MLC

The Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) is an International Labour Organization Convention established in 2006,

The treaty was established in 2006 as the Fourth pillar of international maritime law and embodies "all up-to-date
standards of existing international maritime labour Conventions and Recommendations, as well as the fundamental
principles to be found in other international labour Conventions".
The other "pillars are the SOLAS, STCW and
MARPOL.

Maritime Labour Convention

Content and Organization
The convention consists of the sixteen articles containing general provisions as well as the Code. The Code consists
of five Titles in which specific provisions are grouped by standard (or in Title 5: mode of enforcement):
• Title 1: Minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship
• Title 2: Conditions of employment
• Title 3: Accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering
• Title 4: Health protection, medical care, welfare and social security protection
• Title 5: Compliance and enforcement
For Each Title, there are general Standards, which are further specified in mandatory Regulations (list A) as well as
Guidelines (List B). Guidelines generally form a form of implementation of a Regulation according to the
requirements, but States are free to have different implementation measures. Regulations should in principle be
implemented fully, but a country can implement a "substantially equivalent" regulation, which it should declare upon
ratification.
Title 1: Minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship
The minimum requirements set out in this section of the code are devided in 4 parts and are summarized below:
• Minimum age requirements: the mimimum age is 16 years (18 for night work and work in hazardous areas).
• Medical fitness: workers should be medically fit for the duties they are performing. Countries should issue
medical certificates as defined in the STCW (or use a similar standard).
• Training: Seafarers should be trained for their duties as well as have had a personal safety training.
• Recruitment/placement services located in member states or for ships flying the flag of member states should have
(amongst others) proper placement procedures, registration, complaint procedures and compensation if the
recruitment fails.
Title 2: Employment conditions
The Title on employment conditions lists conditions of the contract and payments, as well as the working conditions
on ships.
• Contracts: the contract should be clear, legally enforceable and incorporate collective bargaining agreements (if
existent).
• Payments: Wages should be paid at least every month, and should be transferrable regularly to family if so
desired.
• Rest hours: rest hours should be implemented in national legislation. The maximum hours of work in that
legislation should not exceed 14 hours in any 24-hour period and 72 hours in any seven-day period, or: ten hours
in any 24-hour period and 77 hours in any seven-day period. Furthermore every day, at least six hours of rest
should be given consecutively.
• Leave: Seafarers have a right to annual leave as well as shore leave.
• Repatriation: Returning to their country of residence should be free
• Loss: If a ship is lost or foundered, the seafarers have a right to an unemployment payments.
• Manning: Every ship should have a sufficient manning level
Maritime Labour Convention 17
Title 3: Accommodation, Recreational Facilities, Food and Catering
The title specifies rules detailed rules for accommodation and recreational facilities, as well as food and catering.
• Accommodation: Accommodation for living and/or working should be "promoting the seafarers' health and
well-being". Detailed provisions (in rules and guidelines) give minimum requirements for various types of rooms
(mess rooms, recreational rooms, dorms etc).
• Food and Catering: Both food quality and quantity, including water should be regulated in the flag state.
Furthermore, cooks should have proper training.
Title 4: Health Protection, Medical Care, Welfare and Social Security Protection
Title 4 consists of 5 regulations about Health, Liability, Medical care, Welfare and Social security.
• Medical care on board ship and ashore: Seafarers should be covered for and have access to medical care while on
board; in principle at no cost and of a quality comparable to the standards of health care on shore. Countries
through which territory a ship is passing should guarantee treatment on sure in serious cases.
• Shipowners' liability: Seafarers should be protected from thefinancial effects of "sickness, injury or death
occurring in connection with their employment". This includes at least 16 weaks of payment of wages after start
of sickness.
• Health and safety protection and accident prevention: A safe and hygienic environment should be provided to
seafarers both during working and resting hours and measures should be taken to take reasonable safety measures.
• Access to shore-based welfare facilities: Port states should provide "welfare, cultural, recreational and
information facilities and services" and to provide easy access to these services. The access to these facilities
should be open to all seafarers irrespective of race, sex, religion or political opinion.
• Social security: Social security coverage should be available to seafarers (and in case it is customary in the flag
state: their relatives).

SUA CONVENTION

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988

Adoption: 10 March 1988
Entry into force: 1 March 1992
Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, 1988

Adoption: 10 March 1988
Entry into force: 1 March 1992

The Protocol extends the requirements of the Convention to fixed platforms such as those engaged in the exploitation of offshore oil and gas.

Introduction
Resolution A.584(14) Measures to prevent unlawful acts
MSC Circular Measures to prevent unlawful acts
Convention aims
Amendment procedure
2005 Protocols

Introduction
Concern about unlawful acts which threaten the safety of ships and the security of their passengers and crews grew during the 1980s, with reports of crews being kidnapped, ships being hi-jacked, deliberately run aground or blown up by explosives. Passengers were threatened and sometimes killed.

In November 1985 the problem was considered by IMO's 14th Assembly and a proposal by the United States that measures to prevent such unlawful acts should be developed by IMO was supported.

