Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

IMO Institutional Structure and Law-Making Process

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Prevention of Pollution of the Marine Environment from Vessels

  • 1939 Accesses

Abstract

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has a very distinctive process of facilitating adoption and amendment of international legal instruments for the prevention of marine pollution from ships. The actors who influence the process of IMO law making are also diverse, including both states and non-states actors. Nevertheless, IMO is one of the most successful organisations in developing international law for the conservation and protection of the marine environment, particularly in preventing vessel-source marine pollution. This chapter will present a brief overview of the IMO law-making process and institutional structure of the organisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    IMO, Member States, http://www.imo.org/About/Membership/Pages/MemberStates.aspx, last accessed on 14 June 2014.

  2. 2.

    They are: Faroes; Hong Kong, China; and Macao, China. Ibid.

  3. 3.

    Convention on the International Maritime Organization, opened for signature 6 March 1948, article 1(a), 289 UNTS 48 (entered into force 17 March 1958) (hereinafter the IMO Convention 1948 or the IMCO Convention 1948), art 4.

  4. 4.

    IMO Convention, arts 5 and 5.

  5. 5.

    “The following 34 countries have been declared FOCs by the ITF’s Fair Practices Committee (a joint committee of ITF seafarers’ and dockers’ unions), which runs the ITF campaign against FOCs: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda (UK), Bolivia, Burma, Cambodia, Cayman Islands, Comoros, Cyprus, Equatorial Guinea, Faroe Islands (FAS), French International Ship Register (FIS), German International Ship Register (GIS), Georgia, Gibraltar (UK), Honduras, Jamaica, Lebanon, Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands (USA), Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands Antilles, North Korea, Panama, Sao Tome and Príncipe, St Vincent, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Vanuatu.” International Transport Workers’ Federation, FOC Countries, https://www.itfglobal.org/flags-convenience/flags-convenien-183.cfm, last accessed on 21 June 2014.

  6. 6.

    ISL, Shipping Statistics and Market Review 55 (11) (2011) 5.

  7. 7.

    Boczek (1962), p. 2.

  8. 8.

    See generally Tan (2006), pp. 47–57; Tetley (1993); Dempsey and Helling (1980); Egiyan (1990).

  9. 9.

    ITLOS decision in M/V “SAIGA” (No. 2) case (St. Vincent and Grenadines v Guinea) 38 ILM 1323. Also see Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, I.C.J. Reports 1960, p. 150, 171.

  10. 10.

    For definition of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSA) see Chap. 3.

  11. 11.

    Tan (2006), p. 74.

  12. 12.

    About the LDC group, http://ldcclimate.wordpress.com/about-the-ldc-group/>last, accessed on 13 June 2014. These countries are: “Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Timor Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Yemen, and Zambia.” LDC Group at UN climate change negotiations, http://ldcclimate.wordpress.com/ldc-country-pages/>last, accessed on 13 June 2013.

  13. 13.

    IMO Convention, art 59.

  14. 14.

    IMO Convention, art 60.

  15. 15.

    IMO Convention, art 61.

  16. 16.

    IMO, Intergovernmental Organizations which have concluded agreements of co-operation with IMO, http://www.imo.org/About/Membership/Pages/IGOsWithObserverStatus.aspx, last accessed on 14 June 2014.

  17. 17.

    See generally, Nengye and Maes (2010).

  18. 18.

    Nengye and Maes (2012).

  19. 19.

    IMO Convention, art 62.

  20. 20.

    IMO, Rules and Guidelines for Consultative Status of Non-Governmental International Organizations with the International Maritime Organization, http://www.imo.org/About/Membership/Documents/RULES%20AND%20GUIDELINES%20FOR%20CONSULTATIVE%20STATUS.pdf, last accessed on 14 June 2014.

  21. 21.

    IMO, Non-Governmental international Organizations which have been granted consultative status with IMO, http://www.imo.org/About/Membership/Pages/NGOsInConsultativeStatus.aspx, last accessed on 14 June 2014.

  22. 22.

    IMO Convention, art 12.

  23. 23.

    IMO Convention, art 15.

  24. 24.

    IMO Convention, art 15(j).

  25. 25.

    IMO Convention, art 15(I).

  26. 26.

