390
Views
10
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Conceptualizing and enhancing the argument for port state control in the Antarctic gateway states

, &
Pages 361-385 | Received 23 Mar 2015, Accepted 11 Aug 2015, Published online: 07 Sep 2015
 

Abstract

Antarctica is a global commons – an area recognized internationally as a shared resource outside of state jurisdiction. As with any global commons, the protection of the public good lies within the public interest. A wide array of regulation is required to protect the public interest in common goods from adverse impacts arising from unsustainable private sector behaviours. In the Antarctic context, tourist transportation to the continent can threaten the natural environment, particularly when Antarctic tourist vessels are involved in accidents, which has occurred at least 11 times since 2007. Many of these accidents, as well as most seafaring accidents in general, involve ships flying flags of convenience. More than 44% of vessels carrying tourists to Antarctica were flagged by states that are not party to the Antarctic Treaty System. This, coupled with the increasing demand for Antarctic tourism experiences, raises concern about how best to ensure the safety of the vessels and limit the risks posed to the natural environment. Port state control of Antarctic-bound tourist vessels in gateway states could be part of the solution but has yet to gain full acceptance. Port state control allows port state authorities to inspect the operating condition, machinery, safety systems and crew of a foreign vessel in its ports. Failed inspections can result in detention until the problems are remedied. This research confirms the need for standard regulations of tourist vessels among gateway states that should include inspection of equipment, engines, crew and hygiene conditions for crew and passengers as well as publicly available information about all ship inspections. However, before port state controls can be consistently implemented across all gateway states, research on the states’ current policy and capacity is necessary.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 United Nations. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (Annex to Document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment) (1987).

2 See Ellen Tenenbaum, “A World Park in Antarctica: The Common Heritage of Mankind.” Virginia Environmental Law Journal 10 (1990): 109–36; See also Peter Bautista Payoyo, Ocean Governance: Sustainable Development of the Seas (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1994).

3 “Antarctic Treaty,” University of Miami Law Review 33, no. 2 (1978): 515–21.

4 J. Mohan Rao, “Equity in a Global Public Goods Framework,” in Equity in a Global Public Goods Framework in Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, eds. Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg, and Marc Stern (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 68–87.

5 Machiel Lamers, Daniela Liggett, and Bas Amelung, “Perspective: Strategic Challenges of Tourism Development and Governance in Antarctica: Taking Stock and Moving Forward,” Polar Research 31 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/polar.v31i0.17219.

6 Michael Levine and Jennifer Forrence, “Regulatory Capture, Public Interest and the Public Agenda: Toward a Synthesis,” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 6 (1990): 167–98.

7 See ASOC, “Port-state Control: An Update on International Law Approaches to Regulate Vessels Engaged in Antarctic Non-governmental Activities,” IP 044, XXVI ATCM (Madrid, Spain, June 9–20, 2003).

8 G.P. Pamborides, International Shipping Law: Legislation and Enforcement (Athens: Sakkoulas Publishers, 1999).

9 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, “Implementation of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing”, chap. 9 in Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries (2002), 38. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y3536e/y3536e00.pdf.

10 Bevan Marten, Port State Jurisdiction and the Regulation of International Merchant Shipping (Heidelberg: Springer, 2014).

11 Maria Hänninen and Pentti Kujala, “Bayesian Network Modeling of Port State Control Inspection Findings and Ship Accident Involvement,” Expert Systems with Applications 41, no. 4 (2014): 1632–46.

12 United Nations System Task Team, “Thematic Think Piece: Global Governance and Governance of the Global Commons in the Global Partnership for Development Beyond 2015”, UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda (2013).

13 “Antarctic Treaty”, 515.

14 United Nations System Task Team, “Thematic Think Piece: Global Governance and Governance of the Global Commons in the Global Partnership for Development Beyond 2015”, UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda (2013), 5.

15 Ibid.

16 John Vogler, “Global Commons Revisited,” Global Policy 3, no. 1 (2012): 61–67.

17 Lamers, Liggett, and Amelung, “Strategic Challenges of Tourism Development,” http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/polar.v31i0.17219.

18 ATS, Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Buenos Aires: Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, 1991).

19 Dianne Dredge, “Place Change and Tourism Development Conflict: Evaluating Public Interest,” Tourism Management 31, no. 1 (2010): 104–12.

20 Jason R. Swanson and Gene L. Brothers, “Tourism Policy Agenda Setting, Interest Groups and Legislative Capture”, International Journal of Tourism Policy 4, no. 3 (2012): 206–21.

21 John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. (New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, 1995).

