‘Man Overboard!’ Was EU influence on the Maritime Labour Convention lost at sea?

ABSTRACT

The European Union (EU) is widely regarded as a powerful actor in the establishment and maintenance of many global regulatory regimes. It actively engages in the promotion of labour standards beyond its borders, including through supporting the International Labour Organization (ILO). This contribution assesses EU influence in drafting one of the most important ILO standards in recent years: the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) (2006). Through analysis of official ILO records from the entire six-year period of negotiation and tracing the role of the EU during the negotiations of five vital parts of the convention (structure, simplified amendment procedure, inspection and enforcement, scope and social security), it challenges the view in the literature that the EU significantly influenced the final content of the convention. Delays in establishing a cohesive EU position, the strong tripartite ethos within the ILO and limitations imposed by rules-based standard setting are identified as the primary explanations.

KEY WORDS:

• European Union foreign policy
• International Labour Organization
• labour standards
• maritime labour
• regulation
• social policy

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Alasdair Young, the participants of the ‘Regulatory Power Europe? Assessing the EU's Efforts to Shape Global Rules' workshop in Georgia Tech, Atlanta, 18–19 April 2014 (funded by Jean Monnet Chair 2012-3121), and two anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful comments on earlier versions of this contribution.

Notes

1 The practice of registering merchant ships owned by foreign companies is termed ‘open register’ or ‘flag of convenience’ and is usually done because of such states have lower regulatory standards.

2 The European social model is codified in Title IV (Solidarity) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, regarding freedom of association and collective bargaining, fair treatment and equal opportunities, minimum ages, upholding health and safety laws, provision of social security and parental leave.

3 The EEA is cited in European Commission reports because Norway and Iceland participated closely in the final stages of EU coordination, and both have sizable fleets – Norway's fleet is the same size as that of France.

4 These were the final reports of the High-level Tripartite Working Group on Maritime Labour Standards (TWGMLS) from 2001 to 2004 (ILO 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a), two reports of the Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference (PTMC) (ILO 2004b, 2004c, 2004d), three reports of the Tripartite Intersessional Meeting on the Follow-up to the Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference (TIM) (ILO 2005a, 2005b), and the Report of the Committee of the Whole at the 2006 Maritime International Labour Conference (ILO 2006a).

5 The other major EU drafted amendment in Title 5 (Compliance and enforcement) was in Regulation 5.2.1 where the EU, with Norway, Iceland, Bulgaria and Romania, proposed reducing the burden on inspectors to pass details of minor violations onto other port authorities (ILO 2006a: §1101). Instead, they proposed integrating into an existing regulatory system called EQUASIS. While receiving support from many governments and shipowners, the EU was forced to accept a revised text to secure seafarers’ support that ‘differed significantly from the original amendment and would involve an additional burden for seafarers, shipowners, flag states and port states’ (ILO 2006a: §1124).

Additional information

Biographical note

Robert Kissack is an assistant professor and head of studies at the Institut Barcelona d'Estudis Internacionals (IBEI). He completed his PhD at the London School of Economics in 2006, and has been at IBEI since 2008. His main research area is European foreign policy in multilateral institutions, International Relations theory and international organizations.