Monday, August 26, 2013
INTRODUCTION
The industrial revolution of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the upsurge in international commerce
which followed resulted in the adoption of a number of international treaties
related to shipping, including safety. The subjects covered included tonnage
measurement, the prevention of collisions, signaling and others.
By the end of the nineteenth century
suggestions had even been made for the creation of a permanent international
maritime body to deal with these and future measures. The plan was not put into
effect, but international co-operation continued in the twentieth century, with
the adoption of still more internationally-developed treaties.
By the time IMO came into existence
in 1958, several important international conventions had already been
developed, including the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
of 1948, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the
Sea by Oil of 1954 and treaties dealing with load lines and the prevention of
collisions at sea.
IMO was made responsible for ensuring
that the majority of these conventions were kept up to date. It was also given
the task of developing new conventions as and when the need arose.
The creation of IMO coincided with a
period of tremendous change in world shipping and the Organization was kept
busy from the start developing new conventions and ensuring that existing
instruments kept pace with changes in shipping technology. It is now responsible
for nearly 50 international conventions and agreements and has adopted numerous
protocols and amendments.
ADOPTING A CONVENTION
This is the part of the process with
which IMO as an Organization is most closely involved. IMO has six main bodies
concerned with the adoption or implementation of conventions. The Assembly and Council are the
main organs, and
the committees involved are the Maritime Safety Committee, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, Legal Committee and the Facilitation Committee.
Developments in shipping and other related industries are discussed by Member
States in these bodies, and the need for a new convention or amendments to
existing conventions can be raised in any of them.
Normally
the suggestion is first made in one of the committees, since these meet more frequently than the main organs. If agreement is reached in the
committee, the proposal goes to the Council and, as necessary, to the Assembly.
If the Assembly or the Council, as
the case may be, gives the authorization to proceed with the work, the
committee concerned considers the matter in greater detail and ultimately draws
up a draft instrument. In some cases the subject may be referred to a
specialized sub-committee for detailed consideration.
Work in the committees and
sub-committees is undertaken by the representatives of Member States of the
Organization. The views and advice of intergovernmental and international
non-governmental organizations which have a working relationship with IMO are
also welcomed in these bodies. Many of these organizations have direct
experience in the various matters under consideration, and are therefore able
to assist the work of IMO in practical ways.
The draft convention which is agreed
upon is reported to the Council and Assembly with a recommendation that a
conference be convened to consider the draft for formal adoption.
Invitations to attend such a
conference are sent to all Member States of IMO and also to all States which
are members of the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies. These
conferences are therefore truly global conferences open to all Governments who
would normally participate in a United Nations conference. All Governments
participate on an equal footing. In addition, organizations of the United
Nations system and organizations in official relationship with IMO are invited
to send observers to the conference to give the benefit of their expert advice
to the representatives of Governments.
Before the conference opens, the
draft convention is circulated to the invited Governments and organizations for
their comments. The draft convention, together with the comments thereon from
Governments and interested organizations is then closely examined by the conference
and necessary changes are made in order to produce a draft acceptable to all or
the majority of the Governments present. The convention thus agreed upon is
then adopted by the conference and deposited with the Secretary-General who
sends copies to Governments. The convention is opened for signature by States,
usually for a period of 12 months. Signatories may ratify or accept the
convention while non-signatories may accede.
The drafting and adoption of a
convention in IMO can take several years to complete although in some cases,
where a quick response is required to deal with an emergency situation,
Governments have been willing to accelerate this process considerably.
ENTRY INTO FORCE
The adoption of a convention marks
the conclusion of only the first stage of a long process. Before the convention
comes into force - that is, before it becomes binding upon Governments which
have ratified it - it has to be accepted formally by individual Governments.
Each convention includes appropriate
provisions stipulating conditions which have to be met before it enters into
force. These conditions vary but generally speaking, the more important and
more complex the document, and the more stringent are the conditions for its
entry into force. For example, the International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea, 1974, provided that entry into force requires acceptance by 25
States whose merchant fleets comprise not less than 50 per cent of the world's
gross tonnage; for the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of
Ships, 1969, the requirement was acceptance by 25 States whose combined
merchant fleets represent not less than 65 per cent of world tonnage.
