Introduction

I. Background to the survey

1. In accordance with article 19(5)(e) and (6)(d) of the ILO Constitution, the Governing Body of the International Labour Office decided at its 238th Session (November 1987) to request governments of member States which have not ratified the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147), to supply reports on it in 1989, and to request governments of all member States to supply reports on the accompanying Merchant Shipping (Improvement of Standards) Recommendation (No. 155). These reports are additional to the reports under articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution from countries bound by the Convention. Following the Governing Body decision and its usual practice, the Committee has prepared a general survey.

2. This is the first general survey to deal with Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155 and only the third in 40 years of article 19 general surveys made by the Committee to deal with maritime standards. In 1950, in the very first article 19 exercise, reports on five maritime Conventions and one Recommendation were examined by the Committee. (Endnote 1) Those instruments -- and particularly the standards they contain as to food and catering, medical examination, competency and vocational training, given that these are specifically referred to in Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155 and their Appendices -- are all of relevance to the present survey, although, 40 years on, the reports contain little useful information. The reports examined in 1972 dealt in part with the two 1958 Recommendations recited in the Preamble to Convention No. 147 and reflected in its substantive provisions: the Recommendation concerning the Engagement of Seafarers for Service in Vessels Registered in a Foreign Country (No. 107), and the Recommendation concerning Social Conditions and Safety of Seafarers in Relation to Registration of Ships (No. 108). (Endnote 2) It was precisely the ILO's ongoing examination of the question of substandard vessels, of which that 1972 general survey formed part, which led to the adoption of Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155 at the 62nd (Maritime) Session of the International Labour Conference in 1976.

3. The two 1958 Recommendations are, then, the leading precursors of the two 1976 instruments. In Recommendation No. 108, the Conference noted that labour conditions have a substantial bearing on the safety of life at sea and placed this fact in the context of the large tonnage being registered in countries not traditionally regarded as maritime nations: in view of the provisions of the Convention on the High Seas adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in April 1958 that there must exist a genuine link between a State and ships flying its flag, and that the State -- being under the obligation to take measures necessary to ensure safety at sea with regard, inter alia, to manning and labour conditions for crews taking into account applicable international labour instruments -- must effectively exercise jurisdiction and control over such ships, it elaborated on the matters in respect of which the State of registration should thus exercise effective jurisdiction and control in aid of the safety and welfare of seafarers. Recommendation No. 107 was rather addressed to maritime countries whose nationals tend to serve on vessels of other countries without the benefit of the protection and standards applicable as a result of properly negotiated collective agreements in their own country: in it, the Conference called for the active discouragement of seafarers from joining vessels registered in a foreign country unless the conditions of engagement are "generally equivalent" to those applicable under collective agreements and social standards accepted by bona fide organisations of shipowners and seafarers of maritime countries where such agreements and standards are traditionally observed. Together, Recommendation No. 107 and Recommendation No. 108 identify several individual needs later to be given greater substance in Convention No. 147: inspection of ships, control of signing-on, freedom of association and collective bargaining for seafarers, proper repatriation arrangements, sickness and injury protection, and satisfactory arrangements for the issuing of certificates of competency.

II. Contents of Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155

4. Convention No. 147, briefly, embodies further proposals adopted by the Conference with regard to substandard vessels, particularly those registered under flags of convenience. (Endnote 3) Ratification of the Convention is premissed on adherence to specified standards within the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). (Endnote 4) It involves a commitment to (1) safety standards (including standards of competency, hours of work and manning), (2) social security measures and (3) established shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements. Though some of the last of these matters may be dealt with by collective agreements or decisions of courts if these are equally binding, others must under Convention No. 147 be the subject of legislation which is substantially equivalent to the Conventions or Articles of Conventions referred to in its Appendix. Effective jurisdiction or control must be exercised over home-registered vessels. There must be adequate procedures (including for the investigation of complaints) relating to the engagement of seafarers. Seafarers must be properly qualified or trained. Maritime labour standards must be enforced, principally by inspection; and there should be an official inquiry into any serious marine casualty. Where practicable, advice is to be given to the nationals of States which have ratified the Convention as to the possible problems of working on a ship registered in a State not bound to or not applying the same standards. Furthermore, where a complaint is received or information obtained that a ship in port does not conform to the standards of the Convention, a report may be made by the authorities of the port State to the government of the country of registration of the ship, and measures to rectify clearly hazardous conditions on board may be taken by the port State. Recommendation No. 155 proposes both continuing extension of the list of what should be regarded as the minimum labour standards in merchant shipping, and improvement of that minimum up to and beyond what is equivalent to the specified instruments, in order to reach a standard which is at least equivalent.