    IMO Convention, article 17. “Council members for the 2014–2015 biennium: Category (a): ten States with the largest interest in providing international shipping services: China, Greece, Italy, Japan, Norway, Panama, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States. Category (b): ten other States with the largest interest in international seaborne trade: Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden. Category (c): 20 States not elected under (a) or (b) above which have special interests in maritime transport or navigation, and whose election to the Council will ensure the representation of all major geographic areas of the world: Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Chile, Cyprus, Denmark, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey.” Structure of IMO, http://www.imo.org/About/Pages/Structure.aspx, last accessed on 7 June 2014.

  27. 27.

    Ademun-Odeke (2007).

  28. 28.

    IMO Convention, art 26.

  29. 29.

    IMO Convention, art 21(a).

  30. 30.

    IMO Convention, art 21(b).

  31. 31.

    IMO Convention, art 22.

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    IMO Convention, art 25.

  34. 34.

    Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, ICJ Reports 1960, p. 150, 171.

  35. 35.

    M’Gonigle and Zacher (1979), p. 48.

  36. 36.

    IMO Convention, art 38.

  37. 37.

    Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on Its Sixty-Sixth Session, IMO Doc. MEPC 66/21 (25 April 2014).

  38. 38.

    IMO Convention, art 25.

  39. 39.

    Balkin (1999), p. 291.

  40. 40.

    IMO Convention, art 32.

  41. 41.

    IMO Convention, art 33.

  42. 42.

    IMO Convention, art 35.

  43. 43.

    Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, opened for signature 9 April 1965, 591 UNTS 265 (entered into force 5 March 1967).

  44. 44.

    IMO, IMO Sub-Committee restructuring agreed by MSC, http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/26-restructuring.aspx#.U5pVnRCtRek, last accessed on 13 June 2014.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    These include: “the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG); Sub-Committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers (DSC); Sub-Committee on Radio communications, Search and Rescue (COMSAR); Sub-Committee on Navigation (NAV); Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE), Sub-Committee on Fire Protection (FP), Sub-Committee on Stability, Load Lines and Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF); Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation (FSI); and Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping”. Ibid.

  47. 47.

    IMO, Structure, http://www.imo.org/About/Pages/Structure.aspx last accessed on 13 June 2014.

  48. 48.

    Apart from these organs IMO also oversees the activities of the Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Dumping Convention.

  49. 49.

    Sommer (1996), p. 656.

  50. 50.

    Ibid, 646.

  51. 51.

    Tan (2006), pp. 176 and 177 and M’Gonigle and Zacher (1979), pp. 200 and 201.

  52. 52.

    Ibid.

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    UNCLOS, art 192. See generally Boyle (1985).

  56. 56.

    UNCLOS, art 193.

  57. 57.

    UNCLOS, art 194 (1).

  58. 58.

    UNCLOS arts 204 and 206.

  59. 59.

    Birnie et al. (2009), p. 383.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    UNCLOS, art 211(1). See generally Bodansky (1991), Kindt (1984), and Dzidzornu and Tsamenyi (1991).

  64. 64.

    UNCLOS, arts 211 (2) and 94.

  65. 65.

    See generally: Molenaar (1998), Johnson (2004), pp. 2 and 3; and Hakapää (2005).

  66. 66.

    UNCLOS, art 211(4).

  67. 67.

    UNCLOS, art 17. On innocent passage see generally Agyebeng (2006) and Hakapää and Molenaar (1999).

  68. 68.

    UNCLOS, art 19.

  69. 69.

    UNCLOS, art. 21.

  70. 70.

    UNCLOS, art. 21(2).

  71. 71.

    UNCLOS, art. 56.

  72. 72.

    UNCLOS, art. 211(5). See generally Dzidzornu (1997) and Berret (1995).

  73. 73.

    UNCLOS, art. 211(6). See generally Molenaar (1998), pp. 402–418.

  74. 74.

    UNCLOS, art. 39(2)(b). See generally Beckman (1998).

  75. 75.

    UNCLOS, art. 218. See generally McDorman (1997), Legatski (1977), Anderson (1999), and Kasoulides (1997).

  76. 76.

    UNCLOS, art. 212 (1).

  77. 77.

    Molenaar (1998), p. 501.

  78. 78.

    UNCLOS, art 222.

  79. 79.

    IMO, Implications of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the International Maritime Organization, IMO Doc LEG/MISC.7 (19 January 2012) at pg 12.

  80. 80.

    UNCLOS, arts 211(2), 211(5), 211(6) and 226 (1). See generally Tan (2006), Oxman (1991), Sohn (1986), Andrianov (1990), Dempsey (1984), Boyle (1985), Lee (1983), and Molenaar (1998).

