Flag of convenience

For other uses, see Flag of convenience (business) and Flag of Convenience (band).

Flag of convenience (FOC) is a business practice whereby a ship's owners register a merchant ship in a ship register of a country other than that of the ship's owners, and the ship flies the civil ensign of that country, called the flag state.^[1] The term is often used pejoratively, and although common, the practice is sometimes regarded as contentious.

MOL Pride, owned and operated by the Japanese company Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, flying the flag of Liberia and bears the home port of Monrovia.

MV Mainport Pine, a seismic support vessel owned by Irish company Mainport Group, flies the flag of the Marshall Islands and bears the home port of Majuro.

Each merchant ship is required by international law to be registered in a registry created by a country,^[2] and a ship is subject to the laws of that country, which are used also if the ship is involved in a case under admiralty law. A ship's owners may elect to register a ship in a foreign country so as to avoid the regulations of the owners' country, which may, for example, have stricter safety standards. They may also select a jurisdiction to reduce operating costs, avoiding higher taxes in the owners' country and bypassing laws that protect the wages and working conditions of mariners.^[3] The term "flag of convenience" has been used since the 1950s. A registry which does not have a nationality or residency requirement for ship registration is often described as an open registry. Panama, for example, offers advantages such as easier registration (often online), the ability to employ cheaper foreign labour, and an exemption on income taxes.

The modern practice of ships being registered in a foreign country began in the 1920s in the United States when shipowners seeking to serve alcohol to passengers during Prohibition registered their ships in Panama. Owners soon began to perceive advantages in terms of avoiding increased regulations and rising labor costs and continued to register their ships in Panama even after Prohibition ended. The use of open registries steadily increased, and in 1968, Liberia grew to surpass the United Kingdom with the world's largest ship register.

As of 2021^[update], more than half the world's merchant ships were registered with open registries, and almost 40% of the entire world fleet, in terms of deadweight tonnage, (DWT) were registered in Panama, Liberia, and the Marshall Islands.^[4] It is estimated that nearly two thirds of the world's fleet is registered in states to which they had no connection.^[5][6] According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in January 2021, Panama had 6,653 ships on its registry (16 percent of the global fleet by DWT), followed by Liberia (3,909), Marshall Islands (3,732), Singapore (2,541), and Hong Kong (2,440).^[4]

Background

Open registries have been criticised, mainly by trade union organisations based in developed countries, especially those in the European Union, United States, Japan, Canada, or the United Kingdom. One criticism is that shipowners who want to hide their ownership may select a flag-of-convenience jurisdiction which enables them to be legally anonymous. Some ships with flags of convenience have been found engaging in crime, offering substandard working conditions, and negatively impacting the environment, primarily through illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Prior to the implementation of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969, shipowners may have selected a jurisdiction with measurement rules that reduced the certified gross register tonnage of a ship, to reduce subsequent port of call dock dues. Such was a consideration when Carnival Cruise Line changed the flag of the RMS Empress of Canada in 1972 to that of Panama.^{[citation needed]} In 2011, Cunard Line registered all its ships in Bermuda, which, besides other considerations, enabled its ship captains to marry couples at sea. Weddings at sea are described as a lucrative market.^[7]

As of 2009^[update], thirteen flag states have been found by international shipping organisations^[which?] to have substandard regulations. On the other hand, maritime industry practitioners and seafarers from other countries contend that this is a natural product of globalisation. Supporters of the practice, however, point to economic and regulatory advantages, and increased freedom in choosing employees from an international labour pool. Publications from as early as 1962 argue that shipowners from developed countries use the practice to be competitive in a global environment.^[8]

Legal context

International law requires that every merchant ship be registered in a country.^[2] The country in which a ship is registered is its flag state,^[1] and the flag state gives the ship the right to fly its civil ensign.^[9] A ship operates under the laws of its flag state, and these laws are used if the ship is involved in an admiralty case.^[10] A ship's flag state exercises regulatory control over the vessel and is required to inspect it regularly, certify the ship's equipment and crew, and issue safety and pollution prevention documents. The organization which actually registers the ship is known as its registry. Registries may be governmental or private agencies.

Reasons for adopting a flag of convenience

The reasons for choosing an open register are varied and include tax avoidance,^[11] the ability to avoid national labor and environmental regulations,^[11][12] and the ability to hire crews from lower-wage countries.^[11][13] National or closed registries typically require a ship be owned and constructed by national interests, and at least partially crewed by its citizens. Conversely, open registries frequently offer on-line registration with few questions asked.^[14][15] The use of flags of convenience lowers registration and maintenance costs, which in turn reduces overall transportation costs. The accumulated advantages can be significant, for example in 1999, 28 of the American company SeaLand's fleet of 63 ships were foreign-flagged, saving the company up to US$3.5 million per ship every year.^[11]

Accidents and reform

 

The sinking of Amoco Cadiz led to concerted ship inspections by port states.