When the appropriate conditions have
been fulfilled, the convention enters into force for the States which have
accepted - generally after a period of grace intended to enable all the States
to take the necessary measures for implementation.
In the case of some conventions which
affect a few States or deal with less complex matters, the entry into force requirements
may not be so stringent. For example, the Convention Relating to Civil
Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Material, 1971, came
into force 90 days after being accepted by five States; the Special Trade
Passenger Ships Agreement, 1971, came into force six months after three States
(including two with ships or nationals involved in special trades) had accepted
it.
For the important technical
conventions, it is necessary that they be accepted and applied by a large
section of the shipping community. It is therefore essential that these should,
upon entry into force, be applicable to as many of the maritime states as
possible. Otherwise they would tend to confuse, rather than clarify, shipping
practice.
Accepting a convention does not
merely involve the deposit of a formal instrument. A Government's acceptance of
a convention necessarily places on it the obligation to take the measures
required by the convention. Often national law has to be enacted or changed to
enforce the provisions of the convention; in some cases, special facilities may
have to be provided; an inspectorate may have to be appointed or trained to
carry out functions under the convention; and adequate notice must be given to
shipowners, shipbuilders and other interested parties so they make take account
of the provisions of the convention in their future acts and plans.
At present IMO conventions enter into
force within an average of five years after adoption. The majority of these
instruments are now in force or are on the verge of fulfilling requirements for
entry into force.
SIGNATURE, RATIFICATION,
ACCEPTANCE, APPROVAL AND ACCESSION
The terms signature, ratification,
acceptance, approval and accession refer to some of the methods by which a
State can express its consent to be bound by a treaty.
Signature
Consent may be expressed by signature
where:
mainframe.asp?topic_id=148mainframe.asp?topic_id=148
Conventions
mainframe.asp?topic_id=374mainframe.asp?topic_id=374
Depositary Information on IMO
Conventions
mainframe.asp?topic_id=247mainframe.asp?topic_id=247
Status of Conventions - Summary
mainframe.asp?topic_id=248mainframe.asp?topic_id=248
Status of Conventions by country
mainframe.asp?topic_id=771mainframe.asp?topic_id=771
Convention on the International
Maritime Organization
mainframe.asp?topic_id=249mainframe.asp?topic_id=249
Latest Ratifications
mainframe.asp?topic_id=262mainframe.asp?topic_id=262
Action Dates (Entry into force dates)
mainframe.asp?topic_id=250mainframe.asp?topic_id=250
SOLAS
mainframe.asp?topic_id=251mainframe.asp?topic_id=251
COLREG
mainframe.asp?topic_id=252mainframe.asp?topic_id=252
STCW
mainframe.asp?topic_id=253mainframe.asp?topic_id=253
SAR
mainframe.asp?topic_id=910mainframe.asp?topic_id=910
SUA
mainframe.asp?topic_id=254mainframe.asp?topic_id=254
Load Lines
mainframe.asp?topic_id=255mainframe.asp?topic_id=255
MARPOL 73/78
mainframe.asp?topic_id=1604mainframe.asp?topic_id=1604
Removal of Wrecks
mainframe.asp?topic_id=529mainframe.asp?topic_id=529
Anti-fouling Systems
mainframe.asp?topic_id=867mainframe.asp?topic_id=867
Ballast Water Management
mainframe.asp?topic_id=256mainframe.asp?topic_id=256
Liability and Compensation
Conventions
mainframe.asp?topic_id=257mainframe.asp?topic_id=257
Maritime Safety Conventions
mainframe.asp?topic_id=1547mainframe.asp?topic_id=1547
Maritime Security
mainframe.asp?topic_id=258mainframe.asp?topic_id=258
Prevention of Marine Pollution
Conventions
mainframe.asp?topic_id=259mainframe.asp?topic_id=259
Other IMO Conventions
The treaty provides that signature
shall have that effect;
mainframe.asp?topic_id=260mainframe.asp?topic_id=260
List of Conventions
It is otherwise established that the
negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that effect;
mainframe.asp?topic_id=261mainframe.asp?topic_id=261
Conventions in Development
The intention of the State to give
that effect to signature appears from the full powers of its representatives or
was expressed during the negotiations (Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, 1969, Article 12.1).
