Introduction
Maritime law plays a vital role in ensuring cargo, passenger and vessel safety. In addition to ensuring standards are kept for sea faring vessels, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) provides standardized guideline for ensuring compliance to various conventions which cover all aspects of inspection and safety. This are important conventions for vessels particularly the one in question for cruising through different ports, countries, sea zones with different weather conditions, in addition to providing certificates of authentification for these vessels.
Abstract
The report provides detailed information on various aspects covered by the International Maritime Organization and other bodies affiliate to the organization. The ship was to adhere to these conventions as a requirement for seafaring. Inspection reports indicated the seaworthiness of the ship in view of the fact that it complied with conventions such as the International Convention on Load Lines (LL), 1966, International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG), 1972, Standards for Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978, among others. The need to adhere to these regulations is of vital importance. Ships which adhere to these conventions find it easy to comply with diverse requirements when visiting different countries and when docking in different ports based on verified certificates carried onboard. A cost benefit analysis indicates that compliance with these standards is counterproductive on various fronts.
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) was a body developed to deal with Marine Surveying, Inspection, and Safety practices for seaborne vessels. This body was mandated to oversee the implementation of maritime laws, standards and regulations developed over time culminating in the successive development of other conventions and resolutions covered and regulated by IMO over the years. In addition to other maritime bodies new conventions had been developed with new protocols. According to Mankabady (120) the International Maritime Organization (IMO) was mandated to develop and adopt maritime conventions enforceable by each government signatory to the organization. Binding upon the new vessel were the regulations set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). This could qualify the 37,000 mt dwt product tanker with the following particulars: Draft- 11.5m; LOA-180m; Beam-26m; Tanks-14 [12+2 (slops)]; GRT-20,300; NRT-10,150; Double hull construction, to cruise in different zones, ports, waterways, and seasons.
The importance of these conventions and rules was to address the need to access different ports in different countries based on uniform rules and standards acceptable to destination ports or countries in addition to maintaining such standard as to ensure the safety for ships and ships’ crew en-route in the high seas and when docking in different ports. These conventions resulted in drastic reduction in the number of seaborne accidents involving ships and passengers due to improved technical requirements based on IMO’s standards. These conventions dealt with vessels on international and localized voyages. These standards were applicable on cargo ships while the international convention for safety of life at sea was applicable on passenger carrying vessels.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) developed a list of conventions and standards to be adhered to by signatory countries which had ratified the convention upon acceptance and approval. These conventions dealt with Maritime safety, Marine surveying and pollutions, Inspection, Liabilities and compensations. In addition, the organization had developed a technical manual for Technical Corporation with the signatory countries to help them comply with Marine surveying, Inspection and safety practices and standards (Mankabady 120). The organization provided advanced co-operation and training for men and women in safety, training, surveying, inspection, environmental protection, and technical co-operation. Technical cooperation with member countries lead to improved performance in Maritime surveying, inspection, and safety practices. These were incorporated in the organization’s millennium development goals with a technical cooperation programme integrated in its mission statement.
Enforcement of these conventions was vitally important and depended on the designate country which had ratified the conventions. Therefore the new ship is required to adhere to these requirements when cruising in different countries. These countries may impose penalties for ships which infringe upon maritime laws, standards and provisions of IMO. Certain IMO conventions emphasize on the need to carry certificates of authentication onboard as proof from authorities of inspection and adherence to IMO standards and requirements. These conventions ensure and guarantee safety for any ship crew based on the 1974 SOLAS convention. The convention calls upon any officer in charge of a ship to ensure that a ship sets sail only when it is certified to be out of any danger to the crew. The convention also calls upon authorities to conduct inspections on ships if certain requirements are not met and there is a clear indication of violations of maritime laws regarding the safety of crew for the particular ship. In addition, the convention calls upon authorities to conduct an inspection on a ship in the event the certificate presented is of questionable integrity and authenticity. However, such inspections are subject to the jurisdiction of the state where the ship has anchored. In the event of an offense occurring within a state’s jurisdiction, proceeding can take place in accordance with the hosting state’s laws in view of the offence occurring within its jurisdiction. Infringement of a maritime law may occur in a different state from the flag state. This situation dictates that the host state conduct legal proceedings or provide details of the offences to the flag state to conduct appropriate legal proceedings on the offending party. This is based on the 1969 convention in matters of intervention in High seas. Noteworthy is the fact that these conventions are enforced by countries signatory to the convention on based on IMO guidelines.