5. Having been ratified by ten member States with a total share in world shipping gross tonnage of 25 per cent, Convention No. 147 came into force in 1981. It has now been ratified by 20 member States and declared applicable to 18 non-metropolitan territories (in only one case with modifications). These 38 countries presently have a total share in world shipping gross tonnage of about 45 per cent. (Endnote 5) However, with the constant transfer of ships from the register of one country to that of another, this figure fluctuates independently of the number of ratifications. The overall effect has been that the percentage of world shipping covered by the Convention has apparently remained about the same in the last two years, having earlier reached over 50 per cent. A significant number of ILO member States may in any event be regarded as "non-maritime" nations. (Endnote 6) The number of ratifications must therefore be used cautiously as an indicator of the extent to which the obligations of the Convention have been accepted in respect of actual numbers of ships and seafarers in the world. Despite some cause for reflection, then, the progress made in the 13 years since adoption of the Convention and Recommendation remains impressive. The present general survey aims to assist in identifying the obstacles to ratification of the Convention by a greater number of member States as well as the difficulties of application met with by States which have ratified.

6. One of the features which make Convention No. 147 unique in the catalogue of ILO Conventions is the incorporation into it of provisions of 15 other ILO Conventions by listing them in an Appendix. It is these Conventions which contain most of the safety standards, social security measures and shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements which have to be the subject of national provisions under Article 2(a). (Endnote 7) It may be considered in turn that it is the failure to meet the required level of compliance with the substantive standards referred to in Article 2(a) -- plus, as regards qualifications and training, Article 2(e) -- which makes a vessel "substandard", in the term used in the Preamble to the Convention. The incorporation of the Appendix Conventions is less than integral, since the relevant substantive clause of Convention No. 147 itself (Article 2(a)) talks of legislation (of a country not otherwise bound to give effect to the Conventions in question) being substantially equivalent to the provisions of Appendix Conventions rather than in complete conformity with them. Similarly appended to Recommendation No. 155 is a list of eight ILO Conventions, one ILO Recommendation and one "IMCO/ILO" Document: Recommendation No. 155 goes further than Convention No. 147 in the subject-matter and scope of the instruments appended as well as in the degree of compliance called for. Thus, Recommendation No. 155 advocates national provisions which are at least equivalent both to the instruments appended to Convention No. 147 and to those appended to the Recommendation itself; in the latter case, such compliance is to be achieved by stages, if necessary. The employment of the device of (partial) incorporation by reference creates a Convention and a Recommendation which -- each in its own way -- cast a wide minimum maritime labour standards net. It would be an immense task to survey in detail the extent to which each of the Appendix instruments is applied in the member States. In considering how far international obligations to ensure the application of at least certain minimum standards in merchant shipping have been undertaken and fulfilled by member States, however, reference has to be made to the record in respect of ratification and implementation of all the relevant Conventions. The size of the merchant fleet of each country is also of particular interest.

III. Developments since 1976

7. In the wider context of maritime labour standards in general, it is possible to draw further encouragement from several developments since the 62nd (Maritime) Session of the Conference in 1976 which adopted Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155. First, the steady progression in ratification of the Conventions listed in the Appendices to Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155 shows in itself in concrete terms that the substantive standards aimed at by these 1976 instruments continue to be formally accepted by an increasing number of countries. Such ratification involves, furthermore, a commitment to full compliance and not just substantial equivalence.