The environmental disaster caused by the 1978 sinking of the MV Amoco Cadiz, which flew the Liberian flag, spurred the creation of a new type of maritime enforcement.^[16] Resulting from strong political and public outcry over the Amoco Cadiz sinking, fourteen European nations signed the 1982 Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control or Paris MOU.^[16] Under port state control, ships in international trade became subject to inspection by the states they visit. In addition to shipboard living and working conditions, these inspections cover items concerning the safety of life at sea and the prevention of pollution by ships.^[16] In cases when a port state inspection uncovers problems with a ship, the port state may take actions including detaining the ship.^[17] In 2015, member states of the Paris MOU conducted 17,858 inspections with deficiencies, which resulted in 595 detained vessels and 11 banned.^[18] Member states of the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding conducted 17,269 ship inspections in 2015, recording 83,606 deficiencies which resulted in 1,153 detentions.^[19]

The principle that there be a genuine link between a ship's owners and its flag state dates back to 1958, when Article 5(1) of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas also required that "the state must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag."^[20] The principle was repeated in Article 91 of the 1982 treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and often referred to as UNCLOS.^[2] In 1986, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development attempted to solidify the genuine link concept in the United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships.^[21] The Convention for Registration of Ships would require that a flag state be linked to its ships either by having an economic stake in the ownership of its ships or by providing mariners to crew the ships.^[21] To come into force, the 1986 treaty requires 40 signatories whose combined tonnage exceeds 25% of the world total.^[21] As of 2017^[update], only 14 countries have signed the treaty.^[21]

History

Merchant ships have used false flags as a tactic to evade enemy warships since antiquity, and examples can be found from as early as the Roman era through to the Middle Ages.^[22] Following the American Revolutionary War, merchantmen flying the flag of the fledgling United States quickly found it offered little protection against attack by Barbary pirates – many responded by seeking to transfer their registry back to Great Britain. The use of false flags was frequently used as a ruse de guerre by the British during the Napoleonic Wars and the United States during the War of 1812.^[3] During the mid-19th century, slave ships flew various flags to avoid being searched by British anti-slavery fleets.^[23] The Belen Quezada, in August 1919, was the first foreign ship to be re-registered in the Panamanian registry, and was employed in running illegal alcohol between Canada and the United States during Prohibition.^[24] The modern practice of registering ships in foreign countries to gain economic advantage originated in the United States in the era of World War I, though the term "flag of convenience" did not come into use until the 1950s.^[25]

 

The engineers of the Seamen's Act, from left to right, maritime labor leader Andrew Furuseth, Senator Robert La Follette, and muckraker Lincoln Steffens, circa 1915

Between 1915 and 1922, several laws were passed in the United States to strengthen the United States Merchant Marine and provide safeguards for its mariners.^[26] During this period, U.S.-flagged ships became subject to regular inspections undertaken by the American Bureau of Shipping.^[26] This was also the time of Robert LaFollette's Seamen's Act of 1915, which has been described as the "Magna Carta of American sailors' rights".^[27] The Seamen's Act regulated mariners' working hours, their payment, and established baseline requirements for shipboard food.^[27] It also reduced penalties for disobedience and abolished the practice of imprisoning sailors for the offense of desertion.^[27] Another aspect of the Seamen's Act was enforcement of safety standards, with requirements on lifeboats, the number of qualified able seamen on board, and that officers and seamen be able to speak the same language.^[27] These laws put U.S.-flagged vessels at an economic disadvantage against countries lacking such safeguards, and ships started to be re-registered in Panama's open registry from 1919.^[26] In addition to sidestepping the Seamen's Act, Panamanian-flagged ships in this early period paid sailors on the Japanese wage scale, which was much lower than that of western merchant powers.^[24] In the early phase of World War II the transfer of American-owned ships to the Panama registry was sanctioned by the United States government so that they could be used to deliver materials to Britain without dragging the United States, as a neutral, unintentionally into war.^[28]

Timeline

Date	Event
1919	Belen Quezada flagged in Panama
1948	ITF FOC Campaign begins
1949	World Peace flagged in Liberia
1969	Liberia is largest registry
1988	Marshall Islands open registry
1999	Panama is largest registry
2009	Panama, Liberia & Marshall Islands account for 40% of world tonnage

The Liberian open registry, founded in 1948,^[29] was the brainchild of Edward Stettinius, who had been Franklin D. Roosevelt's Secretary of State during World War II.^[30] Stettinius created a corporate structure that included The Liberia Corporation, a joint-venture with the government of Liberia.^[30] The corporation was structured so that 25% of its revenue would go to the Liberian government, another 10% went to fund social programs in Liberia, and the remainder returned to Stettinius' corporation.^[30] The Liberian registry was created at a time when Panama's registry was becoming less attractive for several reasons including its unpopularity with the U.S. labor movement and European shipping concerns, political unrest in Panama, and increases in its fees and regulations.^[30]

On 11 March 1949, Greek shipping magnate Stavros Niarchos registered the first ship under the Liberian flag, World Peace. When Stettinius died in 1949, ownership of the registry passed to the International Bank of Washington, led by General George Olmsted.^[31] Within 18 years, Liberia grew to surpass the United Kingdom as the world's largest register.^[31]

Due to Liberia's 1989 and 1999 civil wars, its registry eventually fell second to Panama's flag of convenience, but maritime funds continued to supply 70% of its total government revenue.^[31] After the civil war of 1990, Liberia joined with the Republic of the Marshall Islands to develop a new maritime and corporate program.^[31] The resulting company, International Registries, was formed as a parent company, and in 1993 was bought out by its management.^[31] After taking over the Liberian government, Americo-Liberian warlord Charles Taylor signed a new registry contract with the Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry, commonly known as LISCR. LISCR was one of the few legal sources of income for Taylor's regime.^[31] Liberia's registry is operated from Virginia, United States.^{[citation needed]}