mainframe.asp?topic_id=1545mainframe.asp?topic_id=1545
Abbreviations of Conventions
A State may also sign a treaty
"subject to ratification, acceptance or approval". In such a
situation, signature does not signify the consent of a State to be bound by the
treaty, although it does oblige the State to refrain from acts which would
defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it has made its
intention clear not to become a party to the treaty (Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, Article 18(a))
SIGNATURE SUBJECT TO
RATIFICATION, ACCEPTANCE OR APPROVAL
Most multilateral treaties contain a
clause providing that a State may express its consent to be bound by the
instrument by signature subject to ratification.
In such a situation, signature alone
will not suffice to bind the State, but must be followed up by the deposit of
an instrument of ratification with the depositary of the treaty.
This option of expressing consent to
be bound by signature subject to ratification, acceptance or approval
originated in an era when international communications were not instantaneous,
as they are today.
It was a means of ensuring that a
State representative did not exceed their powers or instructions with regard to
the making of a particular treaty. The words "acceptance" and
"approval" basically mean the same as ratification, but they are less
formal and non-technical and might be preferred by some States which might have
constitutional difficulties with the term ratification.
Many States nowadays choose this
option, especially in relation to multinational treaties, as it provides them
with an opportunity to ensure that any necessary legislation is enacted and
other constitutional requirements fulfilled before entering into treaty
commitments.
The terms for consent to be expressed
by signature subject to acceptance or approval are very similar to ratification
in their effect. This is borne out by Article 14.2 of the Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties which provides that "the consent of a State to be
bound by a treaty is expressed by acceptance or approval under conditions
similar to those which apply to ratification."
ACCESSION
Most multinational treaties are open
for signature for a specified period of time. Accession is the method used by a
State to become a party to a treaty which it did not sign whilst the treaty was
open for signature.
Technically, accession requires the
State in question to deposit an instrument of accession with the depositary.
Article 15 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that
consent by accession is possible where the treaty so provides, or where it is
otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed or subsequently
agreed that consent by accession could occur.
AMENDMENT
Technology and techniques in the
shipping industry change very rapidly these days. As a result, not only are new
conventions required but existing ones need to be kept up to date. For example,
the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1960 was
amended six times after it entered into force in 1965 - in 1966, 1967, 1968,
1969, 1971 and 1973. In 1974 a completely new convention was adopted
incorporating all these amendments (and other minor changes) and has itself
been modified on numerous occasions.
In early conventions, amendments came
into force only after a percentage of Contracting States, usually two thirds,
had accepted them. This normally meant that more acceptances were required to
amend a convention than were originally required to bring it into force in the
first place, especially where the number of States which are Parties to a
convention is very large.
This percentage requirement in
practice led to long delays in bringing amendments into force. To remedy the
situation a new amendment procedure was devised in IMO. This procedure has been
used in the case of conventions such as the Convention on the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 and SOLAS 1974, all of which
incorporate a procedure involving the "tacit acceptance" of
amendments by States.
Instead of requiring that an
amendment shall enter into force after being accepted by, for example, two
thirds of the Parties, the "tacit acceptance" procedure provides that
an amendment shall enter into force at a particular time unless before that
date, objections to the amendment are received from a specified number of
Parties.
In the case of the 1974 SOLAS
Convention, an amendment to most of the Annexes (which constitute the technical
parts of the Convention) is `deemed to have been accepted at the end of two
years from the date on which it is communicated to Contracting Governments...'
unless the amendment is objected to by more than one third of Contracting
Governments, or Contracting Governments owning not less than 50 per cent of the
world's gross merchant tonnage. This period may be varied by the Maritime
Safety Committee with a minimum limit of one year.
