Home > Free Essays > Law > Homeland Security > Legislative Critique on Maritime Port and Security Act 2002
Cite this

Legislative Critique on Maritime Port and Security Act 2002 Evaluation Essay


The legislative commission chair, Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee chairperson and Intelligence agency head backed Maritime Port and Security Act 2002. The Act incorporates the numerous national, state, confined and personal regulations enforcement bureaus managing the sanctuary of the global boundaries at America’s harbors.

The statement permits additional defense detectives, extra testing paraphernalia, and the construction of key protection communications at seaports. The bill aims at keeping the American borders safe and assuring the business community of their security. The governing body in charge of Commerce collectively accepted a prior report of the Port and Maritime Security Act on August 2, 2001, which paid attention on felony, freight robbery, and smuggling.

Subsequent to 9/11, the statement was radically extended to tackle the latest danger of bombing at America’s docks. The Bush government sanctioned the fresh bill on 12/6, and the Senate endorsed it undisputedly on Dec. 20, 2001. The House of Representatives approved the statement on June 4, 2002.

The convention accomplished its mission on November 12, and its findings fired to the Senate for deliberation. This essay examines the provisions of the bill and effects resulting from their application. The paper proceeds to examine the strengths and weaknesses while attempting to review the bill.

Provisions of the Bill

The law stipulates that the Secretary in charge of shipping will carry out an evaluation of every yacht and goods on or close to the sea to note those at danger of being engaged in a shipping safety event. A haulage safety event implies a precaution occasion ensuing from a major manslaughter, ecological harm, hauling structure distraction, or financial disorder in a specific region.

Formerly, the susceptible transportation is noted, and temporary defense procedures are espoused while the shoreline security will carry out exhaustive susceptibility evaluation of yachts and facilities. The bill gives room for creation of a countrywide Maritime Transportation defense arrangement, regional sea Transportation safety and shoreline security, which will be sufficient to discourage a shipping defense occurrence to the greatest degree (Arun, 2003).

Regional strategies will besides be created to include emergency reaction to possible rebel harassment. The bill sets up an endowment plan to create just and unbiased allotment to docks administration, harbors equipments to workers, as well as national and confined organizations to offer defense infrastructures and services.

It further sanctions funding for diverse categories of safety improvements including compensation for advances that are in conformity with centralized state and regional defense strategies that have been created since9/11, 2001. The bill sought to approve essential funds to facilitate compliance from beneficiaries as demanded by the centralized defense Act.

The legislation calls upon the management to suggest financial support stages for seaport safety tactics and consents to yearly information in line with conformity to the defense order provided in the act. The act therefore empowers $90 million in studies and growth funding to be issued to build up techniques to augment the capacity of the U.S. Customs Service to examine goods in every ship.

The research aims at coming up with apparatus for identifying nuclear equipments civilizing the labels and seals utilized in shipping such as stylish sensors for providing footpath to consignments and paraphernalia for reducing the chances of rebel attacks.

The bill integrates a Coast Guard authorization bill, which happens to be the foremost seaside authorization bill that has been voted for by the Congress ever since 1998. The bill sanctions roughly $6 billion dollars for the Coast Guard’s entire financial plan for financial year 2003. This is around $1billion higher as compared to the total allocated in the Financial Year 2002 haulage appropriations bill, moreover it is just about $200 million higher than the $5.8 billion of entire endorsed sum in Financial Year 2002.

The bill enlarges the utmost end-of-year vigor to 45,500 dynamic duty martial recruits, up and about from 35,500 comprising employee enticements. The bill consents to $33 million for the expansion of defense teaching and for the edification and documentation of centralized, national, and personal defense staff.

It authorizes the Secretary of shipping to build up a syllabus for teaching and values for the documentation of naval defense experts. The values are to be created through discussions with the centralized law providing teaching hub over and above defense and police organizations, personal groups, and those with freight and naval defense knowledge.

This teaching may perhaps be offered at every state naval military institute, the United States commercial maritime college, the Appalachian shipping association, and other defense teaching institutions. These training prospects could be offered to naval defense staff in the United States and to employees working in overseas harbors utilized by ships with United States people as travelers and team associates.

The bill entails the enlargement of a naval aptitude structure to gather and evaluate data pertaining to ships operating in waters under the power of the United States and the team, travelers and cargoes ferried. A naval intelligence organization will be projected to work jointly with other bureaus and to gather and examine data not accessible through other intelligence sources.