Resolution A.584(14)
The Assembly adopted resolution A.584(14) Measures to prevent unlawful acts which threaten the safety of ships and the security of their passengers and crew which notes "with great concern the danger to passengers and crews resulting from the increasing number of incidents involving piracy, armed robbery and other unlawful acts against or on board ships, including small craft, both at anchor and under way."

The IMO Assembly directed the Maritime Safety Committee to develop, on a priority basis, detailed and practical technical measures, including both shoreside and shipboard measures, to ensure the security of passengers and crews on board ships. The measures were to take into account the work of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in the development of standards and recommended practices for airport and aircraft security.

In December 1985 further support came from the United Nations General Assembly which called upon IMO "to study the problem of terrorism aboard or against ships with a view to making recommendations on appropriate measures."

MSC Circular
The MSC in 1986 issued a Circular (MSC/Circ.443) on Measures to prevent unlawful acts against passengers and crews on board ships - which states that Governments, port authorities, administrations, shipowners, shipmasters and crews should take appropriate measures to prevent unlawful acts which may threaten passengers and crews. The Circular gives guidelines on measures that can be taken - with application to passenger ships engaged on international voyages of 24 hours or more and port facilities which service them.

In November 1986 the Governments of Austria, Egypt and Italy proposed that IMO prepare a convention on the subject of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation 'to provide for a comprehensive suppression of unlawful acts committed against the safety of maritime navigation which endanger innocent human lives, jeopardize the safety of persons and property, seriously affect the operation of maritime services and thus are of grave concern to the international community as a whole."

Convention aims
The proposal was supported, and in March 1988 a conference was held in Rome which adopted the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.

The main purpose of the convention is to ensure that appropriate action is taken against persons committing unlawful acts against ships. These include the seizure of ships by force; acts of violence against persons on board ships; and the placing of devices on board a ship which are likely to destroy or damage it.

The convention obliges Contracting Governments either to extradite or prosecute alleged offenders.

Amendment procedure
IMO may convene a conference of States parties to the Convention for the purpose of revising or amending the convention, at the request of one third or ten States Parties, whichever is the highest.
2005 Protocols
Adoption: 14 October 2005
Entry into force: The amended Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation will enter into force ninety days after the date on which twelve States have either signed it without reservation as to ratification, acceptance or approval, or have deposited an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Secretary-General.
The amended Protocol requires ratification from three States which are also party to the SUA Convention but it cannot come into force unless the 2005 SUA Convention is already in force.
Status: see Status of Conventions
Amendments to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts (SUA) Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988 and its related Protocol, were adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on the Revision of the SUA Treaties held from 10 to 14 October 2005. The amendments were adopted in the form of Protocols to the SUA treaties (the 2005 Protocols).
2005 Protocol to the SUA Convention
Among the unlawful acts covered by the SUA Convention in Article 3 are the seizure of ships by force; acts of violence against persons on board ships; and the placing of devices on board a ship which are likely to destroy or damage it.

The 2005 Protocol to the SUA Convention adds a new Article 3bis which states that a person commits an offence within the meaning of the Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally:

·	when the purpose of the act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from any act:
	-	uses against or on a ship or discharging from a ship any explosive, radioactive material or BCN (biological, chemical, nuclear) weapon in a manner that causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury or damage;
	-	discharges, from a ship, oil, liquefied natural gas, or other hazardous or noxious substance, in such quantity or concentration that causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury or damage;
	-	uses a ship in a manner that causes death or serious injury or damage;
·	transports on board a ship any explosive or radioactive material, knowing that it is intended to be used to cause, or in a threat to cause, death or serious injury or damage for the purpose of intimidating a population, or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act;
·	transports on board a ship any BCN weapon, knowing it to be a BCN weapon;
·	any source material, special fissionable material, or equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, knowing that it is intended to be used in a nuclear explosive activity or in any other nuclear activity not under safeguards pursuant to an IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreement; and
·	transports on board a ship any equipment, materials or software or related technology that significantly contributes to the design, manufacture or delivery of a BCN weapon, with the intention that it will be used for such purpose.

The transportation of nuclear material is not considered an offence if such item or material is transported to or from the territory of, or is otherwise transported under the control of, a State Party to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Subject to conditions).

Under the new instrument, a person commits an offence within the meaning of the Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally transports another person on board a ship knowing that the person has committed an act that constitutes an offence under the SUA Convention or an offence set forth in any treaty listed in the Annex. The Annex lists nine such treaties.

The new instrument also makes it an offence to unlawfully and intentionally injure or kill any person in connection with the commission of any of the offences in the Convention; to attempt to commit an offence; to participate as an accomplice; to organize or direct others to commit an offence; or to contribute to the commissioning of an offence.

A new Article requires Parties to take necessary measures to enable a legal entity (this could be a company or organization, for example) to be made liable and to face sanctions when a person responsible for management of control of that legal entity has, that capacity, committed an offence under the Convention.
Boarding provisions
Article 8 of the SUA Convention covers the responsibilities and roles of the master of the ship, flag State and receiving State in delivering to the authorities of any State Party any person believed to have committed an offence under the Convention, including the furnishing of evidence pertaining to the alleged offence.

