Make a Submission
No. 2 (148) (2001)
Artykuły

Kontrola portowa statków o obcej przynależności (problematyka prawna)

[State control of foreign-owned ships (legal issues)]

  • Rajmund Molski

Published 2001-06-30

Keywords

  • ship,
  • legal systems of foreign states,
  • maritime port,
  • control,
  • maritime safety,
  • maritime law
    • ...More
    Less
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Kontrola portowa statków o obcej przynależności (problematyka prawna): [State control of foreign-owned ships (legal issues)]. (2001). Studia Prawnicze The Legal Studies, 2 (148), 55-82. https://doi.org/10.37232/sp.2001.2.4

Abstract

The port control of foreign-flagged ships is an singularly international institution. It was created on an international initiative and its success depends on regional and supra-regional international cooperation.

The regional scope of Port State Control (PSC) means that, on the one hand, it is an improvement on the control performed by the flag states, but on the other hand, it represents a drawback. Therefore, there is a growing call for a worldwide system for this control. Such a system could contribute to making inspections more efficient and eliminating duplicate or otherwise unnecessary inspections. It is envisaged that in the future a universal control system for foreign-flagged ships will cover most of the world's ports. This is by no means to say that the emergence of a single, institutionalised PSC system on a global scale is a foregone conclusion. Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that the benefits of the global reach of PSC will come from the establishment of close cooperation between existing and possibly future regional PSC systems. Indeed, the results of regional PSC systems to date demonstrate that these agreements have a number of advantages: they (a) enable regional specificities to be taken into account, (b) ensure a more efficient exchange of information, (c) facilitate the establishment of a harmonised system of surveys and inspections, (d) provide a harmonised system for upgrading PSC inspectors’ skills, (e) allow to avoid unfair competition between ports in the region, (f) provide greater opportunities for the inspection of ships in regional waters, and (g) ensure a more favourable relationship between inspection effort and results. A regional model of PSC systems obviously also poses certain problems, which should be overcome through harmonisation and exchange of experience (these difficulties relate, for example, to the specificities of the various regions and the difference in their level of development, which requires differentiation in the objectives and forms of control and in the methods of carrying it out).

PSC inspection is seen today as one of the most effective instruments to enforce international maritime safety standards. In a way, it forces shipowners to maintain ships in a condition that meets generally accepted safety requirements or, if this is impracticable or uneconomic, to eliminate substandard ships from shipping (e.g. by scrapping them). PSC also has a positive impact on the control exercised by the flag state, making it less permissive and opportunistic. The fact that the PSC system indirectly contributes to the elimination of unfair competition in the shipping market by avoiding investment in maintaining ship and crew safety is also of considerable importance.

PSC will exist for the foreseeable future, so it should become a natural part of the mechanism for regulating shipping and protecting the marine environment. Further development of this relatively new institution of maritime law depends to a large extent on its tenets being implemented as uniformly, consistently and in solidarity as possible in different regions of the world, by a larger group of states. As an aside, it may be added that the emergence and development of PSC systems is a good illustration of the increasing internationalisation not only of the process of creating legal regulations in the field of human maritime activities, but also of the implementation of the law so created.

The dynamic development of the PSC concept also seems to demonstrate that it is now tantamount to concentrate on the effective enforcement of existing maritime safety norms and standards by national administrations rather than to introduce new international regulations in this area. There are already so many of these regulations that more would lead to a hyperinflation of the law in this area. In addition, the creation of ever new international rules and technical standards widens the already too wide gap between the safety standards provided by reliable and responsible shipowners and the level exhibited by unfair competition.

A shortcoming of the existing PSC inspection procedures is still the lack of clear inspection criteria. This increases the risk of PSC being instrumentalised as a trade barrier and abused by rogue port authorities. In a broader context, the development of autonomous and regional PSC regimes can be seen as a phenomenon of “creeping port-state and coastal-state jurisdiction”, which is not without implications for the scope of freedom of navigation.

The controversy surrounding the operation of PSC is undoubtedly an expression of the collision between the need to promote global economic growth and the no less important need to protect human security and the environment. This controversy would arguably be weakened by: (a) adopting fully harmonised safety standards, including common inspection criteria, (b) harmonising inspection procedures, (c) introducing internationally approved qualifications for PSC officers, and (d) ensuring transparency and disclosure of information on inspected vessels at regional and supra-regional levels.