However many changes have been done on the body including that of 1978. The organization was mandated with the responsibilities of training and certification besides offering examinations in the relevant areas. These changes culminated in the London Protocol tailored to gradually replace IMO.
International Maritime Organization (IMO) Conventions
According to Mankabady (195), IMO is responsible for three basic conventions. These include the maritime safety based on the organization’s structure and ability to influence mother countries enforce the regulations, marine pollution which deals with dumping of wastes and other materials into the sea, and the convention which deals with liability and compensation.
Maritime Safety
Seafaring is a challenging task. It calls upon ships to adhere to the standards and regulations to ensure safety. That was with the case with the 37,000 mt dwt product tanker with the following particulars: Draft- 11.5m; LOA-180m; Beam-26m; Tanks-14 [12+2 (slops)]; GRT-20,300; NRT-10,150; Double hull construction. Accurate data indicates that seafarers are bound to unforgiving sea accidents calling upon direct action from the International maritime Organization (IMO) on a concerted effort to prevent such undesirable happenings. According to Mankabady (78), one of the conventions covering the safety for such ships was the 1974 International Convention for Life at Sea commonly referred to as (SOLAS). This convention applies for ships with a gross tonnage of over 500 gross tonnages. Viewed as the most important of all the conventions on maritime safety, it was adopted on 17th June, 1960. Made in IMO, the treaty provided a modern approach to ensuring maritime safety covering such vessels as the vessel in question.
According to Mankabady (82), adhering to this convention could considerably protect the vessel form damages and other sea accidents. This is in addition to, legislations enacted in many of these countries signatory to IMO conventions which could host the vessel in question.
The convention specifies standards and regulations for the vessel to adhere to when preparing to go to sea. Equipments have to remain compatible with established standards to ensure the sea fare’s safety. The flag state is required to ensure that the vessel has undergone inspection to meet SOLAS requirements. An inspection report revealed general SOLAS specifications and requirements the vessel was required to adhere to. These included general regulations based on identifying the type of ship. Based on this requirement, the ship was identified with the description: Draft- 11.5m; LOA-180m; Beam-26m; Tanks-14 [12+2 (slops)]; GRT-20,300; NRT-10,150; Double hull construction.In addition, documents issued when an inspection was conducted about the ship’s compliance to specifications as per chapter one of 1974 SOLAS convention certified compliance. Chapter two of the convention called upon an inspection report requiring details of construction and compliance to the relevant standards. This entailed assessing the ship’s stability to determine its behavior when out at sea. In addition to carrying out a thorough inspection of the ship’s electrical installations and their safety, installed machinery was inspected to ascertain they conformed to the standards and requirements stipulated in the 1974 SOLAS convention. According to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (2), inspection conducted on the ship included determining the ship’s stability as a key requirement by ensuring that it remained afloat in the event of damage to its hull and that when damaged, water cold not seep into the ships compartments. Requirements for water tight integrity were verified against the ship’s design. In addition, subdivisions of adjacent bulkheads were verified to comply with the 1974 SOLAS convention by determining the degree of subdivisions (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 2). The ship satisfactorily met the requirements. According to International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (2), the subdivisions were according to SOLAS standards as contained in IMO. In addition to that, the subdivisions were consistent with the length of the ship and the service for which it was made.
Electrical installations were inspected and the requirements for the ship were met. Machinery was inspected and found to comply with the SOLAS 1974 standard guaranteeing safety to the crew. To maintain safety for the ship’s crew during emergencies, installed machinery and electrical installations were design in a manner to reflect those requirements. An inspection report revealed that machinery and other critical installations was complied with SOLAS 1974 convention. Special emphasis was placed on the degree of accuracy a ship cruised with the deepest draft at the highest speed. Tests conducted on the steering wheel indicted that it could turn within an angle of 35 degrees on one side and swing to the other side within 30 degrees in a period of 28 seconds. This met the SOLAS 1974 requirements on steering gear flexibility. In addition, the report cited compliance with the International Maritime Conventions (IMO).
International Convention on Load Lines (LL), 1966
The safety of the ship in question could depend on the draught to which it is loaded. This covers issues such as watertight integrity in addition to external weather tight qualities given as freeboards. According to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (2), the first convention on watertight was adopted in 1930 based on the concept of reserve buoyancy in addition to freeboard provisions providing adequate stability to the ship. This ensured that a ship was able to endure excessive loading without breaking its hull. A summary of the status of the convention is given on the table below.