A new Article 8bis in the 2005 Protocol covers co-operation and procedures to be followed if a State Party desires to board a ship flying the flag of a State Party when the requesting Party has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship or a person on board the ship is, has been, or is about to be involved in, the commission of an offence under the Convention.

The authorization and co-operation of the flag State is required before such a boarding. A State Party may notify the IMO Secretary-General that it would allow authorization to board and search a ship flying its flag, its cargo and persons on board if there is no response from the flag State within four hours. A State Party can also notify that it authorizes a requesting Party to board and search the ship, its cargo and persons on board, and to question the persons on board to determine if an offence has been, or is about to be, committed.

The use of force is to be avoided except when necessary to ensure the safety of officials and persons on board, or where the officials are obstructed to the execution of authorized actions.

Article 8bis includes important safeguards when a State Party takes measures against a ship, including boarding. The safeguards include: not endangering the safety of life at sea; ensuring that all persons on board are treated in a manner which preserves human dignity and in keeping with human rights law; taking due account of safety and security of the ship and its cargo; ensuring that measures taken are environmentally sound; and taking reasonable efforts to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed.
Extradition
Article 11 covers extradition procedures. A new Article 11bis states that none of the offences should be considered for the purposes of extradition as a political offence. New article 11ter states that the obligation to extradite or afford mutual legal assistance need not apply if the request for extradition is believed to have been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person's race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, political opinion or gender, or that compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person's position for any of these reasons.

Article 12 of the Convention requires States Parties to afford one another assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of the offences. A new Article 12bis cover the conditions under which a person who is being detained or is serving a sentence in the territory of one State Party may be transferred to another State Party for purposes of identification, testimony or otherwise providing assistance in obtaining evidence for the investigation or prosecution of offences.
Amendment procedure
Amendments to the Articles in the Convention require acceptance by a requisite number of States. However, the Annex, which lists the treaties under which offences can be considered for the purpose of the SUA Convention, has a special amendment procedure.

The treaties listed are:

1	Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at The Hague on 16 December 1970
2	Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 23 September 1971
3	Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973
4	International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979
5	Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna on 26 October 1979
6	Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 24 February 1988
7	Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988
8	International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997
9	International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1999

2005 Protocol to the 1988 SUA Protocol
The amendments to the 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf reflect those in the 2005 Protocol to the SUA Convention.

New article 2bis broadens the range of offences included in the Protocol. A person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and intentionally, when the purpose of the act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, uses against or on a fixed platform or discharges from a fixed platform any explosive, radioactive material or BCN weapon in a manner that causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury or damage; or discharges from a fixed platform, oil, liquefied natural gas, or other hazardous or noxious substance, in such quantity or concentration, that it causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury or damage; or threatens, with or without a condition, as is provided for under national law, to commit an offence.

New article 2ter includes the offences of unlawfully and intentionally injuring or killing any person in connection with the commission of any of the offences; attempting to commit an offence; participating as an accomplice; organizing or directing others to commit an offence.

SALVAGE & GENERAL AVG

	SALVAGE	TOWAGE
1	SALVAGE IS VOLUNTARY RENDERED TO MARITIME PROPERTY.	TOWAGE IS A SERVICE BY PREARRANGED CONTRACT PROVIDED TO MARITIME PROPERTY.
2	SALVAGE SERVICE IS RENDERED WHEN MARITIME PROPERTY IS IN PERIL.	TOWAGE SERVICE IS RENDERED WHEN MARITIME PROPERTY NOT IN PERIL.
3	SALVAGE SERVICE HAS TO BE SUCCESSFUL TO EARN AN AWARD EXCEPT IN CASE SERVICE IS RENDERED TO A VESSEL WHICH BY ITSELF OR BY CARGO ONBOARD THREATENS A DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT WHEN SPECIAL COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE.	TOWAGE SERVICE IS RENDERED BY A CONTRACT ON AN AGREES SUM.
4	IF SALVAGE IS SUCCESFUL AWARD IS GIVEN TO SALVOR WHICH IS HIGHER THAN TOWAGE.	ONLY THE STIPULATED SUM IS GIVEN.
5	A SALVOR HAS MARITIME LIEN ON THE PROPERTY FOR SALVAGE SERVICES RENDERED.	NO SUCH LIEN.

