STCW 95 - IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES - WHAT IS THE PASS MARK

By 1 August 1998 Regulation I/7 of the 1995 amendments to the Internat ional Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch kee ping for Seafarers (1978) requires a comprehensive submission of infor mation to the International Maritime Organization supporting an Admini stration's claim that it complies fully with, or is in the process of implementing, STCW '95 via policy and legislative processes. Once the complete information is received by the International Maritime Organiz ation, the Secretary-General must submit a report to this effect to th e Maritime Safety Committee. Three questions emerging from this contro versial provision in STCW '95 are: When, if ever, is the information f rom an Administration complete? What is the time frame allocated for c onfirmation by the IMO Secretariat? How does IMO assess whether the cl aim by an Administration is valid? The absolute nature of the phraseol ogy within Regulation I/7, in the author's view, handcuffs the certifi cation verification process by 'competent persons'. Equally unfortunat ely for Administrations, STCW is mute on establishing time frames for the processing of their submissions within IMO. Conceivably, a submiss ion by a proponent aspiring for 'white listing' may be delayed suffici ently long for the Secretary-General's report to miss the MSC regular meetings. What would be the impact of such a delay? Perhaps of greater importance though are two key issues linked to the third question. Th ese issues lie at the heart of the amendments to STCW. Firstly, there is not an appeal or challenge mechanism to IMO's decision; whether it is favourable or not. It is difficult to gauge at this time either the international shipping community's reaction to an unfavourable report by IMO or an Administration's position/ policy to recognize a chastis ed Party's submission. Secondly, the notion of 'black- listing' an Adm inistration for sub-standard marine certification and training may not be sustainable under international jurisprudence. Advocates for IMO's new role as a 'watchdog' of global marine certification and standardi zation organ far the United Nations would, no doubt, take a contraposi tion. This article attempts to illuminate the complexity of issues nes ted within Regulation I/7 of STCW '95. Emerging controversy could stra in international relations to such an extent that the high aspirations of the Convention's drafters for marine certification transparency ma y not be realized. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.