Table of a summary of status of convention:
Different zones and countries presented different challenges with existing potential hazards. This was covered in the convention by incorporating regional hazards and seasonal changes. According to International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (3), safety measures covering the construction and standards regarding doors, hatchways among other integral components of the ship were covered in the technical requirements and standard. Of fundamental importance was for the safety measures put in place to certify that the ship was watertight in its hull below the freeboard. Appropriate markings had been made on the middle of the ship and along its load lines. This was to comply with the requirements demanding that a ship be marked with a line on its deck line and around the whole body.
According to International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (3), the load line 1966 annexes covered general issues regarding a ship’s construction and safety, appropriate conditions of assignment of freeboards. It further covered detailed description of Freeboards in addition to the special requirements on ships with timber freeboards. In addition, International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (4) describes what the international convention on load lines (LL) 1966 asserts as Annex II, and Annex III. Annex II covers regional variations in season, zones, and standards. Different regions presented different challenges in terms of seasons, standards, and zonal requirements. Annex III contained requirements for international load line markings according to the (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 4).
Successive amendments to the convention culminated in the 1966 LL for amelioration by mother countries to the convention. These conventions could be adopted by IMO in a period of 12 months. Nevertheless, some of the conventions were poorly accepted calling upon certain amendments in the matter of language used in the draft documents. This was the case with the 1971 amendments covering specific zones with varied seasons. In addition, the 1975 amendment introduced the principle of tacit acceptance with regard to the original 1966 LL convention for positive acceptance. On further consideration by the Maritime Safety committee (IMO), an amendment was recommended that covered issues of boundary and regional alterations. That was the case with the coastal boundaries of Australia. In addition, the amendments were required to cover zones in the southern parts off the coast of Chile as was envisaged in the 1983 conventions.
It was twelve years before the 1988 tacit amendment came into force. This protocol was adopted on 11th November 19888 and came into force on 3rd February 2000. According to International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (5), the primary aim of the protocol was to certify that requirements constituted in the SOLAS and MARPOL 73/74 and harmonized in the survey in the mentioned amendments were met.
The amendment required a ship to be out of service for several days before inspection was completed for the provision of a certificate showing compliance to the standards and other requirements. Inspection dates must be in harmony with survey dates to allow destination ports accept the docking ship. The certificate further exonerates a ship from further inspections on its voyages as long as the dates comply and coincide with the required inspection dates unless in connection with another instrument. This was in addition to the 1988 treaty which provided guidelines for adoption. Such amendments could be considered by IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee. On the other hand a Conference of Parties may be responsible for deciding on the adoption procedure for the amendment.
The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (5) contends that two-thirds majority of the Parties to the Convention form the required vote to adopt an amendment. Upon acceptance, a period not less than six months is required for an amendment to enter into force. However, a year must have elapsed before the adoption date after a communication over the amendment issue had been entered upon. This is so unless two-thirds majority vote rejects the amendment. Further still, a period of twelve years must elapse before the adoption enforcement of the amendment takes effect.
Other additional amendments included the 1995 amendment adopted on 23rd November 1995 enforceable twelve months after the date of adoption after a two thirds majority vote by the contracting Governments. This was superseded by the 2003 amendments, adopted in the month of June 2003 enforceable on 1st January 2005. According to Mankabady (250), this amendment covered important revisions such as the strength and stability of a ship. The detailed information covered:
“superstructure and bulkheads; doors; position of hatchways, doorways and ventilators; hatchway coamings; hatch covers; machinery space openings; miscellaneous openings in freeboard and superstructure decks; cargo ports and other similar openings; spurling pipes and cable lockers; side scuttles; windows and skylights; calculation of freeing ports; protection of the crew and means of safe passage for crew; calculation of freeboard; sheer; minimum bow height and reserve buoyancy; and others.
The amendments, which amount to a comprehensive revision of the technical regulations of the original Load Lines Convention, do not affect the 1966 LL Convention and only apply to approximately those ships flying the flags of States Party to the 1988 LL Protocol.” P 8
For maritime safety, other conventions covered included the prevention of collisions out in the sea. This was the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG), 1972.
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG), 1972
The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG), 1972, like other conventions provided by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) covered definitive rules and legal requirements based on various jurisdictions. This convention consisted of Part A stipulating General rules, Part B which covered steering and sailing rules, Part C which covered Lights and shapes, and Part D which covered sounds and signals. Part E covered Exemption, and Annexes which covered such issues as distress signals, technical details and compliances, lighting and their positioning on a ship, and other details for different types of ships.