CONDITIONS FOR REWARD

1.      SALVAGE OPERATIONS WHICH HAVE HAD SUCCESSFUL RESULTS GIVE RIGHT TO A REWARD,

2.      EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE STATED, IF THE SALVAGE OPERATION IS UNSUCCESSFUL, NO PAYMENT IS DUE UNDER THIS CONVENTION,

CRITERIA FOR FIXING REWARD

1.      THE REWARD SHALL BE FIXED WITH A VIEW TO ENCOURAGE SALVAGE OPERATIONS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING:

1.      THE SALVED VALUE OF THE VESSEL AND OTHER PROPERTY,

2.      THE SKILLS AND EFFORTS OF SALVORS TO MINIMISE OR PREVENT DANGER TO ENVIRONMENT,

3.      THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS OBTAINED BY THE SALVOR,

4.      THE NATURE AND DEGREE OF THE DANGER,

5.      THE SKILLS AND EFFORTS OF THE SALVORS IN SALVING THE VESSEL, OR OTHER PROPERTY,

6.      THE TIME USED, EXPENSES AND LOSSES INCURRED BY THE SALVORS,

7.      THE RISKS OF LIABILITY AND OTHER RISKS RUN BY THE SALVORS OR THEIR EQUIPMENT,

8.      THE PROMPTNESS OF THE SERVICE RENDERED,

9.      THE AVAILABILITY AND USE OF VESSELS OR OTHER EQUIPMENTS INTENDED FOR SALVAGE OPERATIONS,

10.  THE STATE OF READINESS AND AVAILABILITY OF THE SALVORS EQUIPMENT AND THERE VALUE THEREOF.

2.      PAYMENT OF THE ABOVE REWARD SHALL BE MADE BY THE PARTIES HAVING THEIR INTEREST IN THE VESSEL OR OTHER PROPERTY IN PROPORTIONS OF THEIR SALVED VALUES,

3.      THE REWARDS SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN THE SALVED VALUE.

SPECIAL COMPENSATION

1.      IF THE SALVOR HAS CARRIES OUT SALVAGE OPERATIONS OF A VESSEL THAT BY HERSELF OR BY THE CARGO SHE IS CARRYING POSES A DANGER TO THE ENVIRONMENT, AND HAS FAILED TO EARN A SALVAGE AWARD EQUIVALENT TO THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM PLUS ENHANCEMENTS, THEN HE IS ENTITLED FOR A SPECIAL COMPENSATION FROM THE OWNERS OF THAT VESSEL, EQUIVALENT TO HIS EXPENSES PLUS ENHANCEMENTS.

2.      SALVORS EXPENSES MEANS THE OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM PLUS A FAIR RATE FOR HIS EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL,

3.      IF THE SALVAGE SERVICES HAVE ACTUALLY PREVENTED OR MINIMISED THREAT TO ENVIRONMENT THEN SUCH A SPECIAL COMPENSATION CAN BE ENHANCED TO 30% OF THE EXPENSES OR IF THE TRIBUNAL DECIDES UPTO 100% OF THE EXPENSES,

4.      SPECIAL COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID ONLY IF IT IS MORE THAN THE SALVAGE AWARD RECOVERABLE BY THE SALVORS,

5.      IF THE SALVORS HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT AND HAVE FAILED TO PREVENT OR MINIMISE DAMAGE TO MARINE ENVIRONMENT THEN HE MAY BE DEPRIVED OF THE WHOLE OR PART OF SPECIAL COMPENSATION.

6.      FOR EXAMPLE: A SHIP CARRYING A CARGO OF SODIUM CYANIDE WAS TAKING IN WATER THREATENING DAMAGE TO ENVIRONMENT. THE SALVORS WERE ABLE TO DISCHARGE 40% OF THE CARGO AND THEN THE SHIP SUNK. SALVORS ARE ENTITLED TO SALVAGE AWARD.

THE SALVAGE AWARD ON THE BASIS OF SALVED VALUE = X USD

      THE SPECIAL COMPENSATION ON THE BASIS OF EXPENSES + ENHANCEMENTS = Y USD

IF X > Y, THEN THE SALVOR GETS ONLY X USD, AS HIS EXPENSES TAKEN CARE OF,

IF X < Y, THEN THE SALVOR GETS ONLY Y USD, (X USD PAID BY ALL INTERESTS AND Y UNITS

                                                                                                 PAID BY THE OWNERS P & I CLUB)

IF X = O, THEN THE SALVOR GETS ONLY Y USD, ALL PAID BY THE SHIP OWNERS P & I CLUB.

CONSIDERATION TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE OFFERING TO TOW A DISABLED VESSEL

A VESSEL REQUIRING A TOW (A DISABLED, DRIFTING VESSEL) IS NOT NECESSARILY IN DISTRESS.

THE MASTER OF A VESSEL OFFERING A TOWAGE SERVICE SHOULD, THEREFORE, CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING POINTS BEFORE CONTRACTING TO PERFORM A SALVAGE SERVICE:

1.      DOES THE CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE (AS CONTAINED IN THE CHARTER PARTY OR BILL OF LADING) GIVE THE VESSEL THE LIBERTY TO TOW?

2.      ARE THERE SUFFICIENT BUNKERS AND/OR FRESH WATER ON BOARD FOR THE TOW, AND WILL SUFFICIENT RESERVES BE MAINTAINED, THROUGHOUT AND AFTER THE TOW, TO MEET THE STIPULATIONS OF THE OWNER OR CHARTERERS?