8. Secondly, the issues relating to maritime labour standards raised in one way or another at the 62nd Session of the Conference have remained very much alive in the ensuing years. The two other Conventions adopted then (the Continuity of Employment (Seafarers) Convention (No. 145) and the Annual Leave with Pay (Seafarers) Convention (No. 146)) both came into force in 1979 and have now received 17 and 11 ratifications respectively. The ILO's Joint Maritime Commission (JMC) and the Preparatory Technical Maritime (PTM) Conferences have continued the work for the improvement of maritime labour standards, and this has led to the adoption of important new instruments at the 74th (Maritime) Session of the Conference (1987): the Seafarers' Welfare Convention (No. 163) and Recommendation (No. 173), the Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) Convention (No. 164), the Social Security (Seafarers) Convention (Revised) (No. 165), and the Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised) (No. 166) and Recommendation (No. 174). Of these, Conventions Nos. 165 and 166 are likely to be of direct significance for present purposes, given the suggestion in Paragraph 4 of Recommendation No. 155, that cognisance should be taken of Conventions which revise other Conventions listed in the Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155 Appendices, once those revising Conventions come into force (this is not yet the case). In 1985 the Joint IMO/ILO Committee on Training put forward a revised Document for Guidance to take account of changes in the content of necessary safety training: in the terms of Paragraph 4(2) of Recommendation No. 155, cognisance should be taken of this too as a revision of the 1975 IMCO/ILO Document for Guidance included in the Appendix to that Recommendation. Convention No. 163 now has five ratifications and will come into force on 3 October 1990; Convention No. 164 has three ratifications and will come into force on 11 January 1991.

9. The contents of the Appendix to Convention No. 147 have themselves, thirdly, been the subject of proposals for revision. Periodic revision of that list of Conventions was already anticipated by the 62nd Session of the Conference in 1976, when it adopted a resolution asking the Governing Body to seize the Joint Maritime Commission of the question whether the list of Conventions continues to constitute an acceptable minimum or should be revised by a future session of the Conference. Later there were discussions of the possible revision in the Joint Maritime Commission in 1984, the PTM Conference in 1986 and the Joint Maritime Commission again in 1987. However, in November 1989 the Governing Body decided not to place the possible adoption of a Protocol to Convention No. 147, supplementing the list of Conventions, on the agenda of the 78th Session of the Conference in 1991. (Endnote 8) The Joint Maritime Commission proposal had been to include the Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958 (No. 108), Convention No. 145, Convention No. 146 and possibly the Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1970 (No. 133), but the adoption of this proposal preceded the adoption of further topical instruments by the 74th Session of the Conference in 1987. (Endnote 9)

10. The fourth significant development since 1976 lies in the progress made in particular by one group of Western European maritime nations (Endnote 10) in promoting and effecting the observance of maritime labour standards (amongst others) through intervention by port States. One of the main achievements of the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control adopted in 1982 (the MOU -- sometimes known as the "Paris Memorandum") is to commit the signatories to maintaining an effective system of port state control of foreign merchant ships, inspecting at least a minimum percentage of those calling in their ports, and taking action in cases of deficiency. The MOU thus appears as a co-ordinated measure by a group of 14 countries with busy and valuable port industries in favour of procedures which go to implement what is called for in Article 4 of Convention No. 147. All but one of the MOU countries (Endnote 11) have ratified Convention No. 147. The ILO and the IMO have both participated as observers in the work of the Port State Committee responsible for promoting harmonisation of relevant procedures and practices and reviewing the operation of the Memorandum.

11. Not least of the encouraging developments is, fifthly, the technical co-operation activity undertaken by the ILO for promotion of the ratification and application of maritime labour standards. In all the ILO's maritime labour legislation projects, and national and regional seminars on maritime labour standards which the Office has organised in the last 14 years, (Endnote 12) Convention No. 147 has been the focus of attention, representing as it does a compact statement of what basic standards should be guaranteed in relation to the work and employment of seafarers. (Endnote 13) The Committee has noted with particular interest the adoption of Guide-lines for procedures for the inspection of labour conditions on board ship by the Meeting of Experts on Procedures for the Inspection of Labour Conditions on Board Ships (Geneva, October 1989): the Guide-lines are based on the provisions of Convention No. 147.

IV. Registration of ships

12. The question of the country of registration of a ship is crucial, because, as a matter of international law as now reflected in Article 94(1) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention), (Endnote 14) a State must "effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag". Article 94(3) of the LOS Convention (Endnote 15) further formulates the substantive obligation on a State to "take such measures for ships flying its flag as are necessary to ensure safety at sea with regard, inter alia, to ... the manning of ships, labour conditions and the training of crews, taking into account the applicable international instruments". Under Article 94(5) of the LOS Convention, (Endnote 16) in taking those measures, the State "is required to conform to generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices and to take any steps which may be necessary to secure their observance". The Committee has noted in this connection the adoption by the United Nations Conference on Conditions for Registration of Ships in 1986 of a Convention concerning the criteria by which it should be decided in which country a ship is registered. (Endnote 17) The principles in question are also applied in international labour instruments and in particular in Convention No. 147, Article 2(a), (b), (c), (d)(i), (e), (f) and (g) of which is aimed at "ships registered in (the) territory" of the State which ratifies it.