PSC requires appropriate sources of funding. As a rule, its costs are borne by the port state. In practice, most countries levy a special public charge on vessels calling at their ports, which also funds PSC activities. This practice is controversial. According to the view presented by Lord Donaldson, the application of such charges, and consequently the funding of the PSC system by the shipping companies, is justified by the fact that they are responsible for allowing substandard ships to sail. This view is understandably met with reluctance by shipowner circles, who accept that shipowners should only be charged for inspections if they reveal failings in safety requirements. This concept honours the principle of the presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty and that the guilty must pay). When asked about a justification for investing substantial state funds in improving the safety of foreign ships, the answer should be that it is not only about investing in foreign interests, but also in the self-interest of the port state and its citizens. This can be seen most clearly in the protection of the marine environment against pollution caused by ships (often foreign flags).

A matter of no dispute is the practice of charging the cost of inspections to sub-standard shipowners. If a ship is detained for breaching international safety standards, its owner is usually charged with the full cost of the inspection. This principle is a binding rule inter alia in community law. In order for the PSC inspection system to be effective, it is necessary, on the one hand,  to ensure that the percentage of inspections performed is sufficiently high. On the other hand, improving the policy on the use of inspection instruments should result in a reduction in the overall number of inspections, which would benefit international shipping as a whole. This should be encouraged by an initiative to promote responsible shipowners by reducing the number and formalising inspections of their vessels. PSC inspection procedures should therefore be more unified and aimed at catching substandard vessels. Also within the IMO, the view is beginning to prevail that this control should be simplified through improved procedures and cooperation between the various PSC regional agreements.

A special effort should be focused on improving the exchange of information through the international PSC inspection dataset, which should include all inspection reports. The exchange of information between individual regional agreements improves the economics and efficiency of PSC inspections, primarily by removing the need to inspect every vessel calling at a port of a participating state. Ensuring that PSC inspections are as transparent as possible in turn makes it easier for users to select the best vessels. For this reason, making information on sub-standard vessels more accessible is extremely important. The need for a single global PSC information system is met by the agreement signed in January 2000 under the auspices of the IMO to establish the Equasis information system (acronym for European Quality Shipping Information System), which became operational in May 2000. The system will include information from the administrative authorities of the three PSC control regions, i.e. the Paris and Tokyo Agreements and the USCG, as well as from non-public bodies such as marine insurers' classification societies. After three years of operation, the scheme is planned to expand further, including in terms of geographical coverage.