3.      IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF MISSING ANY CANCELLING DATE UNDER A CHARTER PARTY?

4.      DOES THE NATURE OF THE CARGO PERMIT A LENGTHENING OF THE VOYAGE? (THIS IS RELEVANT ESPECIALLY IN REEFERS.)

5.      IS THE VESSEL’S MACHINERY OF ADEQUATE POWER AND IN GOOD ENOUGH CONDITION FOR TOWING?

6.      IS THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL REQUESTING THE TOW, PLUS HER CARGO, OF SUFFICIENT VALUE TO MERIT A SALVAGE SERVICE?

7.      HAS AN AGREEMENT TO SALVAGE ON LLOYD’S OPEN FORM TERMS BEEN MADE?

8.      HAS A PORT OF DESTINATION OR PLACE OF SAFETY BEEN AGREED? (WHERE THE CASUALTY IS NEAR THE UK IT IS PREFERABLE TO TOW THE VESSEL HERE RATHER THAN TO A CONTINENTAL PORT.)

9.      HAVE THE OWNER OR MANAGER AND ANY TIME CHARTERER BEEN NOTIFIED, SO THAT ADDITIONAL HULL INSURANCE CAN BE ARRANGED IF NECESSARY?

10.  ARE PROPER RECORDS OF ALL EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO DATE BEING KEPT?

LOF

1.      THE FIRST TEXT OF THE MODERN DAY LOF WAS ADOPTED IN 1892 AND SINCE IT HAS UNDERGONE 10 REVISIONS, THE CURRENT VERSION IS LOF2000.

2.      THE 1980 EDITION (LOF 80) MOVED AWAY FROM THE TRADITIONAL “NO CURE, NO PAY” PRINCIPLE BY PROVIDING A “SAFETYNET” FOR SALVORS WHO AGREED TO THE SALVAGE OF LOADED OIL TANKERS. THE “SAFETY NET” GUARANTEED THAT THE SALVOR’S EXPENSES WOULD BE PAID IN CASES WHERE THE VALUE OF THE SALVED PROPERTY PROVED INSUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE FOR A NORMAL SALVAGE REWARD. IN ADDITION, THE SALVOR COULD RECEIVE AN INCREMENT OF UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 15% OF HIS EXPENSES. THESE FEATURES WERE INTENDED AS INCENTIVES TO PERSUADE THE DECLINING NUMBER OF PROFESSIONAL SALVORS TO STAY IN THE SALVAGE BUSINESS.

3.      TILL LOF VERSION 80, THE PRINCIPLE USED WAS OF “NO-CURE, NO-PAY”. WHICH MEANS, THAT IF THERE WAS NO RECOVERY THERE WAS NO PAYMENT MADE AT ALL. THIS HAS CHANGED IN RECENT YEARS, IF A THREAT EXISTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT THE SALVORS CAN EXPECT A FAIR RETURN FOR HIS EFFORTS. THIS ENCOURAGES INSTANT ACTIONS TO SAVE SHIPS AND CARGOES THUS AVOIDING UNNECESSARY DELAYS ARISING FROM BARGAINING. THE PARTIES CAN GET ON THE JOB, WITH A SURITY THAT AT HE END OF THE DAY, THEY WILL BE PAID FOR THERE EFFORT.

4.      THE CRITERIA OF SPECIAL COMPENSATION WAS ALSO INTRODUCED WHICH INCLUDED ALL VESSELS IN COMPARISON TO ONLY TANKERS AS PER SAFETYNET.

5.      THE PROBLEM WITH SPECIAL COMPENSATION WAS THAT IT WAS RESTRICTED TO SALVAGE OPERATIONS IN “COASTAL WATERS AND AREAS ADJECENT TO”. IT PROVED TO BE A COST-EFFECTIVE SCHEME BUT THERE WERE PROBLEMS IN ASSESING THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER THIS.

6.      THEREFORE A SCOPIC CLAUSE (SPECIAL COMPENSATION P & I CLUB CLAUSE) HAS BEEN AGREED UPON BETWEEN SALVORS, P & I CLUBS, UNDERWRITERS AND OTHER PARTIES.

7.      UNDER THE SCOPIC THERE ARE NO GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITIONS OR LINKAGE TO THE EXISTENCE OF A POLLUTION THREAT.

8.      THE SCOPIC TOOK EFFECT IN AUGUST 1999 AND IS TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH LOF.

9.      EFFECTIVE 1^ST AUGUST 2000, THE LOF 2000 AND SCOPIC HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE.

10.  LOF 2000 IS A SINGLE PAGE FORM COMPARED TO THE SIX PAGE LOF 95.

11.  IT IS A MORE USER FRIENDLY CONTRACT USING LANGUAGE WHICH IS CLEARLY EXPRESSED.

LOF 2000

1.      ONE CHANGE IN LOF 2000 IS A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT SALVOR IS ENTITLED TO ALL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SALVAGE,

2.      IT ALLOWS MORE BALANCED ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE TERMINATION OF SALVAGE SERVICES,

3.      LOF 2000 IS DESIGNED TO CLARIFY THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A CASUALTY IS IN A SAFE CONDITION TO BE REDELIVERED TO THE OWNERS. IT IS PROPOSED THAT THIS SHOULD BE DEFINED AS THE POINT AT WHICH SKILLED SALVAGE SERVICES ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A SAFE CONDITION. THIS CAN BE OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE IN THE CLOSING STAGES OF A SALVAGE OPERATION.