  81. 81.

    Implications of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the International Maritime Organization, IMO Doc. LEG/MISC.7 (19 January 2012).

  82. 82.

    Ibid.

  83. 83.

    Wolfrum (1999), p. 234.

  84. 84.

    Mensah (2007), p. 57.

  85. 85.

    International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, opened for signature 29 November 1969, 973 UNTS 3 (entered into force 19 June 1975) (this convention is being replaced by 1992 Protocol). According to article VII(11) of this convention “Subject to the provisions of this Article, each Contracting State shall ensure, under its national legislation, that insurance or other security to the extent specified in paragraph 1 of this Article is in force in respect of any ship, wherever registered, entering or leaving a port in its territory, or arriving at or leaving an off-shore terminal in its territorial sea, if the ship actually carries more than 2,000 tons of oil in bulk as cargo.”

  86. 86.

    International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, opened for signature 2 November 1973, 12 ILM 1319 (1973) as modified by the Protocol of 1978 to the 1973 Convention, opened for signature 17 February 1978, 1341 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 October 1983) (MARPOL 73/78). For most recent version see MARPOL: Consolidated Edition 2011 (IMO, London, 2011) (hereinafter MARPOL 73/78). According to article 5 (4) of this convention “With respect to the ships of non-Parties to the Convention, Parties shall apply the requirements of the present Convention as may be necessary to ensure that no more favourable treatment is given to such ships.”

  87. 87.

    Mensah (2007), p. 58.

  88. 88.

    The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) had process to amend technical and other regulations. IMO, Introduction, http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/Pages/Home.aspx, last accessed on 19 June 2014.

  89. 89.

    See generally, Shi (1988–1999) and Adede (1977).

  90. 90.

    Adede (1977), p. 208.

  91. 91.

    Karim (2009), p. 75.

References

Journal Articles

  • Adede AO (1977) Amendment procedures for conventions with technical annexes: the IMCO experience. Va J Int Law 17:201–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Ademun-Odeke (2007) From the “Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee” to the “Constitution of the Council”: will the IMCO experience repeat itself at the IMO nearly fifty years on? The juridical politics of an international organization. Tex Int Law J 56:43-55-113

    Google Scholar 

  • Agyebeng WK (2006) Theory in search of practice: the right of innocent passage in the territorial sea. Cornell Int Law J 39:371–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrianov VI (1990) The role of the International Maritime Organization in implementing the 1982 UNCLOS. Mar Policy 14:120–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman RC (1998) The international legal regime governing the safety of navigation and the prevention of pollution in international straits. Singapore J Int Comp Law 2:352–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Berret A (1995) UNCLOS III: pollution control in the exclusive economic zone. La Law Rev 55:1165–1190

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky D (1991) Protecting marine environment from vessel source marine pollution: UNCLOS III and beyond. Ecol Law Q 18:719–777

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle AE (1985) Marine pollution under the Law of the Sea Convention. Am J Int Law 79:342–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey PS (1984) Compliance and enforcement in international law - oil pollution of the marine environment by ocean vessels. Northwest J Int Law Bus 6:459–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey PS, Helling LL (1980) Oil pollution by ocean vessels–an environmental tragedy: the legal regime of flags of convenience, multilateral conventions, and coastal states. Denver J Int Law Policy 10:37–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Dzidzornu DM (1997) Coastal state obligations and powers respecting EEZ environmental protection under Part XII of the UNCLOS: a descriptive analysis. Colo J Int Environ Law Policy 8:283–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Dzidzornu DM, Tsamenyi BM (1991) Enhancing international control of vessel-source pollution under the Law of the Sea Convention 1982: a reassessment. Univ Tasman Law Rev 10:269–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Egiyan GS (1990) ‘Flag of convenience’ or ‘Open Registration’ of ships’. Mar Policy 14:106–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakapää K (2005) Foreign ships in vulnerable waters: coastal jurisdiction over vessel-source pollution with reference to the Baltic Sea. Int J Leg Inf 33:256–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakapää K, Molenaar EJ (1999) Innocent passage – past and present. Mar Policy 23:131–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karim MS (2009) Implementation of the MARPOL Convention in Bangladesh. Macquarie J Int Comp Environ Law 6:51–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindt JW (1984) Vessel-Source Pollution and the Law of the Sea. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 17:287–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee LT (1983) Law of the Sea Convention and third states. Am J Int Law 77:541–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legatski RA (1977) Port state jurisdiction over vessel-source marine pollution. Harv Environ Law Rev 2:448–473