As of 2021^[update], the open registries of Panama, Liberia, and Marshall Islands accounted for almost 40% of the entire world fleet by deadweight tonnage,^[4] maintaining roughly the same proportion for over a decade.^[32] In 2009, the top ten flags of convenience registered 55% of the world's deadweight tonnage, including 61% of bulk carriers and 56% of oil tankers;^[32] by 2021, they accounted for 38% of the world's vessels and over two-thirds of the global deadweight tonnage.^[33]

To counteract class hopping, in 2009 the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) established a Transfer of Class Agreement (TOCA).^[34][35]

Extent of use

 

Countries listed as having a flag of convenience by the International Transport Workers' Federation

The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) maintains a list of registries it considers to be flags of convenience (FOC) registries.^[36] In developing the list, the ITF considers "ability and willingness of the flag state to enforce international minimum social standards on its vessels,"^[37] the "degree of ratification and enforcement of ILO Conventions and Recommendations,"^[37] and "safety and environmental record".^[37] As of 2021^[update], the list includes 42 countries.^[36]

 

The top 11 flags of convenience in 2009, accounting for almost 55% of the entire world fleet^[32]

As of 2009^[update], Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands are the world's three largest registries in terms of deadweight tonnage (DWT).^[32] These three organizations registered 11,636 ships of 1,000 DWT and above, for a total of 468,405,000 DWT: more than 39% of the world's shipborne carrying capacity.^[32] Panama dominates the scene with over 8,065 ships accounting for almost 23% of the world's DWT.^[32] Of the three, the Marshall Islands (with 1,265 registered ships) had the greatest rate of DWT increase in 2009, increasing its tonnage by almost 15%.^[32]

The Bahamian flag ranks sixth worldwide, behind the Hong Kong and Greek registries, but is similar in size to the Marshallese flag of convenience, with about 200 more ships but a carrying capacity about 6,000,000 DWT lower.^[32] Malta, at the ninth position worldwide, had about 100 more ships than the Bahamas, with a capacity of 50,666,000 DWT, representing 4% of the world fleet with 12% growth that year.^[32]

At the eleventh position, Cyprus registered 1,016 ships in 2009, 2.6% of world tonnage.^[32] The remaining top 11 flags of convenience are Antigua and Barbuda (#20), Bermuda (#22), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (#26), and the French International Ship Register (FIS) at number No. 27.^[32] Bermuda and the FIS have fewer than 200 ships apiece, but they are large: the average Bermudan ship is 67,310 DWT and the average FIS ship is at 42,524 DWT.^[32] (By way of reference, the average capacity of ships in the U.S. and U.K. registers is 1,851 DWT and 9,517 DWT respectively.^[32]) The registries of Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines both have over 1,000 ships with average capacity of 10,423 DWT and 7,334 DWT respectively.^[32]

The remaining flags of convenience listed by the ITF each account for less than 1% of the world's DWT.^[32] As of 2008^[update], more than half of the world's merchant ships (measured by tonnage) are registered under flags of convenience.^[38]

Table of flags of convenience and statistics of registered ships
(2021 data)^[39]

Flag state^[36]	Ships registered	Bulk carriers	Container ships	General cargo	Oil tankers	other
Panama	7,980	2,697	643	1,381	771	2,488
Liberia	3,942	1,487	878	131	851	595
Marshall Islands	3,817	1,733	248	66	970	800
Malta	2,137	601	310	218	412	596
Bahamas	1,323	333	45	64	224	657
Cyprus	1,051	269	182	197	59	344
Belize	813	54	1	428	70	260
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	792	27	17	155	16	577
Madeira (as data for Portugal)	726	86	267	137	27	209
Antigua and Barbuda	677	24	123	473	2	55
Germany	599	–	77	85	36	401
Sierra Leone	591	30	9	319	108	125
France	548	–	29	50	28	441
Honduras	505	1	–	244	82	178
Togo	411	1	9	265	56	80
Tanzania	314	4	6	144	49	111
Vanuatu	306	18	2	55	2	229
Mongolia	302	4	7	131	64	96
North Korea	264	8	5	189	33	29
Palau	264	16	7	107	40	94
Cambodia	245	–	2	162	18	63
Saint Kitts and Nevis	244	6	7	45	53	133
Comoros	236	8	7	112	31	78
Gibraltar	202	8	19	55	20	100
Cook Islands	194	19	1	57	54	63
Barbados	165	46	–	103	–	16
Cayman Islands	160	32	1	1	23	103
Bermuda	147	–	12	–	18	117
Moldova	147	5	5	97	7	33
Faroe Islands	101	–	6	48	1	46
Myanmar	95	2	–	39	5	49
Cameroon	94	3	1	35	24	31
Sri Lanka	90	6	–	13	11	60
Curaçao	63	–	–	6	1	56
Lebanon	48	2	–	31	1	14
Bolivia	45	–	–	29	2	14
Jamaica	43	1	5	9	1	27
Equatorial Guinea	42	1	–	8	6	27
Tonga	32	–	4	13	1	14
Mauritius	29	–	–	1	4	24
Georgia	25	2	–	3	–	20
São Tomé and Príncipe	22	–	–	13	2	7

Criticism

 

The drilling platform Deepwater Horizon flew a Marshallese flag of convenience.^[40]

There are a number of common threads found in criticisms of the flag of convenience system. One is that these flag states have insufficient regulations and that those regulations they do have are poorly enforced. Another is that, in many cases, the flag state cannot identify a shipowner, much less hold the owner civilly or criminally responsible for a ship's actions. As a result of this lack of flag state control, flags of convenience are criticized on grounds of enabling tax avoidance, providing an environment for conducting criminal activities, supporting terrorism, providing poor working conditions for seafarers, and having an adverse effect on the environment.