References

  1. Allen C.H., Safer Ships and Cleaner Seas. Protecting the Marine Environment under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, University of Washington School of Law 2000.
  2. Bassindale J. (red.), The effect of a port State control detention on a ship’s contractual obligations „Clifford Chance Maritime Review” 1995, nr 20.
  3. Buvik S., The importance of Port State Control. Is there a better way of regulating the industry? [w:] Materiały z konferencji 1RC’s 3 Annual Conference. PSC, Managing Safety and Quality in Shipping, London, 2-3 grudnia 1998.
  4. Devine D., Port State jurisdiction. A judicial contribution from New Zealand, „Marine Policy” 2000, nr 24.
  5. Donaldson J.F., Safer Ships. Cleaner Seas -a reflection on progress, „The Wakeford Memorial Lecture” 1996.
  6. Douglas C., The Port State Control of human error. A feasibility study, „Marine & Shipping Law” 1999.
  7. Equasis agreement signed, „IMO News” 2000, nr 1.
  8. European Commission Launches a Campaign for Quality Shipping in Europe, IMO General Assembly, London, 17 listopada 1997.
  9. Hare J., Flag, Coastal & Port State Control - closing the net on unseaworthy ships and their unscrupulous owners, „Sea Changes” (Institute of Marine Law, University of Cape Town) 1994, t. 16.
  10. Hare J., Port State Control: Strong medicine to cure a sick industry, „Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law - Special Admiralty Issue” 1997, t. 26.
  11. Hope H., Port State Control - an update on IMO’s work, „IMO News” 2000, nr 1.
  12. Informacja u założeniach programu dostosowania polskiego transportu morskiego do wymogów i standardów Unii Europejskiej, opublikowana w witrynie internetowej MTiGM, http://www.mtigm.gov.pl.
  13. Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 2 kwietnia 1997 r. uchwalona przez Zgromadzenie Narodowe w dniu 2 kwietnia 1997 r., przyjęta przez Naród w referendum konstytucyjnym w dniu 25 maja 1997 r., podpisana przez Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w dniu 16 lipca 1997 r., Dz.U. 1997 Nr 78, poz. 483.
  14. Konwencja nr 147 dotycząca minimalnych norm na statkach handlowych, przyjęta w Genewie dnia 29 października 1976 r., Dz.U. 1997 Nr 72, poz. 454.
  15. Konwencja w sprawie międzynarodowych przepisów o zapobieganiu zderzeniom na morzu z 1972 roku, sporządzona w Londynie dnia 20 października 1972 r., Dz.U. 1977 Nr 15, poz. 61.
  16. Koziński M.H., Relacje pomiędzy normami prawa morskiego o pochodzeniu krajowym i międzynarodowym w kontekście nowych przepisów konstytucyjnych, „Prace Wydziału Nawigacyjnego Wyższej Szkoły Morskiej w Gdyni” 1998, z. 6.
  17. Lalis G., A better balance between governmental regulation and self-regulation. The European Commission’s perspective oraz G.F.B. Cooper, The ultimate solution for safety at sea. Co-existence of government regulation and industry self-regulation [w:] Materiały z konferencji Mare Forum 99, Amsterdam, 21-22 stycznia 1999.
  18. Lewandowski P., Porządek publiczny w portach morskich [w:] Z. Brodecki (red.), Prawo w portach morskich, Dom Wydawniczy ABC, Warszawa 1998.
  19. Łopuski J., Wstęp do teorii współczesnego prawa morskiego [w:] J. Łopuski, (red.), Prawo morskie, t. 1, Branta, Bydgoszcz 1996.
  20. Międzynarodowa Konwencja o bezpieczeństwie życia na morzu, 1974, sporządzona w Londynie dnia 1 listopada 1974 r., Dz.U. 1984 Nr 61, poz. 318.
  21. Międzynarodowa Konwencja o wymaganiach w zakresie wyszkolenia marynarzy, wydawania im świadectw oraz pełnienia wacht, 1978, sporządzona w Londynie dnia 7 lipca 1978 r., Dz.U. 1984 Nr 39, poz. 201.
  22. Międzynarodowa Konwencja o zapobieganiu zanieczyszczaniu morza przez statki, 1973, sporządzona w Londynie dnia 2 listopada 1973 r. wraz z załącznikami I, II, III, IV, i V, oraz Protokół z 1978 r. dotyczący tej konwencji, wraz z załącznikiem I, sporządzony w Londynie dnia 17 lutego 1978 r., Dz.U. 1987 Nr 17, poz. 101.
  23. Młynarczyk J., Państwowa kontrola portowa [w:] K. Kruczalak (red.), Przekształcenia własnościowe w gospodarce morskiej, Wydaw. Prawnicze "Lex", Sopot 1997.
  24. Obwieszczenie Prezesa Rady Ministrów z dnia 17 marca 1980 r. w sprawie ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu ustawy z dnia 14 czerwca 1960 r. - Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego, Dz.U. 1980 Nr 9, poz. 26.