As was expected the "tacit
acceptance" procedure has greatly speeded up the amendment process. The
1981 amendments to SOLAS 1974, for example, entered into force on 1 September
1984. Compared to this, none of the amendments adopted to the 1960 SOLAS
Convention between 1966 and 1973 received sufficient acceptances to satisfy the
requirements for entry into force.
ENFORCEMENT
The enforcement of IMO conventions
depends upon the Governments of Member Parties.
Contracting Governments enforce the
provisions of IMO conventions as far as their own ships are concerned and also
set the penalties for infringements, where these are applicable.
They may also have certain limited
powers in respect of the ships of other Governments.
In some conventions, certificates are
required to be carried on board ship to show that they have been inspected and
have met the required standards. These certificates are normally accepted as
proof by authorities from other States that the vessel concerned has reached
the required standard, but in some cases further action can be taken.
The 1974 SOLAS Convention, for
example, states that "the officer carrying out the control shall take such
steps as will ensure that the ship shall not sail until it can proceed to sea
without danger to the passengers or the crew".
This can be done if "there are
clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship and its equipment
does not correspond substantially with the particulars of that
certificate".
An inspection of this nature would,
of course, take place within the jurisdiction of the port State. But when an
offence occurs in international waters the responsibility for imposing a
penalty rests with the flag State.
Should an offence occur within the
jurisdiction of another State, however, that State can either cause proceedings
to be taken in accordance with its own law or give details of the offence to
the flag State so that the latter can take appropriate action.
Under the terms of the 1969
Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas, Contracting States are
empowered to act against ships of other countries which have been involved in
an accident or have been damaged on the high seas if there is a grave risk of
oil pollution occurring as a result.
The way in which these powers may be
used are very carefully defined, and in most conventions the flag State is
primarily responsible for enforcing conventions as far as its own ships and
their personnel are concerned.
The Organization itself has no powers
to enforce conventions.
However, IMO has been given the
authority to vet the training, examination and certification procedures of
Contracting Parties to the International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978. This was one of the
most important changes made in the 1995 amendments to the Convention which
entered into force on 1 February 1997. Governments will have to provide
relevant information to IMO's Maritime Safety Committee which will judge
whether or not the country concerned meets the requirements of the Convention.
Relationship between Conventions and
interpretation
Some subjects are covered by more
than one Treaty. The question then arises which one prevails. The Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties provides in Article 30 for rules regarding
the relationship between successive treaties relating to the same
subject-matter. Answers to questions regarding the interpretation of Treaties
can be found in Articles 31, 32 and 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties. A Treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the
ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in
the light of its object and purpose. When a Treaty has been authenticated in
two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language,
unless the treaty provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, a
particular text shall prevail.
Uniform law and conflict of law rules
A substantive part of maritime law
has been made uniform in international Treaties. However, not every State is
Party to all Conventions and the existing Conventions do not always cover all
questions regarding a specific subject. In those cases conflict of law rules
are necessary to decide which national law applies. These conflict of law rules
can either be found in a Treaty or, in most cases, in national law.
IMO CONVENTIONS
The majority of conventions adopted
under the auspices of IMO or for which the Organization is otherwise
responsible, fall into three main categories.
The first group is concerned with
maritime safety; the second with the prevention of marine pollution; and the
third with liability and compensation, especially in relation to damage caused
by pollution. Outside these major groupings are a number of other conventions
dealing with facilitation, tonnage measurement, unlawful acts against shipping
and salvage, etc.
TACIT ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE
The amendment procedures contained in
the first Conventions to be developed under the auspices of IMO were so slow
that some amendments adopted have never entered into force. This changed with
the introduction of the "tacit acceptance" procedure.
Tacit acceptance is now incorporated
into most of IMO's technical Conventions. It facilitates the quick and simple
modification of Conventions to keep pace with the rapidly-evolving technology
in the shipping world. Without tacit acceptance, it would have proved
impossible to keep Conventions up to date and IMO's role as the international
forum for technical issues involving shipping would have been placed in
jeopardy.
In the spring of 1968, IMO - then
still called IMCO, the Inter-Governmental Consultative Organization -
celebrated the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the IMO Convention. It
should have been an occasion for some congratulations. But all was not well.