General Requirements
According to Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (3), these requirements were binding upon all sea going vessels. The rules were binding upon all sea going vessels without the possibility of interfering with special rules made by the host authorities. The provision exonerated any interference on rules made by the host Governments on signal lights, shape of a vessel, and whistle signals. According to the article, Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (3), traffic separation may be based on schemes adopted by the organization in question. In addition, the act calls upon vessels to comply with the provisions of arc visibility, shape and sound signaling appliances. These were the general applications based on Part-A requirements. The requirements called upon parties to the signatory to comply with the consequences of neglect be it with the crew, master of a ship or whoever was bound with the responsibility of the ship. In addition to that, compliance called upon due consideration of navigation and collision dangers with regard to any special circumstances that may unfold in view of the sea vessel indicating a radical departure from these rules (Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 4). Contained in the IMO conventions, the Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 4) asserts that the steering and sailing rules envisages general definitions of a vessel as affirmed by rule three. The Definition covered all those vessels including displacement and non-displacement crafts for the purpose of sea transportation. The article Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (4) provides a definite description of a power propelled vessel as one whose propulsion relies on machinery with a sailing vessel defined as one fitted with machinery which provides the power for propulsion.
The vessel complied with those descriptions based on the inspection report. In addition to that, the article on Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (4) provides an in-depth description and definitions of various terms such as “vessel under command”, “sea plane” in addition to other definitions as covered in the IMO conventions for sea faring ships.
A detailed description of other definitions of a sea going vessel covers issues of a vessel’s draught based on the available depth of water or seaway, underway covering of a ship not anchored or grounded, a ship on sight based on visual observation of one ship and another or others. The convention provides a definition for limited visibility which envisages a limitation due to fog or any other object deemed an obstacle to visual observation of another vessel. These restrictions may be fog, mist, and heavy storms among others.
The inspection report confirmed that the ship in question complied with Part A of the general requirements envisaging applications, responsibilities, and other general definitions.
Steering and sailing rules
Part B of the convention covered on steering and sailing rules. This rules stipulated the need for a ship to alter direction to avoid collisions with another or other vessels. Reported finding from the inspection conducted indicated that the ship complied with rules regarding avoidance of collisions using instruments such as radar, and observations in addition to creating sufficient space in avoiding the occurrence of an accident from collisions. According to the article Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (8), the rules identify space as the best alternative to avoiding accidents and other close quarter instances besides an alteration to cause. This could be possible given the technical components for achieving such maneuvers were installed and worked efficiently for that purpose. The steering and sailing rules specify appropriate actions to take to avoid sea accidents resulting from collisions with other vessels. Keeping a safe distance was identified as a vital element in avoiding collisions. To ensure safety, vessels out in the sea ought to ensure safe distances are kept between vessels. The rules require a vessel to reduce speed and change direction in the event of a potential threat to a collision with another vessel using the method of propulsion. The rules call upon ships to create sufficient space for other ships in the event one has occupied a space that could be used by other ships. Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (8) urges ship owners to maneuver their ships not to impede a passage way for other ships sailing through the seaway or waterway to avoid collisions or any threat to a collision. This and others oblige vessels to comply fully with all parts pertaining to the rules for steering and sailing.
The convention provides specifications for ships sailing through narrow passageways or waterways. This is in compliance with rule 9 of the conventions. This rule requires a ship to proceed through a narrow passageway in moving along its starboard in a safe manner as much as possible. The Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (9) rules call upon any ship not less than 20 meters in length not to impede a passageway for other ships when navigating through a narrow waterway including vessels such those used for fishing purposes.
Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (8) brings into view what must be done in the event of one vessel overtaking another. In essence this rule is enshrined to prevent accidents. The requirement asserts that the overtaking ship should sound an appropriate signal and take appropriate action to avert collisions by permitting safe passage to the overtaking ship as enshrined on Rule 34 (c) (i). Nevertheless, the overtaking ship is still bound by its obligations. The rules determine how a ship negotiating a bend or cruising through a narrow passage should move. Appropriate and cautionary measures as stipulated by the rules should be taken to avert collisions or the possibility of an accident by sounding an appropriate signal and taking cautionary measures to avoid any accident from occurring. The article, Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (9) further affirms that “Any vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid anchoring in a narrow channel.” This takes one to rule 10 covering traffic separation schemes.
