nine sub-committees is described by their titles, as follows:
• Safety of navigation
• Radio communications and, search and rescue
• Standards of training and watch keeping
• Ship design and equipment
• Fire protection
• Stability, load lines and fishing vessel safety
• Flag state implementation
• Dangerous goods, solid cargoes and containers.
• Bulk liquids and gases
The sub-committees work on numerous topics, including, for example, improvements in the
design of passenger ships and the requirements for the stowage and packaging of the vast range
of dangerous goods carried by sea.
[edit] Resolutions
Resolution MSC.255(84) (adopted on 16 May 2008) adopts the Code of the International
Standards and Recommended Practices for a Safety Investigation into a Marine Casualty or
Marine Incident ( Casualty Investigation Code).[5]
[edit] See also
United Nations
portal
• IMO ship identification number

• IMDG code for the carriage of dangerous goods at sea
• International Chamber of Shipping
• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
• Standard Marine Communication Phrases developed by the IMO, to improve
safety at sea
[edit] Notes and references

1. ^ Hoffman, Michael L. "Ship Organization Nears Final Form; U.N. Maritime
Body Expected to Have 3 Principal Organs -- Panama in Opposition," New
York Times. March 4, 1948.
a b c
2. ^ IMO: "About IMO"
3. ^ SustainableShipping: (S) News - IMO targets greenhouse gas emissions (17
Jun 2008) - The forum dedicated to marine transportation and the
environment
a b c
4. ^ http://www.marine.gov.uk/imo.htm
5. ^
http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/circulars_and_notices/pdfs/shipping_circulars/sc
08-13a.pdf
[edit] Further reading

• Mankabady, Samir. (1986). The International Maritime Organization. London:
Routledge. 10-ISBN 0-709-93591-9; 13-ISBN 978-0-709-93591-9
• Nordquist, Myron H. and John Morton Moore. (1999). Current Maritime Issues
and the International Maritime Organization. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers. 10-ISBN 9-041-11293-6; 13-ISBN 978-9-041-11293-4 OCLC:
42652709

• International Maritime Organization
• List of IMO member states on www.imo.org
• IMO: What It Is(2001)
• Convention:
○ status
○ text
[hide]
v • d • e
United Nations (UN)
Member states · Observers · General Assembly · Security

UN System Council · Economic and Social Council · Secretariat (Secretary-
General) · Trusteeship Council · International Court of Justice
Major New York (Headquarters) · Geneva (Office) · Nairobi (Office) ·

offices Vienna (Office)
FAO · ICAO · ILO · IMO · IPCC · IAEA · UNIDO · ITU · UNAIDS ·

Programme SCSL · UNCTAD · UNCITRAL · UNDCP · UNDP · UNEP · UNESCO ·
s and UNODC · UNFIP · UNIFEM · UNFPA · OHCHR · UNHCR · UNHRC ·
agencies UN-HABITAT · UNICEF · UNITAR · UNOSAT · UNRWA · UNWTO ·
UPU · WFP · WHO · WMO
Resolutions General Assembly (UDHR) · Security Council

Bretton Woods system · Charter · Enlargement · Flag · Global
Related
Compact · History · ICC · Laissez-Passer · League of Nations ·
topics
OPCW · Peacekeeping missions · Treaty Series · UN Day
Category · Portal
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Maritime_Organization"

Categories: United Nations specialized agencies | International Maritime
Organization | International water transport | Water transport | Maritime
organizations | Maritime safety | Organizations established in 1948 | Organisations
based in the United Kingdom | Organisations based in London | United States
maritime law
Personal tools
• New features
Namespaces
• Article
• Discussion
Variants
Views
• Read
• Edit
• View history
Actions
Search
Top of Form
Special:Search
Search
Bottom of Form
Navigation
• Main page
• Contents
• Current events
• Random article
Interaction
• About Wikipedia
• Recent changes
• Help
Toolbox
• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link
• Cite this page
Print/export
• Create a book
• Download as PDF
Languages
• ‫العربية‬
• Dansk
• Deutsch
• Eesti
• Ελληνικά
• Español
• Français
• Galego
• 한국어
• Bahasa Indonesia
• Íslenska
• Italiano
• ‫עברית‬
• Magyar
• Bahasa Melayu
• မမမမမမမမမမ
• Nederlands
• 日本語
• Norsk (bokmål)
• Norsk (nynorsk)
• Polski
• Português
• Русский
• Slovenčina
• Slovenščina
• Suomi
• Svenska
• Українська
• 中文
• This page was last modified on 19 July 2010 at 04:25.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
non-profit organization.
• Contact us
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers
Hide
IMO ship identification number