David Cockroft, former general secretary of the ITF says:

Arms smuggling, the ability to conceal large sums of money, trafficking in goods and people and other illegal activities can also thrive in the unregulated havens which the flag of convenience system provides.^[15]

Panama has the largest maritime register, followed by Liberia. Landlocked Bolivia also has a major registry, as does Mongolia. Also, some registers are based in other countries. For example, Panamanian overseas consulates manage the documentation and collect registration fees, Liberia's registry is managed by a company in Virginia and Bahamas' from the City of London.^[41]

Concealed ownership

A ship's beneficial owner is legally and financially responsible for the ship and its activities.^[42] For any of a number of reasons, some justifiable and some suspicious, shipowners who wish to conceal their ownership may use a number of strategies to achieve that goal.

In jurisdictions that permit it, actual owners may establish shell corporations to be the legal owners of their ships,^[43] making it difficult, if not impossible, to track who is the beneficial owner of the ship. The 2004 Report of the UN Secretary General's Consultative Group on Flag State Implementation reported that "It is very easy, and comparatively inexpensive, to establish a complex web of corporate entities to provide very effective cover to the identities of beneficial owners who do not want to be known."^[44]

According to a 2003 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report entitled "Ownership and Control of Ships", these corporate structures are often multi-layered, spread across numerous jurisdictions, and make the beneficial owner "almost impenetrable" to law enforcement officials and taxation.^[43] The report concludes that "regardless of the reasons why the cloak of anonymity is made available, if it is provided it will also assist those who may wish to remain hidden because they engage in illegal or criminal activities, including terrorists."^[43] The OECD report concludes that the use of bearer shares is "perhaps the single most important (and perhaps the most widely used) mechanism" to protect the anonymity of a ship's beneficial owner.^[45] Physically possessing a bearer share accords ownership of the corporation.^[45] There is no requirement for reporting the transfer of bearer shares, and not every jurisdiction requires that their serial numbers even be recorded.^[45]

Two similar techniques to provide anonymity for a ship's beneficial owner are "nominee shareholders" and "nominee directors". In some jurisdictions that require shareholder identities to be reported, a loophole may exist where the beneficial owner may appoint a nominee to be the shareholder, and that nominee cannot legally be compelled to reveal the identity of the beneficial owner.^[46] All corporations are required to have at least one director, however many jurisdictions allow this to be a nominee director.^[47] A nominee director's name would appear on all corporate paperwork in place of the beneficial owners, and like nominee shareholders, few jurisdictions can compel a nominee director to divulge the identity of beneficial owners.^[47] A further hurdle is that some jurisdictions allow a corporation to be named as a director.^[47]

Crime

Flag of convenience ships have long been linked to crime on the high seas. For example, in 1982, Honduras shut down its open registry operations because it had enabled "illegal traffic of all kinds and had given Honduras a bad name".^[48]

Ships registered by the Cambodia Shipping Corporation (CSC) were found smuggling drugs and cigarettes in Europe, breaking the Iraq oil embargo, and engaging in human trafficking and prostitution in Europe and Asia.^[15] In response to these activities, in 2000, Ahamd Yahya of the Cambodian Ministry of Public Works and Transport told industry publication Fairplay "We don't know or care who owns the ships or whether they're doing 'white' or 'black' business ... it is not our concern."^[15] Less than two years later, French forces seized the Cambodian-flagged, Greek-owned MV Winner for cocaine smuggling.^[15] Shortly after the seizure, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen closed the registry to foreign ships,^[15] and Cambodia canceled its contract with CSC shortly thereafter.^[49]

The North Korean flag of convenience has also garnered significant scrutiny. In 2003, the North Korean freighter Pong Su reflagged to Tuvalu in the middle of a voyage shortly before being seized by Australian authorities for smuggling heroin into that country.^[15] That year, thirteen nations began monitoring vessels under the North Korean flag for "illicit cargos like drugs, missiles or nuclear weapon fuel".^[49]

Working conditions

In the accompanying material of the ILO's Maritime Labour Convention of 2006, the International Labour Organization estimated that at that time there were approximately 1,200,000 working seafarers across the world.^[50] This document goes on to say that when working aboard ships flagged to states that do not "exercise effective jurisdiction and control" over their ships that "seafarers often have to work under unacceptable conditions, to the detriment of their well-being, health and safety and the safety of the ships on which they work."^[51]

The International Transport Workers' Federation goes further, stating that flags of convenience "provide a means of avoiding labor regulation in the country of ownership, and become a vehicle for paying low wages and forcing long hours of work and unsafe working conditions. Since FOC ships have no real nationality, they are beyond the reach of any single national seafarers' trade union."^[52] They also say that these ships have low safety standards and no construction requirements, that they "do not enforce safety standards, minimum social standards or trade union rights for seafarers",^[53] that they frequently fail to pay their crews,^[11] have poor safety records,^[11] and engage in practices such as abandoning crewmen in distant ports.^[11]

Environmental effects

While flag of convenience ships have been involved with some of the highest-profile oil spills in history (such as the Maltese-flagged MV Erika,^[54] the Bahamian-flagged MV Prestige,^[55] the Marshallese-flagged Deepwater Horizon,^[56] and the Liberian-flagged SS Torrey Canyon, MV Amoco Cadiz^[57] and MV Sea Empress^[58]), the most common environmental criticism they face regards illegal fishing. These critics of the flag of convenience system argue that many of the FOC flag states lack the resources or the will to properly monitor and control those vessels. The Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) contends that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) vessels use flags of convenience to avoid fisheries regulations and controls. Flags of convenience help reduce the operating costs associated with illegal fishing methods, and help illegal operators avoid prosecution and hide beneficial ownership.^[59] As a result, flags of convenience perpetuate IUU fishing which has extensive environmental, social and economic impacts, particularly in developing countries.^[60] The EJF is campaigning to end the granting of flags of convenience to fishing vessels as an effective measure to combat IUU fishing.

