Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From privilege to peril

— The shipmaster’s current legal rights and responsibilities

  • Published:
WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article addresses the growing concern over the diminishing legal rights and increasing responsibilities of those in command of ships today. A number of high-profile maritime accidents have focussed on the dilemma faced by shipmasters who appear to be held responsible for actions over which they have little or no control. This seems to indicate that the traditional privilege and honour associated with command appears to have become a risky burden. The article discusses the legal rights and responsibilities that shipmasters have today in terms of international maritime law and policy. Four case studies are utilized to illustrate the problem.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mortensen, N. B.:The ERIKA Incident. In:BIMCO Review. (2001), p. 44.

  2. Gray, T.:VIRGO Arrests Breaks Sea Convention. In:Lloyd’s List, August 20, 2001.

  3. See press reports: Chinnery, K.:Captain Courageous. In:Lloyd’s Maritime Asia. October, 2001. Wright, T.:Rescuing the Truth. In:The Bulletin. February 26, 2002.

  4. Institute of Maritime Law,Ratification of Maritime Conventions (London: Lloyd’s Press, 1991-2003), Vol. I.1. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  5. This principle was first established in 1927 by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the famousLotus case.France v.Turkey (The Lotus) P.C.I.J. Ser A. No. 10 (1927). The principle was then set out in theConvention on the High Seas 1958, Art. 11,Ratification of Maritime Conventions note 14 above, Vol. I.1.100.

  6. Art. 97.

  7. See, Nelson,D.:The Volga Case. F.S. Dethridge Memorial Address, 30th Annual Conference of the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand, Brisbane, October 2003.

  8. Ibid., Art. 94(7).

  9. UNCLOS, Art. 56(1)(b)(iii).

  10. Ibid., Arts. 220 & 221.

  11. Ibid., Art. 225.

  12. Ibid., Art. 230 (1) & (2).

  13. Ibid., Art. 230 (3).

  14. Ibid., Art. 73(2).

  15. Ibid., Art. 73(3).

  16. International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Case of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 (INTERVENTION 1969). Spain and France are both parties to the Convention.

  17. INTERVENTION 1969, Arts. III and V.

  18. UNCLOS, Art. 98.

  19. Li, K.X. and Wonham, J.:The Role of States in Maritime Employment and Safety. Dalian: Dalian Maritime University Press, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Holman, H.:A Handy Book for Shipowners and Masters, 16th Ed. London: UK P&I Club, 1964, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hill, C.:Maritime Law, 4th Ed. London: Lloyd’s Press, 1995, p. 495.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Op. Cit. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Under theConvention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, Art. 4.

  24. For example,Lady Gwendolyn [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 276;Grand Champion Tankers Ltd. v. Norpipe A/S (The Marion) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (H.L.).

  25. For example,The Princess Victoria [1953] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 619;Lady Gwendolyn, Op. Cit. 31.

  26. See also, Couper, A.D.:Voyages of Abuse. In:Seafarers, Human Rights and International Shipping. London: Pluto Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See, for example, Boisson, P.:Safety at Sea — Policies, Regulations & International Law. Paris: Bureau Veritas, 1999.Mukherjee, P.K.:Maritime Legislation.Malmö:WMU Publications, 2002.

  28. This was very well outlined by Capt.W.E.R.Wingate, “Towards the Empowered Shipmaster”Seaways, September 2001, at 15–16.

  29. See, Bansal, A.K.:The ‘Designated Person’ and Criminal Liability. In:Seaways. September, 2001, pp. 21–22.

  30. Chalos, M. G.:The Criminal Law and the Seafarer — a US Perspective. In:Seaways. January, 2001, pp.21-24. Bansal, A.K.:Time for Mandatory Insurance — The Criminal Law and the Seafarer. In:Seaways. November, 2000, pp. 7–8. Parker, C.J.:Criminal Law and the Seafarer. In:Seaways. October, 2000, pp. 7–8.

  31. UNCTAD,Review of Maritime Transport 2002.Geneva: UNCTAD, 2003, p. 25.

  32. See, for example, Gold, E.:Gard Handbook on P&I Insurance. Arendal: Gard A.S., 2002, p. 420.

  33. Including basic salary, overtime/bonus, and other emoluments.Lloyd’s List Maritime Asia, March 2003, pp. 15–17.

  34. See, Editorial:Protecting Masters. In:Lloyd’s List. July 1, 2001.

  35. See, Anderson, P.:Cracking the Code — The Relevance of the ISM Code and its Impact on Shipping Practices. London: Nautical Institute, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  36. The Nautical Institute:Plans for the Future-Strategic Projects 2001–2006. London: The Nautical Institute, 2001, p. 4. See also, Gold, E.:Empowering the Shipmaster. In:Seaways, July 2001, pp. 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Maritime Law, University of Queensland, Australia

    Edgar Gold

Authors
  1. Edgar Gold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This is a revised version of a Background Paper prepared for the Nautical Institute’s 12th International Command Seminar, London,May 2003. A condensed version of the paper was also presented at the Ausmarine East 2003 Conference, Brisbane, Australia, October 2003.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gold, E. From privilege to peril. WMU J Marit Affairs 3, 51–66 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195049

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195049

Key words

Search

Navigation