Many of the Organization's Member States were not happy with the progress that
had been made so far.
Many were concerned about the
Organization's structure and its ability to respond to the changes taking place
in shipping. In March, 1967, the oil tanker Torrey Canyon had gone aground off
the coast of England, resulting in what was then the world's biggest oil spill.
IMO was called upon to take action to combat oil pollution and to deal with the
legal issues that arose. But would it be able to do so?
The general disquiet was summed up by
Canada in a paper submitted to the 20th session of the IMO Council in May 1968.
It stated that "the anticipations of twenty years ago have not been fulfilled"
and went on to complain of the effort required by Member States in attending
meetings and dealing with the technical problems raised by IMO. The paper was
discussed by the Council which agreed to establish a working group to prepare a
draft statement of the objectives of IMO and an inventory of further objectives
which the Organization could usefully fulfil in the field of international
maritime transport.
In November 1968 the working group
reported back to the Council. It outlined a list of activities, far broader
than the programmes undertaken by IMO so far. This was approved by the Council,
which also agreed that IMO needed to improve its working methods.
The working group was asked to report
to the Council again at its 22nd session in May 1969.This time it put forward a
number of proposals for improving IMO's working methods, the most important of
which concerned the procedures for amending the various Conventions that had
been adopted under IMO's auspices.
The problem facing IMO was that most
of its Conventions could only be updated by means of the "classical"
amendment procedure. Amendments to the 1960 SOLAS Convention, for example,
would enter into force "twelve months after the date on which the
amendment is accepted by two-thirds of the Contracting Governments including
two-thirds of the Governments represented on the Maritime Safety Committee.
This did not seem to be a difficult target when the Convention was adopted,
because to enter into force the Convention had to be accepted by only 15 countries,
seven of which had fleets consisting of at least 1 million gross tons of
merchant shipping.
But by the late 1960s the number of
Parties to SOLAS had reached 80 and the total was rising all the time as new
countries emerged and began to develop their shipping activities. As the number
of Parties rose, so did the total required to amend the Convention. It was like
trying to climb a mountain that was always growing higher and the problem was
made worse by the fact that Governments took far longer to accept amendments
than they did to ratify the parent Convention.
The Council approved the working
group's proposal that "it would be a useful first step to undertake a
comparative study of the conventions for which IMO is depositary and similar
instruments for which other Members of the United Nations family are
responsible." This proposal was endorsed by the 6th regular session of the
IMO Assembly in October 1969 and the study itself was completed in time to be
considered by the Assembly at its 7th session in 1971.
It examined the procedures of four
other UN agencies: the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the
International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
It showed that all of these
organizations were able to amend technical and other regulations. These
amendments became binding on Member States without a further act of
ratification or acceptance being required.
On the other hand, IMO had no
authority to adopt, let alone amend conventions. Its mandate allowed it only to
"provide for the drafting of conventions, agreements or other instruments
and to recommend these to Governments and to intergovernmental organizations
and to convene such conferences as may be necessary." Article 2 of the IMO
Convention specifically stated that IMO's functions were to be
"consultative and advisory".
The Organization could arrange a
conference - but it was up to the conference to decide whether the Convention
under discussion should or should not be adopted and to decide how it should be
amended. The study concluded that "any attempt to bring IMO procedure and
practice into line with the other organizations would, therefore, entail a
change either in the constitutional and institutional structure of the
Organization itself or in the procedure and practice of the diplomatic
conferences which adopt the conventions of IMO.
The first might involve an amendment
to the IMO Convention itself. The second might require that diplomatic conferences
convened by IMO should grant greater power to the organs of IMO in regard to
the review and revision of the instruments.
The study was discussed at length by
the Assembly. Canada pointed out that the amendments adopted to the 1960 SOLAS
Convention in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 had failed to enter into force and this
"sufficed to show that IMO would henceforth have to tackle serious
institutional problems." A note submitted to the conference by Canada
stated that "unless the international maritime community is sufficiently
responsive to these changed circumstances, States will once again revert to the
practice of unilaterally deciding what standards to apply to their own shipping
and to foreign flag shipping visiting their ports."