SCOPIC

1.      THE SCOPIC WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IN AUGUST 1999, AFTER A LOT OF EXTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN SALVORS, P & I CLUBS AND OTHER INTERESTS.

2.      THIS CLAUSE CAN BE INCORPORATED IN ANY VERSION OF LOF, IF THE PARTIES SO DESIRE.

3.      IT IS NOT MANDATORY, A NEW VERSION OF SCOPIC KNOWN AS SCOPIC 2000 IS EFFECTIVE FROM AUGUST 2000. IT IS A TWO PAGE DOCUMENT WITH 15 PARAGRAPHS,

4.      IF BOTH PARTIES AGREE TO THE INCLUSION OF SCOPIC, IT CAN BE DONE SO BY STRIKING OFF YES/NO ON THE FIRST PAGE OF LOF.

5.      ONCE INCLUDED, IT IS UPTO THE SALVAGE CONTRACTOR TO INVOKE THE SCOPIC IN WRITING IN ORDER TO BENEFIT FROM IT.

6.      IF SCOPIC IS INVOKED, THE OWNER MUST PROVIDE WITHIN TWO WORKING DAYS A GUARANTEE OF USD 3 MILLION. THE P & I CLUB WILL PAY THIS AMOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS.

7.      SCOPIC SOLVES THE PROBLEM ENCOUNTERED IN CALCULATING SPECIAL COMPENSATION CAUSED BY GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS AND THREAT TO ENVIRONMENT, BY PROVIDING AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF CALCULATION OF SPECIAL COMPENSATION.

8.      SCOPIC CAN BE CLAIMED REGARDLESS OF SUCCESS, WHETHER ANY ENVIRONMENT THREAT EXISTS OR NOT, AND THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE SALVAGE OPERATION.

9.      SCOPIC IS PAYABLE ONLY IF IT EXEEDS THE SALVAGE AWARD,

10.  SCOPIC REMUNERATIONS WILL BE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TARRIF RATES FOR TUGS AS PER THEIR HORSEPOWER, AND PERSONS AND EQUIPMENT USED AND LIKELY TO BE USED IN THE OPERATION.

11.  REMUNERATION UNDER SCOPIC ARE PAYABLE BY THE SHIPOWNER AND CANNOT BE DECLARED AS A GENERAL AVERAGE.

ADVANTAGES FOR SHIPOWNERS OF USING LOF 2000 WITH SCOPIC

1.      THERE SHOULD A LITTLE NEED FOR ARBITRATIONS ON SPECIAL COMPENSATION AWARDS. THE PROBLEM AREAS SUCH AS ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT, GEOGRAHICAL RESTRICTIONS, TUG RATES AND UPLIFTS HAVE ALL BEEN SETTLED BY SCOPIC,

2.      OWNERS / CLUBS HAVE MUCH MORE CONTROL, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING DURING THE SALVAGE OPERATION,

3.      THE SHIPOWNERS RIGHT TO TERMINATE CLAUSE 9 UNDER SCOPIC IS CLEARER THAN CLAUSE 4 OF LOF,

4.      THE UPLIFT IS CAPPED AT 25 PERSENT.

DISADVANTAGES FOR SHIPOWNERS OF USING LOF 2000 WITH SCOPIC

1.      THE SALVORS MAY RECOVER MORE FOR THE AGREED TUG RATES THAN THEY WOULD UNDER THE NAGASAKI SPIRIT DECISION, BUT THIS IS NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT UTILISATION FACTORS,

2.      SHIPOWNERS / CLUBS HAVE GIVEN UP THEIR DEFENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT AND GEOGRAPHICAL RESTRICTIONS.

ADVANTAGES FOR SALVORS OF USING LOF 2000 WITH SCOPIC

1.      IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY FOR THE SALVOR TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT OR TO OVERCOME ANY GEOGRAPHICAL RESTRICTIONS,

2.      SALVORS WILL BE PAID PROFITABLE TUG RATES,

3.      CASH FLOW PROBLEMS WILL BE EASED,

4.      SECURITY IS MORE CERTAIN.

DISADVANTAGES FOR SALVORS OF USING LOF 2000 WITH SCOPIC

1.      SALVORS CAN NEVER RECOVER MORE THAN A 25% UPLIFT,

2.      THERE IS A GREATER RISK THAT THE OWNER TERMINATES THE CONTRACT.

GENERAL AVERAGE

A GENERAL AVERAGE SITUATION ARISES WHEN THERE IS AN EXTRAORDINARY SACRIFICE OR EXPENDITURE RESULTING FROM AN INTENTIONAL ACT WHICH IS REASONABLY MADE OR INCURRED FOR COMMON SAFETY OF THE SHIP, CARGO AND FREIGHT, IN SITATIONS OD PERIL, FOR THE SAFETY OF MARITIME ADVENTURE.