Weaknesses of the Act

Foreign Vessels

There is no supreme authority controlling global shipping. MTSA demands the seaside security to account for oversees-flag ships occupying the U.S. harbors, exclusively those ships with shadowy ownership records, and to account for measures employed to address the lucidity of ship registration measures (section 112).

Within December 2002, as indicated above, the IMO espoused rigorous global values for the protection of ships and harbors. The Congress is expected to scrutinize the usefulness of seaside security and global attempts at elevating the defense level of vessel workers. Critiques challenge that the latest IMO policies generally suggest the false impression of improved safety.

They argue that states do not have the resolution to implement these values and that the conformity to certification is easily maneuvered in order to look as legitimate workers. Whereas the United States insists on its values when the seaside security chooses incoming ships for entering, their trouble is bigger if there is no efficient global transport system that pre-screens inferior delivery.

Roles and Responsibilities

A key worry for U.S. strategists is handing over tasks and errands to naval defense among centralized organizations, among central, state, and confined organizations, and between administration bureaus and personal business. Patent tasks and errands are required to avoid reiteration, repetition of tasks, and contradictory rules.

It is important that the naval operation society recognize that national organizations are working in concert, or else the DHS’s objective of a secure joint venture with private sector in combating terrorism may possibly be perturbed.

Intelligence Sharing

The obscurity of identifying terrorist action by the moment it penetrates the sea structure may perhaps point the importance of intelligence. The majority admits that there is presently excessively a lot consignment, coming from the entire world. To inspect every batch systematically might be time consuming.

Detecting terrorist actions probably needs actionable or accurate intelligence in discovering precisely the consignment to seize. The GAO intelligence, in exterior haulage, appropriate information distribution has been hindered by deficiency of typical procedure to swap information among national, state, and local administrative bureaus and clandestine units.

On top of hurdles to more successful intelligence, distribution with confined docks authorities could be that state and local administration representatives do not have the vital defense approval.

Funding Port Security

In the minds of several people, the unanswered question over how to reimburse funds for docks precautions halts the attempts to develop port safety. The dispute is over whether seaport defense should be compensated for with funds from central government, by state and local governments, by the marine sector, or by a charge sharing agreement among every stakeholder.

The seashore security approximately guesses the price of executing the new IMO defense policy and the protection requirements in MTSA to be around $1.5 billion for the foremost year and $7.3 billion over the subsequent decade. Congress has availed over $650 million in the course of 2005 financial year.

Supporters for extra expenditure dispute that the centralized finances granted to docks administration are consequently insufficient, mainly when contrasted to airdromes. Critiques of extra expenditure disagree that taxpayers should not grant resources to huge and commercial conglomerates to defend infrastructure that is in their own monetary concern.

Sources of Funds

An argument over how to fund defense necessities cropped at some point in the consultation commission on MTSA. Senator Hollings projected the establishment a structure of client bill on ship consignment as a way of sourcing finances for docks safety improvement essential in the implementation. Other committee members differed with this suggestion, terming the client charge a levy.

A number of policymakers challenge that without availing a financial support, the bill results to an unfulfilled command. Seaport administrators, marine haulers, and ship owners’ dispute that, docks safety is a national worry and thus the central government must fund it through common revenues (Krouse, 2004).

Others disagree that the marine industry should fund docks defense through client charge since it is a direct receiver of better safety, as it cuts down consignment robbery and other financially viable costs. Supporters of client charge challenge that customer surcharges are an efficient way of guaranteeing enhanced defense since they would offer an additionally safe and unsurprising source of money as opposed to yearly estimates.

They suggest that a docks safety reliance account be established in a way that thwarts any efforts of the consumer charges from being exhausted on something other than docks safety. If such a seaport dependence account were formed, they dispute, docks defense would not have to battle with other grant precedence in the yearly budget procedure.

Various financial analysts assert that a customer charge arrangement is furthermore professional than straight financial assistance since the consumers of the service being offered, (in this case docks defense) are expected to claim that policymakers use the finances in the most prolific way.

Strengths of the Bill

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

In the midst of agendas CBP has instigated to respond to the terrorist risk are the Container refuge program and the Customs-Trade enterprise alongside terrorism. Container program is a progression of joint, mutual accords that, alongside other things, permit CBP staff at chosen overseas docks to pre-screen U.S.-bound cargo.

