o t State ju

sd ct o de
to
Port
jurisdiction
definition
Article 218 UNCLOS

Port State control (PSC) - the inspection of foreign ships

in national ports to verify that:
the condition of the ship and its equipment comply
with the requirements of international regulations
and that the ship is manned and operated in
compliance with these rules

Both IMO conventions and UNCLOS contain rules on PSC

Final
Fi l Safety
S f
net but
b not a guarantee against
i
accidents
id

Three grounds for PS intervention:

On its own initiative (Regional cooperation)
At the request of the Flag State (FS) or coastal State (CS)
Following an outside complaint
ILO nr 147 (working
(
g conditions)) information by
y crew,,
trade union, etc

Article 226 Any physical inspection of the vessel

is limited to an examination of such certificates,

records or other documents as the vessel is
required to carry (Unless clear grounds)

Not longer than necessary

Regional cooperation between maritime

authorities:
Paris MOU and other
www.parismou.org

Internal waters = full sovereignty

French principle/non-intervention

Right to prescribe conditions for admission

into port: Articles 25(2) and 211(3)
Article 218 jurisdiction to initiate
proceedings for violations in other States TS
and EEZ
United States practice: Royal Carribean

Article 211(3) versus right of innocent

p
passage?
g
Voluntarily in the port
No obligation on PS to take measures (as far
as practicable)
Article 228 suspension of proceedings
FS may overtake

Conditions for PS jurisdiction to institute

proceedings:
Requested by the damaged CS or FS
Or the PS in question is damaged itself

Is there obligation to communicate with FS?

as far as practicable (Art. 218(3))

What else can PS do?

A vessell iin violation

i l i
off seaworthiness
hi
rules
l may b
be
prevented from sailing or ordered to proceed to the nearest
repair yard

Coastal State jurisdiction definition

Article 220(1) voluntarily in the port of the
CS
Limited jurisdiction to impose and enforce
safety rules in respect to foreign ships
passing along its coastline

Art. 211(4) UNCLOS: [Anti-pollution]laws shallnot hamper

innocent passage of foreign vessels
CS may prescribe rules on (Article 21)

safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic

the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the
prevention, reduction and control of pollution

CS can establish sealanes and traffic separation schemes

thereof
But may not legislate on design, construction, manning or
equipment standards(CDEM)

Can CS adopt stricter discharge standards than

international standards? = MARPOL

Are only wilful and serious discharges prohibited in the

TS?

What if the passage is not innocent?

Wilful and serious pollution in TS

CS may take the necessary steps in its

territorial sea to prevent passage which is
not innocent
Enforcement in relation to pollution
violations: Article 220 (2)

Right to stop, inspect and board the ship

See also Article 27 UNCLOS on criminal jurisdiction

Area adjacent to the territorial sea up to 200 nm

from the baselines
Confers rights and jurisdiction on the CS with
respect to extraction of natural resources, Art. 56,
Art. 73
E.g.protect itself against illegal fisheries and pollution of
marine environment

Part XII: jurisdiction

with respect to marine
j
ll
pollution
Otherwise, no jurisdiction under UNCLOS against
foreign vessels in the EEZ (?)

Art. 211(5): only conforming to and

g
g effect to g
p
giving
generallyy accepted
international
rules and standards established through the

competent international organization

Very limited enforcement jurisdiction

depending
p
g on the seriousness of p
pollution
(Article 220)
Request information from the ship
Substantial pollution physical inspection
Major damage - detention

Torrey Canyon:

1969 International Convention on the Intervention

on High Seas in cases of Oil Pollution Casualties

Rules on detention and release of vessels and

crews (Article 226)
Suspension and taking over proceedings by
flag State
Monetary penalties in most cases (Article
230)

Flag State may overtake proceedings within 6

months unless:
violation within TS of the State instituting
proceedings
Major damage to the environment
Flag State repeatedly disregarded its obligation to
enforce effectively ...

Proceedings
penalties
on foreign
g to impose
p
p
g
vessels to be instituted within three years
from the date of violation

2. Monetary penalties only may be imposed

p
with respect
to violations of national laws and
regulations or applicable international rules
and standards for the prevention, reduction
and control of pollution of the marine
environment, committed by foreign vessels in
the territorial sea, except in the case of a
wilful and serious act of pollution in the
territorial sea.

What happens if the flag State violates

discharge standards while sailing on the high
seas?
Mainly up to the FS:

a ship is a foreign state territory, a floating island of

that State
Generally prohibited to take action against the foreign
vessel and the crew on the high seas
Art. 27: penal and disciplinary jurisdiction in case of
incident of navigation is held by the FS or state of
masters nationality
Exception: Art. 110 right of visit (suspect of piracy,
slavery, ship without flag)

Right of hot pursuit, Art. 111

Good reason to believe that the ship violated the

laws of the CS
Commenced while ship is still in the IW, TS or CZ
Not interrupted
Ceases when the pursued ship enters the TS of
another State

International Convention Relating to Intervention

on the High Seas in case of Oil Pollution casualties
(1969):

Torry Canyon (1969) first disaster involving a supertanker

CS can take measures on the high seas to protect their own

coastline
Subject to a number of obligations (e.g. consultations
before taking
g measures))
Liability for excessive measures (in Torrey Canyon:
bombardment, heavy detergents)

10

Section 7 Safeguards:
Enforcement can only be exercised by military or
government crafts (Art. 224)

Duty to avoid adverse consequences (Art. 225)

Investigation
g
of vessels (Art.
(
226))

Non-discrimination with respect to foreign vessels

(Art. 227)

Recognized rights of the accused must be observed

Art. 230(3)
= human rights? E.g. ECHR

Prestige disaster: Mangouras v Spain (ECHR), 8

January 2009

Disproportionate security taking into account his personal

situation ( 3 million )

ECtHR:

amount of the security,

y, although
g high,
g , was not
disproportionate taking into account the legal interest
protected, the seriousness of the crime in question and the
catastrophic consequences from both an environmental and
an economic point of view deriving from the spilling of the
cargo.

11