4 ms·

This seems like a natural progression of allowing ships to be flagged in countries that barely even have foreign affairs outside of ships (https://en.wikipedia.

This seems like a natural progression of allowing ships to be flagged in countries that barely even have foreign affairs outside of ships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience). That seems like a good place to start - ports would benefit from only allowing docking if your ship is flagged in a country with some definition of seaworthiness

tialaramex 2y ago
Most of the world these days has Port State Control. Starting with Europe, (the Paris MOU signed in the 1980s) and then Tokyo and most of South America. Under Port State Control the Port States (ie the countries with ports in them) enforce IMO rules for ships in their port as well as Flag States (the country whose flag is flown by the ship and whose national register they are on) However it makes no sense to refuse entry. Instead states operating PSC will choose to inspect some fraction of the ships and detain them (which they are allowed to do under international law, though since the signatories of early MOUs are countries with serious navies it arguably doesn't matter whether it's legal anyway) if they are unsatisfactory. The Paris MOU is particularly notable for its black, grey and white lists, which aren't bans of the sort you seem to envision but instead control inspection rates. Since inspection means time not loading/unloading/ sailing elsewhere, which means lost income, a ship wants fewer inspections, but of course if uninspected a ship with unacceptable defects might go for a long period without being detained. The fix is that the Paris MOU counts up how often ships flying particular flags were inspected and what the outcome was over a period of IIRC one year, if flag A has enough (fractionally) good inspections, they're whitelisted and next period ships flying that flag are least likely to be inspected - some still are, but fewer. on the other hand if flag X has too many (fractionally) bad inspections, they're blacklisted and ships flying that flag are much more likely to be inspected next period - though not certain. Now, as originally conceived before the meeting to sign it, the Paris MOU was, like a lot of French things, mostly about workers rights. But, coincidentally a massive maritime accident occurred and so suddenly instead of "Boring technical conference agrees uninteresting European rules" which is maybe one column inch on page 14 of your paper, now you've got a journalist on a plane to the conference to ask government officials what they're going to do about to prevent accidents like the one on TV, which is good for at least a paragraph on the front page. So the actual Paris MOU signed is very enthusiastic about mechanical problems with the actual ship even though there's still stuff in there about the rights of the sailors. Anyway, PSC doesn't solve these sailors problems.

tialaramex 2y ago

Most of the world these days has Port State Control. Starting with Europe, (the Paris MOU signed in the 1980s) and then Tokyo and most of South America. Under Port State Control the Port States (ie the countries with ports in them) enforce IMO rules for ships in their port as well as Flag States (the country whose flag is flown by the ship and whose national register they are on) However it makes no sense to refuse entry. Instead states operating PSC will choose to inspect some fraction of the ships and detain them (which they are allowed to do under international law, though since the signatories of early MOUs are countries with serious navies it arguably doesn't matter whether it's legal anyway) if they are unsatisfactory. The Paris MOU is particularly notable for its black, grey and white lists, which aren't bans of the sort you seem to envision but instead control inspection rates. Since inspection means time not loading/unloading/ sailing elsewhere, which means lost income, a ship wants fewer inspections, but of course if uninspected a ship with unacceptable defects might go for a long period without being detained. The fix is that the Paris MOU counts up how often ships flying particular flags were inspected and what the outcome was over a period of IIRC one year, if flag A has enough (fractionally) good inspections, they're whitelisted and next period ships flying that flag are least likely to be inspected - some still are, but fewer. on the other hand if flag X has too many (fractionally) bad inspections, they're blacklisted and ships flying that flag are much more likely to be inspected next period - though not certain. Now, as originally conceived before the meeting to sign it, the Paris MOU was, like a lot of French things, mostly about workers rights. But, coincidentally a massive maritime accident occurred and so suddenly instead of "Boring technical conference agrees uninteresting European rules" which is maybe one column inch on page 14 of your paper, now you've got a journalist on a plane to the conference to ask government officials what they're going to do about to prevent accidents like the one on TV, which is good for at least a paragraph on the front page. So the actual Paris MOU signed is very enthusiastic about mechanical problems with the actual ship even though there's still stuff in there about the rights of the sailors. Anyway, PSC doesn't solve these sailors problems.