Abstract
The adoption of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) is the latest response of the international shipping community to the increasing threat posed by acts of terrorism at sea. The ACHILLE LAURO incident of 1985 showed that the traditional law against piracy was not adequate to deal with new types of unlawful acts against international shipping, especially those involving acts of terrorism. The 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention) and the technical and administrative measures adopted by the Maritime Safety Committee of IMO in 1986 and 1996 attempted to develop a broader regime to deal with unlawful acts against international shipping.However, the events of September 11, 2001 showed that additional measures were still needed to prevent terrorist attacks against ships.
One of the measures taken by IMO for this purpose was to adopt amendments to the SOLAS Convention to prevent ships and their cargoes from becoming the targets of terrorist activities. The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) is a supplement to the amendments, and it is intended to provide a special mechanism to safeguard security in ports and related facilities. The Code establishes co-operation between government agencies and the shipping and port industries in detecting security threats and preventing security incidents affecting ships in ports or the port facilities themselves. It introduces effective elements of prevention and deterrence into the international regime against terrorism in all its forms. As such it can play a major role in the efforts to enhance maritime security and promote safety and efficiency of international maritime transport.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
High Seas, Arts. 15–22.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982.Arts. 100–107. In:The Law of the Sea: Official Text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with Annexes and Index.New York:United Nations, 1983.
Ibid.
Mejia, M.Q.:Defining Maritime Violence and Maritime Security. In Mukherjee, P.K., Mejia, M.Q., Gauci, G. M. (eds): Maritimeviolence and other security issues at sea, Proceedings of the International Symposium at the World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden 26–30 August 2002. Malmö: World Maritime University, 2002, p. 34.
Op. Cit. 4,.
Op. Cit. 4,. See also Halberstam, M.:Terrorism on the High Seas: the Achille Lauro, Piracy and the IMO Convention on Maritime Safety. In:American Journal of International Law. 82,April (1988),No. 2, pp. 269–310.
Menefee, S.:The Achille Lauro and Similar Incidents as Piracy: Two Arguments. In: Ellen, E. (ed.):Piracy at Sea. Paris: ICC Publications SA, 1989, pp. 179–80.
IMO Assembly resolution 544 (14) adopted on 20 November 1985. Emphasis supplied.
United Nations General Assembly resolution 40/61 adopted on 9 December 1985. Emphasis supplied.
Text in 27 ILM 672 (1988).
SUA, Art. 3, paragraph 1(a).
Ibid. Art. 3, sub-paragraphs 1 (b) — (g) and paragraph 2.
Ibid. Art. 5.
Ibid. Art. 10.
IMO Assembly 942(22) of December 2001.
The proposed new offences relate mainly to the use of a ship as an instrument or theatre for terrorist activities, such as the use of ships for the storage or transport of materials or persons for terrorist crimes. The proposed new offences are listed in paragraph 8 of document LEG 85/4,Op. Cit. 17.
SOLAS, Chapter XI, Regulation 5.
Ibid. new Chapter XI-2, Regulation 4.
Ibid. Regulation 5.
Ibid. Regulation 6.
Ibid. Regulation 8.
Ibid. Regulation 9, paragraph 1. Sub-paragraph 1.3 of the Regulation states that “such control measures may additionally or alternatively include other lesser administrative or corrective measures”.
Ibid. Regulation 9, paragraph 2.Regulation 9 provides that denial of entry into port “shall only be imposed where the officers of duly authorized by the (port state) have clear grounds to believe that the ship poses an immediate threat to the security or safety of persons, or of ships or other property and there are no other appropriate means of removing the threat” (paragraph 3.3).Where entry into port is denied to a ship, the coastal stated is obliged to communicate the appropriate facts to the authorities of the next appropriate port of call or any other appropriate coastal states (paragraph 3.2).
Ibid. Regulation 10.
Ibid. Regulation 11.
Ibid. Regulation 12.
Conference resolution 2, operative paragraph 2.
Part A, paragraph 1.2, of the ISPS Code.
Ibid. paragraph 1.3.
Ibid. paragraph 3.2.
Ibid. paragraph 4.
Ibid. Paragraph 6.
Ibid. paragraphs 7 to 10.
Ibid. paragraphs 14–17.
Ibid. paragraph 19.
Conference resolution No. 8, adopted on 12 December 2002.IMO document SOLAS/CONF.5/34 Annex 2, page 10.
ISPS Code, Preamble, paragraph 5.
Introduction to Part A of the ISPS Code, paragraph 1.1 and Regulation 1.12 of Chapter XI-2 of the 2002 Amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention in SOLAS/CONF.5/32 ANNEX.