EXAMPLES OF EXTRAORDINARY SACRIFICE

1.      BEACHING THE VESSEL IN ORDER TO PREVENT A TOTAL LOSS BY SINKING,

2.      FLOODING OF ENGINE ROOM OR FIRE FIGHTING OPERATIONS IN THE ENGINE ROOM,

3.      WHEN THE SHIP’S ENGINES ARE USED TO REFLOAT THE SHIP, THE RESULTING SACRIFICIAL DAMAGE TO THE MAIN ENGINES AND AUXILLARIES.

EXAMPLE OF EXTRAORDINARY EXPENDITURE

IN CASE A SHIP CARRYING CARGO IS DISABLED DUE TO MAIN ENGINE FAILURE WHICH CANNOT BE REPAIRED, THEN THE ENGAGEMENT OF TUG TO TOW THE VESSEL TO A PORT OF REFUGE IS AN EXTRAORDINARY EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE NO SAVINGS IN FUEL AND OTHER COSTS. THE EXTRAORDINARY EXPENDITURE OF ENTERING THE PORT OF REFUGE (PROVIDED THAT IT WAS NOT A PORT OF CALL OR PORT OF DESTINATION) ALSO COMES UNDER GENERAL AVERAGE.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE GENERAL AVERAGE ACT

1.      THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE INTEREST IN THE MARINE ADVENTURE, i.e. SHIP, CARGO, AND/OR FREIGHT (IF AT RISK),

2.      THE SACRIFICE AND / OR EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE MADE INTENTIONALLY,

3.      THE SACRIFICE AND / OR EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE MADE REASONABLY,

4.      THE SACRIFICE AND / OR EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE MADE IN A SITUATION OF PERIL, WHICH THREATENS THE COMMON ADVENTURE, THAT IS ALL THE INTERESTS,

5.      THE SACRIFICE AND / OR EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE COMMON SAFETY.

PARTICULAR AVERAGE

A PARTICULAR AVERAGE IS A PARTIAL LOSS OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER INSURED, CAUSED BY A PERIL AGAINST, AND WHICH IS NOT A GENERAL AVERAGE LOSS

EXAMPLE: DAMAGE TO HULL DUE TO STORM, CARGO DAMAGE DUE TO PERILS, HULL DAMAGE DUE TO RUNNING AGROUND OF THE VESSEL.

PARTICULAR CHARGE

EXPENSES INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSURED FOR THE SAFETY OR PRESERVATION OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER INSURED, OTHER THAN GENERAL AVERAGE AND SALVAGE CHARGES, ARE CALLED PARTICULAR CHARGES. PARTICULAR CHARGES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN PARTICULAR AVERAGE.

YORK-ANTWERP RULES

THE YORK-ANTWERP RULES:

1.      ARE A SET OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED RULES, DRAWN UP BY A NUMBER OF MARITIME COUNTRIES TO ENABLE THE ASSESSMENT OF EACH PARTY’S GENERAL AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION FOLLOWING AN INCIDENT IN WHICH GENERAL AVERAGE WAS DECLARED.

2.      ARE (UNLIKE THE HAGUE-VISBY RULES) NOT INCORPORATED INTO NATIONAL LAW BUT ARE VOLUNTARILY AND MUTUALLY ACCEPTED BY SHIPPERS, SHIPOWNERS AND INSURERS.

3.      ARE GENERALLY INCORPORATED INTO A CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE IN A GENERAL AVERAGE CLAUSE. IF THE PARTIES HAVE NOT AGREED TO APPLY THE YORK-ANTWERP RULES, COMMON LAW - USUALLY THAT OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THE VOYAGE IS TERMINATED FOLLOWING THE GENERAL AVERAGE ACT - MAY BE APPLIED TO THE GENERAL AVERAGE ADJUSTMENT. THERE IS A RISK IN SUCH CASES OF WIDE VARIATIONS FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER IN THE METHOD OF ADJUSTMENT OF GENERAL AVERAGE).

4.      CONSIST OF 7 LETTERED RULES (A TO G) STATING THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL AVERAGE, PLUS 22 NUMBERED RULES (I TO XXII) DEALING WITH SPECIFIC MATTERS.

5.      PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF A GENERAL AVERAGE ACT (IN RULE A) AS FOLLOWS: “THERE IS A GENERAL AVERAGE ACT WHEN, AND ONLY WHEN, ANY EXTRAORDINARY SACRIFICE OR EXPENDITURE IS INTENTIONALLY AND REASONABLY MADE OR INCURRED FOR THE COMMON SAFETY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING FROM PERIL THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN A COMMON MARITIME ADVENTURE”.