According to Franz Fischler, European Union Fisheries Commissioner,

The practice of flags of convenience, where owners register vessels in countries other than their own in order to avoid binding regulations or controls, is a serious menace to today's maritime world.^[61]

Ratification of maritime conventions

Non-ratification of International Conventions, 2022^[62]

Flag	SOLAS	MARPOL	LL66	MLC2006	CLC ‍FUND92‍
Bolivia	No	No	No	No	No
Comoros	No	No	No	No
Cook Islands		No
Georgia		No		No
Honduras					No
North Korea		No		No	No
Lebanon	No	No			No
Moldova		No		No	No
Mongolia					No
Myanmar		No			No
São Tomé/Príncipe	No	No	No	No	No
Sierra Leone				No
Sri Lanka	No	No	No
Tanzania	No	No	No
Togo			No		No
Tonga				No
Vanuatu				No
Note	Cambodia,   Cameroon, and   Equatorial Guinea were not reviewed by ICS

International regulations for the maritime industry are promulgated by agencies of the United Nations, particularly the International Maritime Organization and International Labour Organization. Flag states adopt these regulations for their ships by ratifying individual treaties. One common criticism against flag of convenience countries is that they allow shipowners to avoid these regulations by not ratifying important treaties or by failing to enforce them.

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) issues an annual report entitled the Shipping Industry Flag State Performance Table identifying the six "core" conventions representing a minimum level of maritime regulation, from the viewpoint of shipowners, as SOLAS, MARPOL, LL 66, STCW, MLC, and CLC/FUND92.^[62] Of these, all 42 flag of convenience countries listed by ITF have ratified the STCW Convention, concerning standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers, and 22 of them have ratified all six. However, at least seventeen listed countries have not ratified all the remaining five conventions. To put this in context, over 50 flag states have not ratified all six conventions, including China and United States of America.^[62]

The Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and Load Line (LL 66) conventions focus on shipboard safety issues. Originally developed in response to the sinking of RMS Titanic, SOLAS sets regulations on lifeboats, emergency equipment and safety procedures, including continuous radio watches. It has been updated to include regulations on ship construction, fire protection systems, life-saving appliances, radio communications, safety of navigation, management for the safe operation of ships, and other safety and security concerns.^[62][63] LL 66 sets standards for minimum buoyancy, hull stress, and ship's fittings, as well as establishing navigational zones where extra precautions must be taken.^[64]

The International Labour Organization Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 provides comprehensive rights and protection at work for seafarers, including requirements for minimum age, qualifications, hours of work and rest, medical care, complaint procedures, wage payments, and onboard living arrangements.^[65] The MLC replaced a number of earlier ILO Conventions including ILO147.^[66]

MARPOL and CLC/FUND92 relate to pollution. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL), as modified by the Protocol of 1978, including Annexes I–VI" regulates pollution by ships, including oil and air pollution, shipboard sewage and garbage.^[67] The Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC) and International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND92) together provide mechanisms to ensure compensation for victims of oil spills.^[68][69]

Port state control

Port state control, 2020^[62]

Flag	Paris Blacklist	Tokyo Blacklist	USCG Target List
Barbados			N
Belize	N
Bolivia			N
Comoros	N
Cook Islands			N
North Korea		N
Jamaica		N
Moldova	N
Mongolia		N
Palau		N
St. Kitts/Nevis			N
St. Vincent/Grenadines			N
Sierra Leone	N	N
Tanzania	N		N
Togo	N	N	N
Note	Cambodia,   Cameroon, and   Equatorial Guinea were not reviewed by ICS

Main article: Port state control

In 1978, a number of European countries agreed in The Hague to audit labour conditions on board vessels vis-a-vis the rules of the International Labour Organization. To this end, in 1982 the "Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control" (Paris MOU) was established, setting port state control standards for what is now twenty-six European countries and Canada.

Several other regional Memoranda of Understanding have been established based on the Paris model, including the "Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region", typically referred to as the "Tokyo MOU", and organizations for the Black Sea, the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean, and Latin America.^[70] The Tokyo and Paris organizations generate, based on deficiencies and detentions, black-, white-, and grey-lists of flag states. The US Coast Guard, which handles port state control inspections in the US, maintains a similar target list for underperforming flag states. As of 2021^[update], at least fifteen of the 42 flags of convenience listed by the ITF are targeted for special enforcement by the countries of the Paris and Tokyo MOUs or U.S. Coast Guard.^[62]

The effectiveness of the port state control regime in correcting deficiencies is mitigated in some part by the practice of flag-hopping, in which shipowners and operators will rename their ships and acquire new vessel registrations in other jurisdictions in order to avoid detection and reduce the likelihood of being selected for port state control inspections.^[71]