22 Abby Liu and Hsiou-hsiang Liu, “Government Approaches to Tourism: An International Inquiry,” International Journal of Tourism Policy 2, no. 3 (2009): 221–38.

23 Ibid.

24 Daniela Liggett, Tourism in the Antarctic: Modi Operandi and Regulatory Effectiveness (Saarbrücken: VDM, 2009).

25 See Debra Enzenbacher, “Tourists in Antarctica: Numbers and Trends,” Tourism Management 14, no. 2 (1993): 143–46; See also Robert K. Headland, Chronological List of Antarctic Expeditions and Related Historical Events (Cambridge: Scott Polar Research Institute/Cambridge University Press, 1992 and 2005); Robert K. Headland, “Historical Development of Antarctic Tourism,” Annals of Tourism Research 21, no. 2 (1994): 269–80; Daniela Liggett and Emma Stewart, “The Changing Face of Political Engagement in Antarctic Tourism”, in Handbook on the Politics of Antarctica, eds. Klaus Dodds, Alan Hemmings, and Peder Roberts (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, forthcoming); Rosamunde J. Reich, “The Development of Antarctic Tourism”. Polar Record 20, no. 126 (1980): 203–214; See also www.iaato.org.

26 See Bas Amelung and Machiel Lamers, “Estimating the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Antarctic Tourism”. Tourism in Marine Environments 4, no. 2–3 (2007), 121–33; Esther Bertram, “Antarctic Ship-borne Tourism: An Expanding Industry”, in Prospects for Polar Tourism, eds. John Snyder and Bernard Stonehouse (Cambridge, MA: CABI Publication, 2007), 149–69; Michael Lück, Patrick Maher, and Emma Stewart, eds., Cruise Tourism in Polar Regions: Promoting Environmental and Social Sustainability? (New York: Routledge, 2010); Heather Lynch, William Fagan, and Ron Naveen, “Population Trends and Reproductive Success at a Frequently Visited Penguin Colony on the Western Antarctic Peninsula”, Polar Biology 33, no. 4 (2010): 493–503.

27 ATS, “Operational Information – Non Governmental Expeditions – Vessel Based Operations”, 2014. http://ats.aq/devAS/ie_report.aspx?lang=e&rpt=Ship.

28 Ibid.

29 Countries that have ratified the Protocol are: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea DPRK, Korea ROK, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

30 See Republic of Liberia – Bureau of Maritime Affairs, Report of Investigation in the Matter of Sinking of Passenger Vessel EXPLORER (2007). www.photobits.com/dl/Explorer%20-%20Final%20Report.PDF.

31 See Christopher N. Mills and Gregory H. Mills, “Mass Casualty Incident Response and Aeromedical Evacuation in Antarctica,” Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 12, no. 1 (2011): 37–42; Daniela Liggett et al., “From Frozen Continent to Tourism Hotspot? Five Decades of Antarctic Tourism Development and Management, and a Glimpse into the Future”, Tourism Management 32 (2011): 357–66; Julia Jabour, “Strategic Management and Regulation of Antarctic Tourism,” in Antarctic Futures: Human Engagement with the Antarctic Environment, eds. Tina Tin, Daniela Liggett, Patrick Maher, and Machiel Lamers (Dordrecht: Springer, 2014), 273–86.

32 Francisco Orrego Vicuña, “Port-state Jurisdiction in Antarctica: A New Approach to Inspection, Control and Enforcement”, in Implementing the Environmental Protection Regime for the Antarctic, ed. Davor Vidas (New York: Springer, 2000), 45–69.

33 See ASOC, “Port State Jurisdiction: An Appropriate International Law Mechanism to Regulate Vessels Engaged in Antarctic Tourism”. IP 063, XXV ATCM (Warsaw, Poland: ASOC, September 10–20, 2002).

34 See Marten, Port State Jurisdiction; Maximo Mejia, Pierre Cariou, and Francois-Charles Wolff, Vessels at Risk and the Effectiveness of Port State Control Inspections, Technical Report, HAL (2010).

35 Sabine Knapp and Philip Hans Franses, “Econometric Analysis on the Effect of Port State Control Inspections on the Probability of Casualty Can Targeting of Substandard Ships for Inspections Be Improved?” Marine Policy 31 (2007): 550–63.

36 Meifeng Luo, Lixian Fan, and K. Li, “Flag Choice Behaviour in the World Merchant Fleet”, Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 5, no. 9 (2013): 429–50.

37 See ATS, Final Report of XIX ATCM (Seoul: Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, 1995).

38 See The Netherlands, “Inspection of Ships in Gateway Ports to Antarctica, on the Basis of MARPOL 73/78, and in Antarctic Ports under the Environmental Protocol (Annex IV) to the Antarctic Treaty”, WP9, XX ATCM (1996).