Findings indicated that the rule binds all ships en-route the sea detailing appropriate use of lanes when in sea by keeping as further away as possible from the separation lanes, and a ship is required to leave a separation point for a lane within an appropriate angle.
According to the article Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (9), ships are not required to cross separation lanes under any circumstances but with particular exception to those vessels with a length less than 20 meters which may use inshore traffic zones. In the pursuit of ensuring safety practices and standards are adhered to, vessels cruising through separation zones shall not be required to cross them with some exceptions and special requirements enshrined in specific paragraphs of the traffic separations act. Thus steering and sailing rules are adhered to.
Other rules specified restrictions on how ships are to be maneuvered when engaged in safety operations and other operations such as laying of a sub-marine cable (Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 11).
The report identified regulations for ships which remained in sight of each other. The requirement identifies means of avoiding collisions from occurring in the event of one ship cruising in the direction of another ship with the possibility of a collision should the ships progress towards each other. This is a safety measure for the ship in question. “For the purposes of this Rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side opposite to that on which the mainsail is carried or, in the case of a square-rigged vessel, the side opposite to that on which the largest fore-and-aft sail is carried” (Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 11).
Convention on Overtaking
The convention provided detailed guidelines on how ships should overtake each other and covers issues relating to circumstances which may lead one ship to cruise in the direction of another ship head on, the responsibilities ship masters are bound to avoid collisions, and obligations dealing with limited visibilities.
Lights and shape
Additional requirements calls upon the administration of a ship to ensure lights are switched on twenty four hours a day. Compliance was a requirement irrespective of the prevailing weather conditions. This was basically to ensure safety of the ship’s crew in addition to ensuring safety for other seafarers. Specific definitions were detailed in rule 21 of the Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 16). The rule required the ship to have a light installed on it with a continuous arc of light within 225 degrees on either side of the vessel. The vessel met the requirement as the masthead light was appropriately installed in the appropriate position. Other lights investigated were sidelight, sternlights, Towing lights, All-round lights, and Flashing lights. The 37,000 mt dwt product tanker with the following particulars: Draft- 11.5m; LOA-180m; Beam-26m; Tanks-14 [12+2 (slops)]; GRT-20,300; NRT-10,150; Double hull construction complied with requirements stipulated in rule 22 under “Visibility of Lights.” With a draft of 11.5 meters, rule 22 clearly describes lighting requirements to ensure absolute safety. These requirements included appropriate masthead lights, sidelights, sternlights, towing lights, and the all-round lights (red, green, or yellow).
Inspection procedure for the vessel indicated compliance as stipulated by rule 23 on power driven vessels underway. According to the article Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (18), rule 23 stipulates that a vessel under the propulsion of a machine shall exhibit sidelights, a sternlight, a masthead light , in addition to other requirements on lighting. Rule 24 provided guidelines contained in IMO on how ships were to tow and push other ships. According to report, the ship upon inspection was found to comply. In addition, other requirements complied to included rule 25 which required obligatory compliance with sailing vessels underway and vessels under oars (Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 20).
Inspection along the line of sound and lights signals proved the ship to be compliant. The article, Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (26) provides definitions of words such as “whistle”, “short blast”, and “prolonged blast” as applied to the description of the ship with regard to safety standards requirements. This description is contained in part D of the (Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 26). These also provided for maneuvering and warning signaling requirements. The number of signaling blasts determined the cause of action intended in different circumstances, such as when a ship is in sight of another ship. This also covered sounding and signaling in wide areas and areas with limited visibility. In addition other rules embedded with the convention included rule 36 covering requirements for signaling to attract attention. All the requirements were fully complied with in the report. Other conventions covered by IMO included the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978.
Standards for Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978
Several revisions were and amendments were done on the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978. To ensure safety with changing technological innovations and inventions over time, the convention was adopted on 7th July, 1978 and entered into force on 28th April 1984. Other amendments included the 1995 which entered into force on 1st February, 1997.
Seafarers’ safety was of paramount importance in covering administrative issues regarding compliance of the ship to IMO conventions. According to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (37). These requirements covered issues related to port state controls. This requirement covered issues related to deficiencies of persons or property. According to International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (49), the convention covered issues of collisions or matters relating to invalid certificates held by ship owners. In addition, crews were required to be healthy and constant personnel measures were a requirement designed to reduce crew fatigue. In addition, this covered matters of engine department, radio communication, radio personnel, and training of personnel on various important areas, alternative certifications, and watchkeeping. Other amendments followed suit. This included the 1988 amendments which entered into force on 1st January 2003, and the 2006 amendment enforceable on 1st January 2008.