Wages

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, in its 2009 Report on Maritime Trade, states that shipowners often register their ships under a foreign flag in order to employ "seafarers from developing countries with lower wages".^[72] The Philippines and China supply a large percentage of maritime labor in general,^[73] and major flags of convenience in particular. In 2009, the flag-states employing the highest number of expatriate-Filipino seafarers were Panama, the Bahamas, Liberia and the Marshall Islands.^[74] That year, more than 150,000 Filipino sailors were employed by these four flags of convenience.^[74] In a 2006 study by the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), sailors from the People's Republic of China comprised over 40% of the crews on surveyed ships flying the Panamanian flag, and around 10% of those flying the Liberian flag.^[75] The MARAD report referred to both China and the Philippines as "low cost" crewing sources.^[76]

The seafaring industry is often divided into two employment groups: licensed mariners including deck officers and marine engineers, and mariners that are not required to have licenses, such as able seamen and cooks, but are required to be certified. The latter group is collectively known as unlicensed mariners or ratings. Differences in wages can be seen in both groups, between "high cost" crewing sources such as the United States, and "low cost" sources such as China and The Philippines. However, salaries on flag of convenience ships are still far higher than median salaries of non-seafarers in these countries,^[77] in addition to income tax exemption of some seamen,^[78] particularly those from the Philippines.

For unlicensed mariners, 2009 statistics from the American Bureau of Labor Statistics give median earnings for able and ordinary seamen as US$35,810, varying from $21,640 (at the 10th percentile) to $55,360 (at the 90th percentile).^[79] This can be compared with 2006 statistics from the International Labour Organization, giving average yearly earnings for Filipino and Chinese able seamen around $2,000 to $3,000 per year (PHP9,900 per month and CNY3,071 per year).^[80][81] Among licensed mariners, American chief engineers earned a median $63,630, varying from $35,030 to $109,310 while their Filipino counterparts averaged $5,500 per year (PHP21,342 per month).^[81][82]

See also

• Declaration recognising the Right to a Flag of States having no Sea-coast
• Tax haven