    Google Scholar 

  • McDorman TL (1997) Port state enforcement: a comment on Article 218 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. J Marit Law Commer 28:305–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Nengye L, Maes F (2010) The European Union and the International Maritime Organization: EU’s external influence on the prevention of vessel-source pollution. J Marit Law Commer 41:581–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Nengye L, Maes F (2012) Legal constraints to the European Union’s accession to the International Maritime Organization. J Marit Law Commer 43:279–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman BH (1991) The duty to respect generally accepted international standard. N Y Univ J Int Law Politics 24:109–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi L (1988–1999) Successful use of the tacit acceptance procedure to effectuate progress in international maritime law. Univ San Francisco Marit Law J 11:299–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohn LB (1986) Generally accepted international rules. Washington Law Rev 61:1073–1080

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer J (1996) Environmental law-making by international organisations. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrech 56:628–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetley W (1993) The law of the flag, “Flag Shopping”, and choice of law. Tulane Marit Law J 17:139–184

    Google Scholar 

Books

  • Birnie P, Boyle A, Redgwell C (2009) International law and the environment, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Boczek BA (1962) Flags of convenience: an international legal study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson LS (2004) Coastal state regulation of international shipping. Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry

    Google Scholar 

  • M’Gonigle RM, Zacher MW (1979) Pollution, politics, and international law: tankers at sea. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar EJ (1998) Coastal state jurisdiction over vessel-source pollution. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan AK-J (2006) Vessel-source marine pollution: the law and politics of international regulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Book Chapters

  • Anderson D (1999) Port states and environmental protection. In: Boyle A, Freestone D (eds) International law and sustainable development: past achievements and future challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 325

    Google Scholar 

  • Balkin RP (1999) The establishment of and work of the IMO Legal Committee. In: Nordquist MH, Moore JN (eds) Current maritime issues and the International Maritime Organization. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, p 291

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasoulides GC (1997) Global and regional port state regimes. In: Ringbom H (ed) Competing norms in the law of marine environmental protection- focus on ship safety and pollution prevention. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 121

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensah TA (2007) Prevention of marine pollution: the contribution of IMO. In: Basedow J, Magnus U (eds) Pollution of the sea- prevention and compensation. Springer, Heidelberg, p 41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum R (1999) IMO interface with the Law of the Sea Convention. In: Nordquist MH, Moore JN (eds) Current maritime issues and the International Maritime Organization. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, p 223

    Google Scholar 

Online Documents

International Legal Instruments

  • Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, opened for signature 9 April 1965, 591 UNTS 265 (entered into force 5 March 1967)

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on the International Maritime Organization, opened for signature 6 March 1948, article 1(a), 289 UNTS 48 (entered into force 17 March 1958) (hereinafter the IMO Convention 1948 or the IMCO Convention 1948)

    Google Scholar 

  • International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, opened for signature 29 November 1969, 973 UNTS 3 (entered into force 19 June 1975) (this convention is being replaced by 1992 Protocol)

    Google Scholar 

  • International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, opened for signature 2 November 1973, 12 ILM 1319 (1973) as modified by the Protocol of 1978 to the 1973 Convention, opened for signature 17 February 1978, 1341 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 October 1983) (MARPOL 73/78). For most recent version see MARPOL: Consolidated Edition 2011 (IMO, London, 2011) (hereinafter MARPOL 73/78)

    Google Scholar 

United Nations and IMO Documents

  • IMO, Implications of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the International Maritime Organization, IMO Doc LEG/MISC.7 (19 January 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on Its Sixty-Sixth Session, IMO Doc. MEPC 66/21 (25 April 2014)

    Google Scholar 

Cases

  • Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, I.C.J. Reports 1960, p. 150, 171

    Google Scholar 

  • ITLOS decision in M/V “SAIGA” (No. 2) case (St. Vincent and Grenadines v Guinea) 38 ILM 1323. Also see Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, I.C.J. Reports 1960, p. 150

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Md Saiful Karim

Authors
  1. Md Saiful Karim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Karim, S. (2015). IMO Institutional Structure and Law-Making Process. In: Prevention of Pollution of the Marine Environment from Vessels. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10608-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation