Chapter VII. Conclusions

277. It seems to the Committee that, despite some notable absences from the list of countries bound by Convention No. 147, there are grounds for a modest degree of satisfaction as to the level of formal acceptance it has met with in the last 13 years. Although there have been only a score of ratifications, the countries concerned continue to account for about 45 per cent of the global merchant fleet. The Committee notes in particular that, in the last year, the Convention has come into force in the United States and United Kingdom (Gibraltar).

278. The Committee notes with interest the indications in their article 19 reports by the Governments of Ireland, Ukrainian SSR and USSR that they intend to ratify the Convention. It has also noted with interest that the question seems to be under active consideration in Argentina, Australia, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, India, Malta and Poland: ratification by these countries would represent another big advance in the proportion of world shipping covered by Convention No. 147. Several governments have indicated that measures are being or will be taken to give further effect to Convention No. 147 or Recommendation No. 155 (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mozambique, Peru, Philippines, Sudan). Others have indicated in reply to a question in the article 19 report form that there are no difficulties preventing or delaying ratification of the Convention (Bahamas, Ghana, Malaysia, Qatar).

279. Governments of some developing countries have considered their own conditions are at present not suited to applying the Convention and the Recommendation (Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Suriname, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania). A number of others have pointed to restructuring of the maritime sector or other developments such as new legislation in prospect (Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Luxembourg, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago). Some appear to have no present intention of ratifying the Convention (Algeria, Belize, Chile, Ecuador, Singapore).

280. Some countries have indicated that technical aspects of the Convention prevent ratification at present (Cuba, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau): others have said in particular that ratification is hindered by their not having ratified or not being able to apply one or more of the Conventions appended to Convention No. 147 (Austria, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Tunisia) or the IMO instruments referred to in Article 5 (Cameroon); or by the absence of a procedure for complaints as to engagement on foreign-registered ships as required by Article 2(d)(ii) of the Convention (Canada). For these countries, the Committee recalls that ratification of the Conventions in the Appendix -- although often an indicator of the extent to which a country is already applying many of the substantive standards encompassed by Convention No. 147 -- is not a requirement for purposes of Convention No. 147. It also notes that, as regards Panama -- the country with currently the second largest merchant fleet in the world -- only one of the Conventions appended to Convention No. 147 has not been ratified (Convention No. 134), and the questions dealt with in Article 4 of that Convention are to a large extent reflected in any event in the 1974 SOLAS Convention which is already binding on Panama.

281. Two countries (Bulgaria and Mexico) have pointed to the port state action provided for in Article 4 of Convention No. 147 as an obstacle to ratification. The Committee has noted in Chapter VI above the way in which the notion of port state control has become more widely accepted in recent years, whilst emphasising that there is no requirement of such action in the Convention. Article 4(2) includes requirements only as to some aspects of how port state control is exercised; but it remains open to a country bound by Convention No. 147 not to undertake any such action.

282. The Committee particularly hopes that this general survey will assist the governments of member States as well as shipowners and seafarers and their organisations in dispelling any misconceptions and in understanding the effective meaning of Convention No. 147. Only then will it be possible to grasp how far implementation of it can be guaranteed. It may in particular be thought appropriate that the indications in the article 22 report form adopted by the Governing Body, which governments of States bound by the Convention are asked to respond to when submitting their reports, might be revised in the light of the experience now gained since the Convention came into force and of the indications in this general survey, in order to assist governments in understanding the information to be supplied under each provision, and by reference in particular to Recommendation No. 155.

283. Clearly, there are a number of countries, especially developing countries, which do not have sufficient interest in maritime affairs or which have no significant maritime industry themselves or where economic and administrative conditions are not favourable to the detailed regulation of maritime labour conditions. For these, ratification of Convention No. 147 is not a priority. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that the minimum labour standards contained in the Convention remain a useful point of reference whenever maritime questions do arise -- as, indeed, they must from time to time in all countries of the world. The Committee would note that, as indicated in the table of tonnages in Appendix III, a significant number of countries with large merchant fleets remain unbound by Convention No. 147; and it is a matter of regret that some of these which are member States of the ILO have not supplied article 19 reports. The Committee acknowledges that the information available for this general survey is in some respects uneven and perhaps incomplete: this is due in part to the nature of the present exercise, in which it is impossible to examine the detailed application of every ratified maritime Convention, and in part to the failure of some governments to provide all due information in article 19 reports. The Committee hopes that all States with large registers of merchant ships and others which have become "open register" countries will give serious consideration to ratification and implementation of Convention No. 147. The Committee also hopes that States bound by the Convention which have not yet made declarations and provided reports under article 35 of the Constitution in respect of non-metropolitan territories with growing registers (for example, France (Southern and Antarctic Territories) and Netherlands (Netherlands Antilles)) will shortly be in a position to do so. The Committee has noted finally that one other country (Marshall Islands), hitherto part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (under article 35 of the ILO Constitution a non-metropolitan territory of the United States) but presently with an as yet apparently unresolved international status, is regarded by the International Transport Workers' Federation as a flag of convenience country; another (Cayman Islands) is a territory of the United Kingdom which has not been given the status of a non-metropolitan territory under article 35 of the ILO Constitution.

284. For many developing countries -- and sometimes industrialised ones -- ensuring the practical application of maritime labour standards may be a sticking point. The Committee has tried to show in Chapter VI above that this is indeed a matter to be taken seriously. The task is considerable, and yet it does appear that several countries, including some flag of convenience countries, have made a good deal of progress in recent years in carrying out inspections of their registered vessels. The role of port states in carrying out controls has also undoubtedly grown, and it has thus emerged as an important way in which countries with control facilities may contribute to the implementation of standards on ships of countries without the same means.

285. Action by port states in relation to the labour standards on board foreign-registered ships in accordance with Article 4 of Convention No. 147 can now be regarded as an established and important feature of the international campaign against substandard vessels. The Committee has welcomed the information provided in this respect -- from the 14 MOU countries and others -- and it hopes that efforts will continue to be made to see that in particular the safety aspects of labour standards on board ship receive due attention when port state control is operated.

286. Several points brought to light in this general survey deserve special mention. Convention No. 147 has appeared as a remarkably comprehensive instrument in three senses. In the first place, its scope is wide enough to cover virtually all merchant shipping, the only numerically significant exclusions being ships engaged in fishing and small vessels -- and both these, as shown in Chapter I, are rather narrowly conceived. In the second place, the Convention contemplates a full gamut of kinds of action to be taken to achieve its aim of dealing with the problem of substandard vessels: these range from actions by the States of registration of vessels under Article 2 -- legislating to lay down detailed standards, enforcing legislation by inspection and through the courts, supervising the manner in which seafarers' employment relations are established, implementing training programmes, inquiring into casualties -- and include collaboration with shipowners and seafarers and their organisations; to actions by other States under Articles 3 and 4 -- advising seafarers as to employment on foreign ships and channelling complaints as to such employment, detecting and dealing with manifest hazards on board foreign-registered ships in their ports. In the third place, the substantive standards laid down in the Convention, as shown in Chapter II in particular, have proved a forceful statement by the International Labour Conference of what a code of minimum labour standards on board merchant ships should consist of.

287. Two aspects of these minimum standards should be stressed above all. The Committee makes no apology for insisting in its supervisory work on the health and safety aspects of employment at sea. It has found that most governments of countries bound by Convention No. 147 have continued to make progress here; but there is nearly always room for improvement, and the Committee's role must include further encouragement in this respect. At the same time, the Committee has been struck by the apparent weaknesses in many countries, including several bound by Convention No. 147, as regards social security measures applied to seafarers working on ships registered in their territory. The problem is most evident in the case of seafarers who are not resident or domiciled in or are not nationals of the country of registration of the ships in which they serve. The Committee hopes that all countries whose ships employ such seafarers will examine their legislation and practices carefully to ensure that -- as a bare minimum -- protection in the event of sickness and injury and medical care are guaranteed to all of them; and that, as regards all social security measures for seafarers, it might be possible to move swiftly towards the implementation and ratification of Convention No. 165.

288. As regards workers on board fishing vessels, the Committee notes that a number of instruments have been adopted by the Conference, laying down standards on hours of work (Recommendation No. 7) and vocational training (Recommendation No. 126) as well as minimum age (Convention No. 112), medical examination (Convention No. 113), articles of agreement (Convention No. 114), competency (Convention No. 125) and accommodation of crews (Convention No. 126), and that some of the Conventions referred to elsewhere in this general survey (especially as to social security and competency) are or may be applicable in the fishing sector. The Committee considers that, in addition to its regular supervisory work in relation to ratified fishing Conventions, and having regard to the working conditions in force on board the fishing vessels of various countries, it might be desirable at a suitable time in the future to examine the application of the relevant standards in a more general way.

289. As for the substantive standards laid down by Convention No. 147, there is no escaping the need for close and careful consideration of many questions. In so far as port state action under Article 4 is optional rather than mandatory, and in so far as the ships of any State may, regardless of Convention No. 147, as a matter of international law legitimately be subjected to control in a foreign port, it seems to the Committee that Article 4 ought not to constitute an obstacle to ratification. To the extent that the requirement to give advice to nationals in Article 3 of the Convention is to be implemented "in so far as practicable", it too ought not to be an obstacle to ratification. Thirdly, the requirements of Article 5 as to adherence to IMO instruments ought not to be regarded as a legal obstacle to ratification of Convention No. 147, as indicated in the Introduction above (although, as the Government of Cameroon has recalled, those instruments may not always be implemented in law and practice even when they are formally ratified). However, although formal ratification (or, in the case of a non-metropolitan territory, declaration of application) of the Conventions appended to Convention No. 147 is in no sense a requirement, substantial equivalence to any of those Conventions which are not otherwise binding is.

290. It is true that Convention No. 147 embodies minimum standards on a wide range of maritime labour questions and enables member States to accept obligations in respect of those questions even though they are not able to implement the corresponding Appendix Conventions in every detail. There is moreover bound to be an element of judgement in deciding what are matters of detail which may be deviated from and what are material requirements. The Committee's role has been and continues to be to examine those questions as they arise and according to its established principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality. In fulfilling this role, the Committee has to keep in mind that the modes of implementation of international labour standards -- in any event when applied in their own right, but especially when applied by virtue of being included in the Convention No. 147 Appendix -- may be different in different countries. Application of the notion of substantial equivalence might be said to admit of a certain flexibility on some points; but it is not consistent with short-cutting across the material obligations of the respective Appendix Conventions. The supervisory process, with reporting by governments and examination of reports by the Committee, is well designed to enable the notion of substantial equivalence to be applied concretely and objectively, case by case, so as to ensure that the minimum standards which are aimed at by Convention No. 147 are achieved.

291. Whilst the Committee in its consideration of Convention No. 147 thus has to review many detailed aspects of labour standards on board merchant ships, it has also been aware of the "promotional" aspect of the Convention: various areas covered in general terms by Article 2 of the Convention call for States to pursue their national standard-setting activities relating to seafarers beyond the bare minimum. The provisions as to advice given to nationals in Article 3 and port state action in Article 4 may also be regarded as promotional in the sense that they call for the development of policies and practices, as well as legislation going beyond the minimum. In relation to Article 2(a) in particular, attention might be drawn to the aim of continuing improvement of labour standards along the lines laid down in Recommendation No. 155 and its Appendix instruments: this might be thought to merit further consideration especially by countries which have attained the minimum standards of Convention No. 147, and the Committee would welcome further information in article 22 reports.

292. The Committee would draw attention to the constant development of maritime standard-setting and technical co-operation activities in the ILO. This is evident for example in the agenda of the coming 26th Session of the Joint Maritime Commission, which will consider amongst other things the possible revision of Convention No. 9 and Recommendation No. 28 and changes in the shipboard environment and the characteristics of seafarers' employment. Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155 were adopted a relatively short time ago, and it seems to the Committee that the Office's continuing examination of their practical aspects by empirical studies is essential in order to supplement the Committee's own work, particularly in this general survey, which necessarily concentrates on questions of interpretation and the legal difficulties of application. The Committee hopes that the possibility of a new general survey will be considered after not too long an interval.

293. The Committee is alive to the difficulties experienced by seafarers on the ships of many countries, including problems in the terms and conditions offered to them, the application of social security, the extent of their safety and training, and their ability to exercise basic trade union rights. In order to tackle these difficulties, the ILO offers various procedures and bodies for the involvement of seafarers and shipowners and their organisations at the international level. The Committee remains convinced that the further application of tripartite practices at the national level as well as at the international level is a sure way of continuing to make progress in setting and applying labour standards on board ship.

Cross references
Constitution: Article 19
Constitution: Article 22
Constitution: Article 35
Conventions: C009 Placing of Seamen Convention, 1920
Conventions: C112 Minimum Age (Fishermen) Convention, 1959
Conventions: C113 Medical Examination (Fishermen) Convention, 1959
Conventions: C114 Fishermen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1959
Conventions: C125 Fishermen's Competency Certificates Convention, 1966
Conventions: C126 Accommodation of Crews (Fishermen) Convention, 1966
Conventions: C134 Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970
Recommendations:R007 Hours of Work (Fishing) Recommendation, 1920
Recommendations:R028 Labour Inspection (Seamen) Recommendation, 1926
Recommendations:R126 Vocational Training (Fisherman) Recommendation, 1966