Footnotes

1. Bernaert, 2006, p. 104.
2. ICFTU et al., 2002, p. 7.
3. Kemp, 1976.
4. "UNCTADstat". unctadstat.unctad.org. Retrieved 11 November 2022.
5. DeSombre, Elizabeth R. (2006). Flagging standards: globalization and environmental, safety, and labor regulations at sea. MIT Press Books 1.
6. "Flagging the Issues: Maritime Governance, Forced Labor, and Illegal Fishing". www.csis.org. Retrieved 11 November 2022.
7. Jonathan Bell (21 October 2011). "Luxury cruise ship line Cunard switches to Bermuda registry | Bermuda News". Royal Gazette. Retrieved 7 November 2012.
8. Boleslaw Adam, Boczek (1962). Flags of Convenience: An International Legal Study. Boston: Harvard University Press.
9. That the flag state gives the right to fly its flag, see United Nations, 1982, Article 91. That this flag is called a civil ensign, see De Kleer, 2007, p. 37.
10. Hamzah, 2004, p.4.
11. Working, 1999.
12. Dempsey and Helling, 1980.
13. "Flag of convenience". The Free Dictionary by Farlex. 2003. Retrieved 25 August 2010. or "Flag of convenience". Your Dictionary. 2003. Retrieved 25 August 2010.
14. Richardson, 2003.
15. Neff, 2007.
16. Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (2010). . Paris: Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control. Archived from the original on 6 April 2010. Retrieved 1 July 2010.
17. Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, 2009.
18. "Secretariat of the Paris MoU 2015".
19. "Secretariat of the Tokyo MoU 2015" (PDF).
20. D'Andrea 2006, p.2.
21. D'Andrea 2006, p.6.
22. Wiswall 1996, p. 113.
23. Bornstein, David (13 January 2011). "The Transatlantic Slave Trade and the Civil War". Opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved 28 March 2011.
24. DeSombre 2006, p. 76.
25. Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 2003, p.474.
26. DeSombre 2006, p. 75.
27. Marquis, Greg (2007). . Law and Politics Book Review. Archived from the original on 7 June 2011. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
28. Langewiesche, William. The Outlaw Sea – a world of freedom, chaos, and crime. North Point Press. New York. 2004.
29. Information on the Liberian Ship Registry, GlobalSecurity.org
30. DeSombre 2006, p. 74.
31. Pike, 2008.
32. (PDF). Review of Maritime Transport. UNCTAD: 36. December 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 July 2010. Retrieved 21 June 2010.
33. Review of Maritime Transport 2021 UNCTAD
34. . Archived from the original on 12 February 2018. Retrieved 11 February 2018.
35. Procedure for Transfer of Class
36. "Current Registries Listed as FOCs". ITF Seafarers. London: International Transport Workers' Federation. July 2021.
37. . International Transport Workers' Federation. Archived from the original on 10 January 2019. Retrieved 9 January 2019.
38. ISL: Shipping Statistics Yearbook 2008, page 27. Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics, 2009.
39. "Merchant Marine − Country Comparison Ranking". CIA World Factbook. January 2022.
40. "Deepwater Horizon (0139290)". ABS Record. American Bureau of Shipping. Retrieved 12 June 2010.
41. Langewiesche, William. 2004. Ibid.
42. OECD 2003, p. 4.
43. Gianni 2008, p. 20.
44. Gianni 2008, p. 19.
45. OECD 2003, p. 8.
46. OECD 2003, pp. 8–9.
47. OECD 2009, p. 9.
48. Reuters, 1982.
49. Brooke, 2004.
50. International Labour Organization, "Maritime Labour Convention 2006, Frequently Asked Questions", p. 5.
51. International Labour Organization, "Maritime Labour Convention 2006, Frequently Asked Questions", pp. 4–5.
52. . International Transport Workers' Federation. Archived from the original on 12 December 2005. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
53. What do FOC's mean to seafarers? International Transport Workers' Federation 11 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine
54. "Erika". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. November 2009. Retrieved 30 June 2010.
55. "Prestige (CEDRE)". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. April 2006. Retrieved 30 June 2010.
56. "Deepwater Horizon". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. June 2010. Retrieved 30 June 2010.
57. "Amoco Cadiz". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. April 2006. Retrieved 30 June 2010.
58. "Sea Empress". Brest: Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution. April 2006. Retrieved 30 June 2010.
59. Gianni & Simpson, 2005.
60. Environmental Justice Foundation, 2009.
61. ICFTU et al., 2002. Page 5.
62. "Shipping Industry Flag State Performance 2021/2022" (PDF). International Chamber of Shipping. January 2022.
63. . International Maritime Organization. Archived from the original on 22 April 2010. Retrieved 1 July 2010.
64. "International Convention on Load Lines, 1966". International Maritime Organization. Archived from the original on 7 July 2009. Retrieved 1 July 2010.
65. "Who Needs to be Inspected and Certified". Det Norske Veritas. Archived from the original on 1 September 2013. Retrieved 2 September 2013.
66. "Text of MLC Convention". International Labour Organization. Retrieved 2 September 2013.
67. "International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78)". International Maritime Organization. Archived from the original on 14 October 2009. Retrieved 1 July 2010.
68. "International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969". International Maritime Organization. Archived from the original on 7 July 2009. Retrieved 1 July 2010.
69. "International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND), 1971". International Maritime Organization. Archived from the original on 7 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2010.
70. Tokyo MOU Secretariat, 2008.
71. Cariou, Pierre; Wolff, François-Charles (2011). "Do Port State Control Inspections Influence Flag- and Class-hopping Phenomena in Shipping?". Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 45 (2): 155–177. ISSN 0022-5258. JSTOR 23072173.
72. (PDF). Review of Maritime Transport. UNCTAD: 57. December 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 July 2010. Retrieved 15 August 2010.
73. . Shipping Facts. London: Maritime International Secretariat Services. 2005. Archived from the original on 18 March 2008.
74. (PDF). Mandaluyong, Philippines: Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. 2009. p. 28. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 September 2010.
75. Maritime Administration, 2006, p. 14.
76. Maritime Administration, 2006, p. 13-14.
77. "Labor Market Intelligence Report: Highlights of the Wage and Salary and Wage Rates in Industries" (PDF). Technical Education And Skills Development Authority, Government of the Philippines. Retrieved 6 November 2014.
78. "OFW – Filipino Seafarer's Tax Exemption". 15 August 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2016.
79. "Sailors and Marine Oilers". Bureau of Labor Statistics. 14 May 2010. Retrieved 2 July 2010.
80. From "LABORSTA". Geneva: International Labour Office Department of Statistics. 2006. Retrieved 1 July 2010.. Expand "Wages" tab. Select "Wages and hours of work in 159 occupations." Select "China" and click "Go." Click "view." Data under "Able seaman".
81. From "LABORSTA". Geneva: International Labour Office Department of Statistics. 2006. Retrieved 1 July 2010.. Expand "Wages" tab. Select "Wages and hours of work in 159 occupations." Select "Philippines" and click "Go." Click "view." Data under "Ship's chief engineer" and "Able seaman".
82. "Ship Engineers". Bureau of Labor Statistics. 14 May 2010. Retrieved 2 July 2010.

References

• Bernaert, Andy (2006) [1988]. Bernaerts' Guide to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Victoria, B.C., Canada: Trafford Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4120-7665-4. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
• D'Andrea, Ariella (November 2006). The "Genuine Link" Concept in Responsible Fisheries [Legal Aspects and Recent Developments] (PDF). FAO Legal Papers Online. Vol. 61. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
• De Kleer, Vicki (2007). Flags of the World: A Visual Guide To The. London: Chatham Publishing. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-86176-305-1. Retrieved 14 August 2010. civil ensign.
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2000. ISBN 978-0-395-82517-4. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
• Dempsey, P.S.; Helling, L.L. (1 September 1980). "Oil pollution by ocean vessels – an environmental tragedy: the legal regime of flags of convenience, multilateral conventions, and coastal states". Denver Journal of International Law and Policy. 10 (1): 37–87. OSTI 6339199.
• DeSombre, Elizabeth (2006). Flagging Standards : Globalization and Environmental, Safety, and Labor Regulations at Sea. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-54190-9. Retrieved 13 June 2010.
• Gianni, Matthew (2008). "Real and Present Danger: Flag State Failure and Maritime Security and Safety" (PDF). Oslo & London: International Transport Worker's Federation. Retrieved 24 June 2010.
• . Johannesburg: International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD, International Transport Workers' Federation, Greenpeace International, 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. 2002. Archived from the original on 27 September 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
• FAQ regarding the Consolidated Maritime Convention of 2006 (PDF). Geneva: International Labour Organization. 2006. ISBN 978-92-2-118643-4. Retrieved 12 June 2010.
• (PDF). Washington, D.C.: United States Maritime Administration. November 2006. p. 9. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 July 2010. Retrieved 15 August 2010.
• Maritime Transport Committee (2003). (PDF). Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2004. Retrieved 25 June 2010.
• Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2003. ISBN 978-0-87779-808-8. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
• Kemp, Peter (1976). The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea. London: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-282084-6. Retrieved 13 June 2010.
• . International Transport Workers' Federation. Archived from the original on 18 May 2007. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
• . International Transport Workers' Federation. Archived from the original on 18 July 2010. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
• Hamzah, B.A. (7 July 2004). (PDF). United Nations Institute for Training and Research. p. 4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 June 2007. Retrieved 7 May 2007.
• (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Maritime Administration, U.D. Department of Transportation. 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 May 2010. Retrieved 12 June 2010.
• Pike, John (2008). "History of Liberian Ship Registry". GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 20 June 2010.
• Richardson, Michael (2003). "Crimes Under Flags of Convenience". YaleGlobal Online. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. Retrieved 25 August 2010.
• "Part VII: The High Seas". United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). United Nations. 1982. Retrieved 14 June 2010.
• Wiswall, Frank Jr. (1996). "Flags of Convenience". In Lovett, William (ed.). United States Shipping Policies and the World Market. Westport, Conn.: Quorum. ISBN 978-0-89930-945-3.