The result was the adoption of
resolution A.249(VII) which referred to the need for an amendment procedure
"which is more in keeping with the development of technological advances
and social needs and which will expedite the adoption of amendments." It
called for the Legal Committee and Maritime Safety Committee to prepare draft
proposals for consideration by the 8th Assembly.
A growing urgency was added by the
fact that IMO was preparing a number of new conventions for adoption during the
next few years. Conferences to consider a new Convention on the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and an International Convention
for Safe Containers were both scheduled for 1972, a major Convention dealing
with the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships for 1973 and a conference to
revise SOLAS was scheduled for 1976. All of these treaties required a new,
easier amendment procedure than the traditional method.
The MSC discussed the amendment
question at its 25th session in March 1972. A working group was formed to
discuss the matter in detail and concluded that at current rates of acceptance
the requisite "two-thirds" target needed to amend SOLAS 1960
"will not be achieved...for many years, possibly never." Moreover,
any future amendments would almost certainly suffer the same fate. This would
include any amendments intended to improve the amendment procedure itself.
The working group reported: "It
follows that the only realistic way of bringing an improved amending procedure
into effect within a reasonable period of time is to incorporate it into new or
revised technical conventions.
A few weeks later, the Legal
Committee held its 12th session. Among the documents prepared for the meeting
was a report on discussions that had taken place at the MSC and a detailed
paper prepared by the Secretariat. The paper analysed the entry into force and
amendment processes of various IMO Conventions and referred to two possible
methods that had been considered by the Assembly, for speeding up the amendment
procedure. Alternative I was to revise each Convention so that greater
authority for adopting amendments might be delegated to the appropriate IMO
organs. Alternative II was to amend the IMO Convention itself and give IMO the
power to amend Conventions.
The study then considered Alternative
I in greater detail. The main reason why amendments took so long to enter into
force was the time taken to gain acceptance by two-thirds of Contracting
Governments. One way of reducing this period would be by "specifying a
date ...of entry into force after adoption by the Assembly, unless that date of
amendment is explicitly rejected by a certain number or percentage of
Contracting Governments." The paper said that this procedure "has the
advantage that all Contracting Governments would be able to advance the
preparatory work for implementing the amended regulations and the industry
would be in a position to plan accordingly."
The Committee established a working
group to consider the subject and prepared a preliminary study based on its report,
which again referred to the disadvantages of the classical amendment system.
The study continued: "The remedy for this, which has proved to be workable
in practice, in relation to a number of conventions, is what is known as the
'tacit' or 'passive' acceptance procedure. This means that the body which
adopts the amendment at the same time fixes a time period within which
contracting parties will have the opportunity to notify either their acceptance
or their rejection of the amendment, or to remain silent on the subject. In
case of silence, the amendment is considered to have been accepted by the
party...".
The tacit acceptance idea immediately
proved popular. The Council, at its meeting in May, decided that the next
meeting of the Legal Committee should consist of technical as well as legal
experts so that priority could be given to the amendment issue. The Committee
was asked to give particular attention to tacit acceptance.
The idea was given non-governmental
support by the International Chamber of Shipping, which had consultative status
with IMO and submitted a paper stating that the lack of an effective amendment
procedure created uncertainties and was detrimental to effective planning by
the industry. The classical procedure had also encouraged some governments to
introduce unilateral legislation that, however well intentioned, was
"seriously disruptive to international shipping services." The paper
said that if other Governments did the same "the disruption to
international shipping and the world trade which it serves would become
increasingly severe. Such unilateral action strikes at the purpose of
IMO."
By the time the Legal Committee met
for its 14th session in September 1972, there was general agreement that tacit
acceptance offered the best way forward. Other ideas, such as amending the IMO
Convention itself, had too many disadvantages and would take too long to
introduce. There was some concern about what would happen if a large number of
countries did reject an amendment and the Committee members agreed that tacit
acceptance should apply only to the technical content of Conventions, which was
often contained in annexes. The non-technical articles should continue to be
subject to the classical (or "positive") acceptance procedure.