  25. Oświadczenie Rządowe z dnia 19 października 1984 r. w sprawie ratyfikacji przez Polską Rzeczpospolitą Ludową Międzynarodowej Konwencji o bezpieczeństwie życia na morzu, 1974, sporządzonej w Londynie dnia 1 listopada 1974 r., Dz.U. 1984 Nr 61, poz. 319.
  26. Oświadczenie Rządowe z dnia 19 października 1984 r. w sprawie ratyfikacji przez Polską Rzeczpospolitą Ludową Protokołu z 1978 r., dotyczącego Międzynarodowej Konwencji o bezpieczeństwie życia na morzu, 1974, sporządzonego w Londynie dnia 17 lutego 1978 r., Dz.U. 1984 Nr 61, poz. 321.
  27. Oświadczenie Rządowe z dnia 2 października 1969 r. w sprawie przyjęcia przez Polskę Międzynarodowej konwencji o liniach ładunkowych, sporządzonej w Londynie dnia 5 kwietnia 1966 r., Dz.U. 1969 Nr 33, poz. 282.
  28. Papavizas C.G., Penalty enacted for vessels detained under U.S. Port State Control Program, „The International Journal of Shipping Law” marzec 1999.
  29. Plaza F., Port State Control. An Update, IMO 2000.
  30. Protokół z 1978 r. dotyczący Międzynarodowej Konwencji o bezpieczeństwie życia na morzu 1974, sporządzony w Londynie dnia 17 lutego 1978 r., Dz.U. 1984 Nr 61, poz. 320.
  31. Raport OECD z 1996 r. pt. Competitive Advantages Obtained by some Shipowners as a Result of Non-observance of Applicable International Rules and Standards [OCDE/GD(96)4].
  32. Rodgers P., The powers of a Port State Control Officer and the legal impact of a detention order, „GARD News” 1999.
  33. Ruiter W. de, Marquer M., Equasis [w:] Materiały z konferencji Mare Forum 99, Amsterdam, 21-22 stycznia 1999.
  34. Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas: Report of Lord Donaldson’s Inquiry into the Prevention of Pollution from Merchant Shipping, London 1994.
  35. Safety and Environment Protection. Discussion Paper on Possible Actions to Combat Substandard Shipping by Involving Players other than the Shipowner in the Shipping Market, OECD 1998, DSTI/DOT/MTC(98)10/Final.
  36. Ustawa z dnia 10 grudnia 1993 r. o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym żołnierzy zawodowych oraz ich rodzin, Dz.U. 1994 Nr 10, poz. 36.
  37. Ustawa z dnia 14 kwietnia 2000 r. o umowach międzynarodowych, Dz.U. 2000 Nr 39, poz. 443.
  38. Ustawa z dnia 16 marca 1995 r. o zapobieganiu zanieczyszczaniu morza przez statki, Dz.U. 1995 Nr 47, poz. 243.
  39. Ustawa z dnia 2 lipca 1998 r. o ratyfikacji Konwencji Narodów Zjednoczonych o prawie morza, sporządzonej w Montego Bay dnia 10 grudnia 1982 r., wraz z Porozumieniem w sprawie implementacji części XI Konwencji, sporządzonym w Nowym Jorku dnia 29 lipca 1994 r., Dz.U. 1998 Nr 98, poz. 609.
  40. Ustawa z dnia 21 marca 1991 r. o obszarach morskich Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej i administracji morskiej, Dz.U. 1991 Nr 32, poz. 131.
  41. Ustawa z dnia 9 listopada 2000 r. o bezpieczeństwie morskim, Dz.U. 2000 Nr 109, poz. 1156.
  42. Vassallo L.C., Flag and Port State Control: Working in tandem for quality shipping [w:] Materiały z konferencji Mare Forum 99, Amsterdam, 21-22 stycznia 1999.
  43. Wasilkowski A., Miejsce umów międzynarodowych wedle nowej Konstytucji RP (uwagi wstępne), „Przegląd Legislacyjny” 1997, nr 2.
  44. Whitlow J., [w:] Materiały z seminarium Twenty-Third Annual Seminar. Current Maritime Issues and the International Maritime Organization, Panel III: Flag State Implementation and Port Stale Control, London, 7 stycznia 1999.
  45. Woźniak M., Umowa międzynarodowa w polskim prawie administracyjnym, „Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis” 1999, nr 2169, Prawo CCLXVII.
  46. Wyrok NSA z dnia 21.02.1994 r., I SAB 54/93, OSP 1995, nr 11, poz. 222.
  47. Wyrok SN z dnia 18.10.1985 r., II CR 320/85, OSNC 1986, nr 10, poz. 158.
  48. Wyrozumska A., Stosowanie prawa międzynarodowego w prawie krajowym, Ośrodek Informacji i Dokumentacji Rady Europy w Warszawie, „Biuletyn” 1998, nr 3-4.
  49. Zarządzenie nr 11 Dyrektora Urzędu Morskiego w Słupsku z dnia 10 grudnia 1998 r. w sprawie zasad przeprowadzania inspekcji statków morskich w zakresie bezpieczeństwa żeglugi i życia na morzu, wzorów protokołów inspekcji oraz kwalifikacji inspektorów, Dz.Urz. Województwa Zachodniopomorskiego z 1999 r., nr 1, poz. 2.