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page.
• It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged
since August 2010.
• It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged
since August 2010.
An IMO ship identification number is an identifying character string with pattern like
"IMO1234567" assigned by the International Maritime Organization to a ship for identification
purposes in order to enhance "maritime safety, and pollution prevention and to facilitate the
prevention of maritime fraud". The identification never changes during the lifetime of the ship
and is never assigned to any other ship,[1] though the ship can have multiple different names, uses
and registries during its lifetime.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Definition
• 2 History
• 3 See also
• 4 References
[edit] Definition
The IMO number consists of a unique, seven-digit number: the pattern is like "NNNNNNN",
where N is a single-digit number, e.g., "1234567". It is assigned to ships by Lloyd's Register -
Fairplay. For example, the IMO ship identification number for the Queen Mary 2 is 9241061.[2]
"Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay (LRF) is the originating source for the IMO Ship Number and is the
sole authority with responsibility for assigning and validating these numbers. The Numbers are
issued from the global maritime databases maintained by LRF and ... LRF manages this scheme
on behalf of the IMO."[3]
[edit] History
Implementation of the numbering scheme became mandatory (through SOLAS regulation XI/3,
adopted in 1994) for "passenger ships of 100 gross tonnage and upwards and all cargo ships of
300 gross tonnage and upwards" from 1 January 1996.[1]
The December 2002 Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Security modified the SOLAS
regulation to require that "... ships' identification numbers to be permanently marked in a visible
place either on the ship's hull or superstructure. Passenger ships should carry the marking on a
horizontal surface visible from the air. Ships should also be marked with their ID numbers
internally."[1]
A vessel's IMO number is also commonly referred to as Lloyds Code within the shipping
industry.
[edit] See also
Nautical portal
• International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

• More than 2350 ships by IMO number in Commons
[edit] References
1. ^ a b c IMO ship identification number scheme
2. ^ Queen Mary 2 Technical Information, p. 2.
3. ^ LRFairplay

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Ships by IMO number
• IMO Circular Letter on the IMO Ship identification number scheme

• Request form for an IMO number
• IMO Identification Number website
• Shipfinder Online (subscription required)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMO_ship_identification_number"

Categories: Law of the sea | International Maritime Organization | Ship identification numbers |
IMO Number
Hidden categories: Wikipedia articles needing rewrite from August 2010 | Articles needing
cleanup from August 2010 | All pages needing cleanup
Personal tools
• New features
Namespaces
• Article
• Discussion
Variants
Views
• Read
• Edit
• View history
Actions
Search
Top of Form
Special:Search
Search
Bottom of Form
Navigation
• Main page
• Contents
• Current events
• Random article
Interaction
• About Wikipedia
• Recent changes
• Help
Toolbox
• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link
• Cite this page
Print/export
• Create a book
• Download as PDF
Languages
• Deutsch
• Nederlands
• Norsk (bokmål)
• This page was last modified on 19 August 2010 at 14:18.
organization.
• Contact us
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

Flag of Convenience

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Flag of Convenience

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Flag of convenience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The drilling rig Deepwater Horizon flew a Marshallese flag of convenience.[30]

• Database on reported incidents of abandonment of seafarers

>The Hong Kong Shipping Register

Hong Kong Shipping Register User's Handbook

1.2 Application for ship registration in Hong Kong

1.3 Definition of a Ship

1.4 Key matters relating to registration of ships in Hong Kong

A ship is registrable in Hong Kong when :

A qualified person must be

There are three types of registration, viz:

1.12 Annual Tonnage Charge (ATC) Reduction Scheme

Reference: Merchant Shipping Information Note No. 9/2006

1.13 Ship's name and marking

1.14 Colours of a registered ship

1.15 Changes must be notified to the Registrar

1.16 Taxation of shipping profits

Reference: Merchant Shipping Information Note No. 19/2005

1.17 Preferential port dues

Reference: Merchant Shipping Information Note No. 2/2000

1.18 Consular assistance

Reference: Merchant Shipping Information Note 33/2004

Last revision date : 17 Septem

Port State Control

Wikipedia is getting a new look.

International Maritime Organization

Jump to: navigation, search

Org type UN agency

Head Efthimios E. Mitropoulos

Headquarters London, United Kingdom

IMO participation Members Associate members Candidates

Ordinamenta et consuetudo maris

Freight rate · General average

Bareboat charter · Demise charter

Carrier · Charterer · Consignee

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act

[edit] Technical Committees

• IMO ship identification number

[edit] Notes and references

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links

United Nations (UN)

Member states · Observers · General Assembly · Security

Major New York (Headquarters) · Geneva (Office) · Nairobi (Office) ·

FAO · ICAO · ILO · IMO · IPCC · IAEA · UNIDO · ITU · UNAIDS ·

Resolutions General Assembly (UDHR) · Security Council

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Maritime_Organization"

IMO ship identification number

• International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

[edit] External links

• IMO Circular Letter on the IMO Ship identification number scheme

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMO_ship_identification_number"

S-ar putea să vă placă și