Consecutively, it provides supervisors with records and time they require to pre-screen cargo. CBP gave out a fresh decree obliging that information regarding to an ocean consignment is sent out to CBP 24 hours prior to loading the consignment at an overseas docks onto a U.S.-bound ship. Formerly, marine haulers did not present this data until the vessel arrived at U.S. docks.

CBP is furthermore demanding more inclusive and precise consignment information so that it can competently assess individual cargo batch for possibility of bombing. Extra exhaustive information is anticipated to facilitate rapid non-intrusive scrutiny of sky-scraping peril cargos by reducing the figure of cargo assessor requirement for closer inspection.

The justification for Container program is that a nuclear bludgeon or a radiological faulty explode that penetrates a U.S. seaport may perhaps be exploded prior to inspection (O’Rourke, 2006). Customs-Trade enterprise instigated in April 2002 allows importers to expedite dispensation of goods if they conform to CBP rules for protecting their total supply chain.

Companies that adhere to the plan are expected, among other things, to carry out an inclusive evaluation of their delivery chain and surrender a fulfilled feedback form to CBP that illustrate their recent safety practices. If CBP confirm a candidate, they might gain from a condensed quantity of consignment examination, thus tumbling the possibility of consignment holdup.

Transportation Security Administration

The Transportation Security Administration in concurrence with CBP is carrying out the Operation Safe Commerce (OSC) direct plan. The aim of OSC is to validate the stuffing of containers at their place of packing, guarantee the substantial reliability of containers on shipment, and monitor their progress in the course of every form of transportation from source to ultimate end.

Container monitoring is an important part of discussion about consignment safety. A range of stylish container handling procedures are being molded which will facilitate synchronized positioning of information and cargo meddling warning. The problem lies on coming up with a device that can endure the insensitive marine milieu, be comparatively economical, and consistent adequately so as not to elicit fake alarms (Loy & Ross, 2002).

TSA is furthermore experimenting with a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) for staff in all approaches to haulage that will be utilized in managing admission to protected vicinities of consignment and commuter services. The organization has devised a marine Self-evaluating t threat component to support seaport terminal and yacht proprietors in increasing their safety tactics as mandated by MTSA.


The bill introduced in 2002 only modified the previous provisions by perfecting some chapters and doing away with some. The bill generally was meant to combat the emerging security threat on terrorism. By assessing its strengths and weaknesses, it is established that the Act has a long way to go before it terrorism threats at seaports are dealt with. Many amendments ought to be made so that the bill can operate globally.

As it stands now, the Act is looked upon with numerous hostilities especially from the owners of vessels from Middle East. The business community is not left behind either, they claim that inspection is time consuming which can end up causing heavy losses to perishable goods. The bill has a side effect to economic development even though it strives to increase the safety at seaport.


Arun, C. (2003). An Overview of Security Issues Involving Marine Containers and Ports: proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Web.

Krouse, W. (2004). . CRS Report RL31549. Web.

Loy, J. & Ross, G. (2002). Global Trade, America’s Achilles Heel, Defense Horizons.

O’Rourke, R. (2006). , CRS Report RS21125. Web.

This evaluation essay on Legislative Critique on Maritime Port and Security Act 2002 was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.

Need a custom Evaluation Essay sample written from scratch by
professional specifically for you?

Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar

301 certified writers online

Cite This paper

Select a referencing style:


IvyPanda. (2019, July 20). Legislative Critique on Maritime Port and Security Act 2002. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/legislative-critique-on-maritime-port-and-security-act-2002/

Work Cited

"Legislative Critique on Maritime Port and Security Act 2002." IvyPanda, 20 July 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/legislative-critique-on-maritime-port-and-security-act-2002/.

1. IvyPanda. "Legislative Critique on Maritime Port and Security Act 2002." July 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legislative-critique-on-maritime-port-and-security-act-2002/.


IvyPanda. "Legislative Critique on Maritime Port and Security Act 2002." July 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legislative-critique-on-maritime-port-and-security-act-2002/.


IvyPanda. 2019. "Legislative Critique on Maritime Port and Security Act 2002." July 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legislative-critique-on-maritime-port-and-security-act-2002/.


IvyPanda. (2019) 'Legislative Critique on Maritime Port and Security Act 2002'. 20 July.

More related papers