A number of resolutions were adopted including principles and practices for ensuring navigational watch based on operational watch guidance for officers in navigational watch (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 45). This included other resolutions such as the operational guidance covering engineers, deck officers, radio officers, radio operators, ratings for navigational officers, and ratings for assistant engineers. In addition, other resolutions covered qualification requirements for officers rating oil tankers, training for radio officers, radar simulation training needs, techniques for Technical Corporation, and training on carrying dangerous and hazardous cargo by seafarers. Successive amendments were later adopted and passed by IMO’s maritime committee for safety. This included the 1991 amendments adopted on 1st of December 1992 and the 1994 amendment. This and other conventions were key components in determining and guaranteeing the safety of seafarers in local and international waters, covering different zones and seasons.
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS)
Amendments were done on certain conventions including the safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). This was the case with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS). It was an amended version of SOLAS convention. This two part document spelt the minimum requirements ships were required to adhere to and guidance on implementing the requirements. These requirements drew on the security of a ship, onboard equipments, and the security of port and ship officers. This were embedded in the manner of controlling accessibility to ships and ports, scrutinizing peoples’ activities in ports and ships, and placing with the availability of the shipping officers security equipments.
Need to Adapt to the Conventions
Over the years, increase in sea traffic has been witnessed involving seafaring vessels cruising through different zones, ports, countries and even weather conditions. According to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (47) covers issues related to harmonization of trade regulations, security of seafaring vessels, safety of the crew, easy and faster methods of clearing ships, and reduced waiting time at ports, resulting in reduced transaction costs and time. In addition to those benefits, the adapting to this convention ensures that a ship complies with the basic sea faring safety requirements which facilitates acceptance in other ports, countries, zones, ability to cruse through different weather conditions while guaranteeing safety of cargo and passengers.
This helps facilitate trade, ensure fire protection for passengers, helps in environmental protection from pollutants, provides a synchronization and harmonization of signals, and provides a legal instrument for settling disputes and other legal infringements on the international scale (Kinley 100). IMO provides 60 legal instruments for the purpose of regulating the manner in which those nations which are signatory to the organization regulate inspection, safety and compliance to the standards and other requirements on sea going ships.
Other Maritime Conventions
Other maritime conventions included special trade passenger ships conventions Agreement (STP) 1971, Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT), 1976, International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR), 1979, among many others. These maritime conventions formed important components in ensuring that the ship in question complied fully with the International Maritime Organization’s regulations. Adherence to these regulations ensures that the ship’s construction was of a standard to ensure crew and cargo safety.
Conclusion
It’s incumbent upon those private organizations, individuals and nations who posses sea going vessels to adhere to standards and regulations governing the industry. These regulations have been certified in the international arena by countries who have been signatory to them. One such vessel was the 37,000 mt dwt product tanker with the following particulars: Draft- 11.5m; LOA-180m; Beam-26m; Tanks-14 [12+2 (slops)]; GRT-20,300; NRT-10,150; Double hull construction. According to an inspection done on it, it was certified to be seaworthy after it was certified to comply with various IMO standards and conventions. These requirements covered a range of issues including ship construction and safety requirements. Safety requirements covered issues regarding hull construction, water tight compartments, lighting, signaling, installed machinery, sounds, maneuverability, and other certifications. In addition to that, various conventions covered by the International Maritime Organization were adhered to. These included the international convention for Safety of Life at Sea, the 1974, Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983, the1974 International Convention for Life at Sea (SOLAS) Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG), 1972, and other amended conventions. This certified the vessel to be of a standard that could cruise any port, nation, seaway and waterway, and weather zones. According to findings form the report, it was established that the ship complied with all requirements certifying a ship for sea faring. In addition, other conventions covered in the International Maritime Organization and other amendments were compatible with the International Maritime Organization requirements. These conventions included the Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT), 1976, among others. The vessel was deemed to be seaworthy.
Works Cited
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974. 2002. Web.
Kinley, M.MARINE ORDERS. 2009. Web.
Mankabady, S. The International Maritime Organization: The International Maritime Organization. 2nd ed. Croom Helm. 1987.
Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983, Western Australian Consolidated Regulations. 2010. Web.