The Committee also generally agreed
that alternative procedures for amending the technical provisions should be
retained but it did not reach consensus on another issue: should amendments be
prepared and adopted by an appropriate IMO body, such as the Maritime Safety
Committee - or by Contracting Parties to the Convention concerned? This was an
important point at the time, since many Contracting Parties to IMO Conventions
were not yet Members of IMO itself and might object to treaties they had
ratified being amended without them even being consulted.
This issue was still unsettled when
the Conference on Revision of the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea opened in October 1972. The purpose of the conference was to
update the Collision Regulations and to separate them from the SOLAS Convention
(the existing regulations were annexed to SOLAS 1960).
The amendment procedure is contained
in Article VI. Amendments to the Collision Regulations adopted by the MSC (by a
two-thirds majority) have to be communicated to Contracting Parties and IMO
Member States at least six months before being considered by the Assembly. If
adopted by the Assembly (again by a two-thirds majority), the amendments enter
into force on a date determined by the Assembly unless more than one third of
Contracting Parties notify IMO of their objection. On entry into force, any
amendment shall "for all Contracting Parties which have not objected to
the amendment, replace and supersede any previous provision to which the amendment
refers."
Less than two months later, on 2
December 1972 a conference held in Geneva adopted the International Convention
for Safe Containers, Article X of which contains procedures for amending any
part or parts of the Convention. The procedure is the traditional
"positive" acceptance system, under which amendments enter into force
twelve months after being adopted by two-thirds of Contracting Parties.
However, Article XI contains a special procedure for amending the technical
annexes which also incorporates tacit acceptance. The procedure is slightly
different from that used in the Collision Regulations, one difference being
that the amendments can be adopted by the MSC "to which all Contracting
Parties shall have been invited to participate and vote." This answered
the question of how to take into account the interests of Parties to
Conventions that were not Member States of IMO.
The next Convention to be considered
was the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL), which was successfully adopted in May 1973. It, too, incorporated tacit
acceptance procedures for amending the technical annexes. In the meantime, IMO
was preparing for a new SOLAS convention. This was considered necessary because
none of the amendments adopted to the 1960 version had entered into force and
did not appear likely to do so in the near future. The 1966 Load Lines
Convention also contained a classical amendment procedure and the intention was
to combine the two instruments in a new Convention, which was scheduled to be
considered in 1976.
The MSC discussed this proposal at
its 26th session in October-November, but it was clear that this would be a
daunting and time-consuming task. The combined instrument might be a good idea
for the future - but the real priority was to get the amendments to SOLAS 1960
into force as quickly as possible and to make sure that future amendments would
not be delayed. A working group was set up to consider the various
alternatives, but opinion began to move in favour of a proposal by the United
Kingdom that IMO should concentrate on an interim Convention designed to bring
into force the amendments adopted since 1960. The new Convention, it was
suggested, would consist of the 1960 text with the addition of a tacit acceptance
amendment procedure and the addition of amendments that had already been
adopted.
Another advantage, the United Kingdom
pointed out, was that the conference called to adopt the revised Convention
"might be held considerably earlier than 1976 since comparatively little
preparation would be needed." The subject was discussed again at the MSC's
27th session in the spring of 1973 and, although some delegations wanted a more
comprehensive revision, others felt that the workload would be so great that the
conference would be seriously delayed. By a vote of 12 in favor and four
abstentions, the Committee decided to call a conference with limited scope, as
proposed by the United Kingdom.
On 21 October, 1974, the
International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea opened in London and on 1
November a new SOLAS Convention was adopted, which incorporated the tacit
acceptance procedure.
The tacit acceptance amendment
procedure has now been incorporated into the majority of IMO's technical
Conventions and has been extended to some other instruments as well. Its
effectiveness can be seen most clearly in the case of SOLAS 1974, which has
been amended on many occasions since then. In the process, the Convention's
technical content has been almost completely re-written.
mainframe.asp?topic_id=1546mainframe.asp?topic_id=1546
Sources: http://www.imo.org