39 See ASOC, Port State Jurisdiction.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.

43 Tokyo MOU, Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region (1993).

44 ASOC, Port-state Control.

45 See New Zealand, “A Proposal to Enhance Port State Control for Tourist Vessels Departing to Antarctica”, IP36, XXXIIIATCM (2010).

46 See New Zealand, “A Proposal to Enhance Port State Control for Tourist Vessels Departing to Antarctica”, WP 7, ATME (2009).

47 See New Zealand, “The Enhancement of Port State Control for Passenger Ships Departing to Antarctica”, WP37, XXXIII ATCM (2010).

48 See New Zealand, “Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts on the Management of Ship-borne Tourism in the Antarctic Treaty Area – An Overview”, WP 1, ATME (2009).

49 ATS, “Resolution 7.” ATCM XXXIIICEP XIII (Punta del Este, Uruguay, 2010). http://www.ats.aq/devAS/info_measures_listitem.aspx?lang=e&id=477.

50 See Enzenbacher, “Tourists in Antarctica”,143–46; Headland, Chronological List of Antarctic Expeditions (1992, 1995); Headland, “Historical Development of Antarctic Tourism”, 269–80; Reich, “The Development of Antarctic Tourism”, 203–214.

51 See IAATO Statistics. www.iaato.org.

52 See Esther Bertram, Caroline Gunn, and Bernard Stonehouse, “The Cruise of the MS Golden Princess in Antarctic Waters, January 2007”. Polar Record 44, no. 2 (2008): 177–80; Esther Bertram, Shona Muir, and Bernard Stonehouse, “Gateway Ports in the Development of Antarctic Tourism”, in Prospects for Polar Tourism, eds. John Snyder and Bernard Stonehouse (Cambridge, MA: CABI Publication, 2007), 123–46.

53 Lamers, Amelung, and Stel, “Business as (Un)Usual: Integrated Scenario Analysis for Tourism in Antarctica”, in Tourism and Change in Polar Regions: Climate, Environment and Experiences, eds. C. Michael Hall and Jarkko Saarinen (London: Routledge, 2010), 247–62.

54 ASOC, “Port-state Control”, 5.

55 ATS, “Operational Information”, http://ats.aq/devAS/ie_report.aspx?lang=e&rpt=Ship.

56 ASOC, “Port-state Control”.

57 ATS, “Operational Information,” http://ats.aq/devAS/ie_report.aspx?lang=e&rpt=Ship.

58 Hänninen and Kujala, “Bayesian Network Modeling”, 1632–46.

59 Tony Alderton and Nik Winchester, “Flag States and Safety: 1997–1999”, Maritime Policy & Management 29, no. 2 (2002): 151–62.

60 Kevin Li and Jon Wonham, “Who is Safe and Who is at Risk: A Study of 20-Year-Record on Accident Total Loss in Different Flags,” Maritime, Policy and Management 26, no. 2 (1999): 137–44.

61 Nickie Butt et al., “15 Years of Shipping Accidents: A Review for WWF”, 2013. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/15_years_of_shipping_accidents_a_review_for_wwf_.pdf.

62 Ibid.

63 Luo, Fan, and Li, “Flag Choice Behavior”, 429–50.

64 Ibid.

66 Vogler, “Global Commons Revisited”, 61–67.

67 Lamers, Amelung, and Stel, “Business as (Un)Usual,” 247–62.

68 Landau, Denise, and John Splettstoesser, “Antarctic Tourism: What Are the Limits?” in Prospects for Polar Tourism, eds. John Snyder and Bernard Stonehouse (Cambridge, MA: CABI Publication, 2007), 197–209.

69 Kees Bastmeijer and Ricardo Roura, “Regulating Antarctic Tourism and the Precautionary Principle”, American Journal of International Law 98, no 4 (2004): 763–81.

70 Orrego Vicuña, “Port-state Jurisdiction in Antarctica”, 45–69.

71 Erik Jaap Molenaar, Coastal State Jurisdiction Over Vessel-source Pollution (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1998).

72 Ibid.

74 Pierre Cariou, Maximo Mejia, and Francois-Charles Wolff, “On the Effectiveness of Port State Control Inspections”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 44, no. 3 (2008): 491–503.

75 Molenaar, Coastal State Jurisdiction.

76 Lamers, Liggett, and Amelung, “Strategic Challenges of Tourism Development”, http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/polar.v31i0.17219.

77 ASOC, “Port-state Control”.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.