News stories

• Brooke, James (2 July 2004). "Landlocked Mongolia's Seafaring Tradition". New York Times. Retrieved 12 June 2010.
• "Brassed Off: How the war on terrorism could change the shape of shipping". The Economist. 16 May 2002.
• Fleshman, Michael (2001). "Conflict diamonds evade UN sanctions: Improvements in Sierra Leone, but continuing violations in Angola and Liberia". Africa Recovery. United Nations. 15 (4): 15.
• Neff, Robert (20 April 2007). . Asia Times. Archived from the original on 27 April 2007. Retrieved 12 June 2010.
• "Honduras Cuts Ship Registry". New York Times. Reuters. 9 November 1982. Retrieved 12 June 2010.
• Working, Russell (22 May 1999). "Flags of Inconvenience; Union Campaigns Against Some Foreign Ship Registry". The New York Times. Retrieved 4 May 2007.

Fishing references

• (PDF). London: Environmental Justice Foundation. ISBN 978-1-904523-19-2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 12 June 2010.
• Gianni, Matthew; Simpson, Walt (1 October 2005). The Changing Nature of High Seas Fishing [How flags of convenience provide cover for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing] (PDF). Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, International Transport Workers' Federation, and WWF International. Retrieved 12 June 2010.

Port state control organisations

• (PDF). Istanbul: Black Sea Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control. 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 July 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2010.
• (PDF). Kingston, Jamaica: Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Caribbean Region. 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 July 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2010.
• (PDF). Goa, India: Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding. 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 July 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2010.
• . Alexandria. 2007. Archived from the original on 6 July 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2010.
• [Port State Control: Making Headway] (PDF). Paris: Secretariat of the Paris Memorandum on Port State Control. 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 December 2010. Retrieved 29 June 2010.
• (PDF). Tokyo: Port State Control Committee of the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region (Tokyo MOU). 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 May 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2010.
• . Buenos Aires: Secretary of the Latin American Agreement on Port State Control. 2008. Archived from the original on 4 July 2011. Retrieved 29 June 2010.
• "Annual Targeted Flag List". Washington, D.C.: United States Coast Guard. 29 June 2010. Archived from the original on 12 December 2012. Retrieved 29 June 2010.

Further reading

• Alderton, Tony; Winchester, Nik (January 2002). "Globalisation and de-regulation in the maritime industry". Marine Policy. 26 (1): 35–43. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00034-3.
• Alderton, Tony; Winchester, Nik (September 2002). "Regulation, representation and the flag market". Journal for Maritime Research. 4 (1): 89–105. doi:10.1080/21533369.2002.9668323. S2CID 167581548.
• Alderton, Tony; Winchester, Nik (April 2002). "Flag states and safety, 1997–1999". Maritime Policy and Management. 29 (2): 151–162. doi:10.1080/03088830110090586. S2CID 153878098.
• Carlisle, Rodney. (1981). Sovereignty for Sale: The Origin and Evolution of the Panamanian and Liberian Flags of Convenience. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-668-6
• Carlisle, Rodney. (2009). Second Registers: Maritime Nations Respond to Flags of Convenience, 1984–1998. The Northern Mariner, 19:3, 319–340.
• "Bolivia Waves the Flag". The Economist. 27 May 2000.
• Toweh, Alphonso (3 March 2008). . Business Day. Rosebank, South Africa: BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd. Archived from the original on 26 February 2009. Retrieved 13 March 2008.
• (PDF). United Nations. 7 February 1986. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 June 2007. Retrieved 5 May 2007.
• "HASC No. 107-42, Vessel Operations Under Flags of Convenience". United States House Committee on Armed Services. 13 June 2002. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
• "Senate Report 106-396 – United States Cruise Vessel Act". United States Senate. 6 September 2000. Retrieved 4 May 2007.^{[permanent dead link]}

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Flag of convenience.

• Database on reported incidents of abandonment of seafarers
• Flag of Convenience Cyprus: Prestige Oil Spill 28 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine
• List of flag State comments on detentions for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002
• Cardiente, Christian; Barlaan, Karl Allan (10 September 2011). . Archived from the original on 2 September 2013.