EXAMPLES OF GENERAL AVERAGE ACTS ALLOWED UNDER YORK-ANTWERP RULES

1.      TAKING A TOW TO A PORT OF REFUGE AFTER A MAJOR MACHINERY FAILURE,

2.      JETTISONING OR DISCHARGING CARGO TO AID REFLOATING AFTER STRANDING,

3.      EXTINGUISHING A FIRE,

4.      WETTING PREVIOUSLY UNDAMAGED CARGO WHILE EXTINGUISHING A FIRE. (DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE FIRE WOULD BE PARTICULAR AVERAGE, WHILE DAMAGE BY WATER WOULD BE GENERAL AVERAGE.),

5.      BEACHING A SHIP (“VOLUNTARY STRANDING”) TO AVOID FOUNDERING,

6.      PUTTING INTO A PORT OF REFUGE DURING A LOADED VOYAGE DUE TO FIRE, SHIFTING OF CARGO, COLLISION, GROUNDING, LEAKAGE, ETC.

7.      PUTTING INTO A PORT OF REFUGE TO EFFECT ESSENTIAL HULL OR MACHINERY REPAIRS.

EXAMPLES OF GENERAL AVERAGE SACRIFICES ALLOWED UNDER YORK-ANTWERP RULES

1.      DAMAGING ENGINE, PROPELLER OR HULL IN REFLOATING OPERATIONS,

2.      JETTISON OF CARGO FROM UNDERDECK,

3.      JETTISON OF CARGO CARRIED ON DECK BY A RECOGNISED CUSTOM OF THE TRADE,

4.      SLIPPING AN ANCHOR AND CABLE TO AVOID A COLLISION.

EXAMPLES OF GENERAL AVERAGE EXPENDITURE ALLOWED UNDER YORK-ANTWERP

RULES

1.      COST OF HIRING A TUG TO REFLOAT A STRANDED SHIP WITH CARGO ONBOARD,

2.      COST OF DISCHARGING CARGO IN ORDER TO REFLOAT A STRANDED SHIP OR TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS AT A PORT OF REFUGE,

3.      SALVAGE COSTS,

4.      AGENCY FEES AT A PORT OF REFUGE,

5.      SURVEYORS’ FEES,

6.      WAREHOUSING CHARGES,

7.      PORT CHARGES,

8.      MASTER’S AND CREW’S WAGES WHILE A SHIP IS BEING REPAIRED,

9.      AVERAGE ADJUSTER’S FEE.

RULE 1 – JETTISONING OF CARGO

IF THE CARGO IS CARRIED WITH THE RECOGNISED CUSTOMS OF THE TRADE AND THEN JETTISONED, IT SHALL BE MADE GOOD AS GENERAL AVERAGE.

RULE XI - WAGES AND MAINTENANCE OF CREW AND OTHER EXPENSES BEARING UP FOR AND IN A PORT OF REFUGE ETC.

1.       IF THE VESSEL ENTER A PLACE OF REFUGE OR RETURNS TO HER PORT OF LOADING AND SUCH AN ACTION ID LEGAL AS PER THESE RULES, THEN THE WAGES AND MAINTAINANCCE OF THE MASTER, OFFICERS AND CREW REASONABLY INCURRED AND CONSUMPTION OF FUEL AND STORES CONSUMED FOR THE PROLONGED VOYAGE SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS GENERAL AVERAGE,

2.       IF THE VESSEL HAS BEEN DETAINED IN SOME PLACE OF ACCIDENT, SACRIFICE AND DUE TO THAT INCIDENT / EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES THE VESSEL HAS TO UNDERGO REPAIRS TO LIFT THE DETENTION, THEN FOR THE NUMBER OF DAYS SHE IS DETAINED THE WAGES AND MAINTAINANCE OF THE MASTER, OFFICERS AND CREW REASONABLY INCURRED AND CONSUMPTION OF FUEL AND STORES CONSUMED FOR THE PROLONGED VOYAGE SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS GENERAL AVERAGE,

3.       PORT CHARGES INCURRED DURING THE EXTRA PERIOD OF DETENTION SHALL BE ADMITTED AS GENERAL AVERAGE,

4.       WHEN A SHIP IS CONDEMNED OR DOES NOT PROCEED FOR HER ORIGINAL VOYAGE, THEN DETAINED THE WAGES AND MAINTAINANCE OF THE MASTER, OFFICERS AND CREW REASONABLY INCURRED AND CONSUMPTION OF FUEL AND STORES CONSUMED AND PORT CHARGES SHALL BE ADMITTED AS GENERAL AVERAGE ONLY UPTO THE DATE OF CONDEMNATION OR OF THE ABANDONMENT OF THE VOYAGE OR UPTO THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF DISCHARGE OF CARGO IF THE CONDEMNATION OR ABANDONMENT TAKES PLACE BEFORE THAT DATE.

RULE XII - DAMAGE TO CARGO IN DISCHARGING ETC.

DAMAGE TO CARGO, FUEL OR STORES SUSTAINED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR HANDLING, DISCHARGING, STORING, RELOADING AND STOWING SHALL BE MADE GOOD AS GENERAL AVERAGE, WHEN AND ONLY WHEN THE COST OF THOSE MEASURES RESPECTIVELY IS ADMITTED AS GENERAL AVERAGE.