Developments in Port State Jurisdiction

Dr. Erik Jaap Molenaar

Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS)

Structure of Presentation

• Introduction• Port State Jurisdiction under General

International Law• Broadening Scope• Broadening Rights• Towards Mandatory Port State

Jurisdiction and Global Coverage• Conclusions

Introduction

• Static standards and behavior

• Own maritime zones, those of other coastal States and high seas

• Legislation and enforcement

• Facultative or mandatory; link with ‘ports of convenience’

Port State Jurisdiction under General International Law

• Wide discretion based on territorial sovereignty (Art. 25(2) of the LOS Convention)

• No right of access under cust. int. law• Behavior beyond own maritime zones• Restrictions under gen. int. law

– Abuse of rights– International trade law (Swordfish case)

Broadening Scope

• Immigration, sanitation, customs and national security

• Maritime safety and marine environmental protection through CDEM standards (IMO)

• Living and working conditions (ILO)• Human element (ISM Code)• Maritime security (ISPS Code)• Fisheries (biodiversity?)

Broadening Rights

• Art. 218 of the LOS Convention• Art. 23 of the Fish Stocks Agreement• Legislative jurisdiction

– Reconfirmation of residual port State jurisdiction

– Departure port State jurisdiction– Swordfish case (extra-territorial jurisd.)– VMS data– False statements in port

Broadening Rights cont.

• Enforcement jurisdiction– Punitive/corrective action for behavior

beyond port State’s maritime zones– United States Lacey Act– False statements– Flag State consent– Stateless vessels

Towards Mandatory Port State Jurisdiction and Global

Coverage

• Facultative under LOS Convention

• Regional merchant shipping MOUs

• Both right and duty under Fish Stocks Agreement

• Implemented through RFMOs

• 2005 FAO Port State Model Scheme

Conclusions

• Rapidly expanding scope

• Slow expansion of rights

• Gradually moving towards mandatory port State jurisdiction with global coverage

• Wider recognition of the ‘responsible port State’