13. It is precisely because of the operation of the principle of flag State duties that the practice arose of making flag transfers, i.e. re-registering ships in "open-register" countries where costs of various kinds are lower, and instead of flying the flag of the country of the ship's beneficial owner or manager (which may be an international group, financial institution or small operator) flying a flag of convenience. (Endnote 18) The problems raised by this practice have occupied the ILO since as early as 1933. (Endnote 19) Many transfers have been to at first a handful but later a larger and competing number of open-registry countries. In two States in particular, (Endnote 20) there have been considerable transfers from the metropolitan register to what are sometimes called "off-shore" registers, i.e. those of non-metropolitan territories with which the State has close economic, political, administrative and sometimes geographical connections. Various factors might motivate flag transfers and the choice of country of re-registration (for example, taxes and duties exacted, formalities observed). But the factors of direct concern to the ILO have been both that, in countries of re-registration, ships can often be serviced by foreign crews and operate under working conditions and labour standards which cost less to the owners or managers; and that such countries often fail to exercise jurisdiction and control, even in respect of provisions which should in theory be applied to those ships. The ILO has therefore given attention to the second of these factors -- the degree to which the country of registration exercises or fails to exercise effective jurisdiction and control over the safety and welfare of seafarers (including their labour conditions), as already indicated in Recommendation No. 108 -- as well as the first -- the conditions and standards formally applying in those countries.

14. For purposes of applying international labour standards, a transfer to an "off-shore" register is a flag transfer assimilated to a transfer to the register of another State, inasmuch as the same Conventions may not apply to the ship before and after the transfer. A distinction has to be drawn, then, between the related phenomena of flag transfers and transfers to international registers. Institution of the latter may be regarded as an alternative response by some of the "traditional" maritime countries and others (Endnote 21) to the reduction in size of their fleets. That reduction -- aside from the recent global experience of "over-tonnaging" (surplus capacity) -- has taken place when shipowners and managers no longer find the conditions governing and associated with registration in the traditional maritime countries competitive and consequently re-register in foreign countries with lower costs. The loss of employment and revenue to all concerned in the shipping industry in the "traditional" maritime countries has often been considerable. The main difference now between ships on the home register and those on the international register of those countries is that in the latter case there is exemption from taxation. This exemption may extend to personal taxation on the earnings of crew members who are not nationals of or resident or domiciled in the country of registration: the shipowner or manager may thus in practice have an added incentive to employ foreign seafarers on board those ships, and a question may arise as to some aspects of conditions of employment on such ships (such as collective bargaining and the level of take-home pay). (Endnote 22) Although there does not, as a matter of principle, seem to be any lowering of general labour standards laid down by ILO Conventions in force in respect of ships in the international as opposed to the home register, the situation may merit careful examination. (Endnote 23)

15. It would indeed be incorrect to assume that ships which re-register or fly what may be called a flag of convenience are necessarily substandard vessels, although, equally, when it adopted Recommendation No. 107 and Recommendation No. 108 in 1958 and again Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155 in 1976, the International Labour Conference certainly considered that there is likely to be a correlation. One notable feature of the 1976 instruments is that -- like international and other maritime labour standards in general -- they are universal in concept and aim at all "substandard vessels": their goal is the raising of standards in respect of ships of all countries, including the traditional maritime ones. At the same time, the instruments recognise that a large part -- perhaps most -- of the problem is in fact ships flying flags of convenience, i.e. registered in countries which have -- partly by virtue of their lower costs (and especially lower crew costs, which are in turn attributable in particular to inferior labour standards) -- attracted increased numbers of vessels and an increased tonnage of merchant shipping to their registers.

V. Role of the International Maritime Organization

16. The work of the ILO in the sphere of Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155 is directly linked to the work of the IMO in several ways. The IMO is a specialised agency of the United Nations system which has responsibility under its Convention (Constitution) to encourage the general adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety and efficiency of navigation: this compares with the ILO's concern for the improvement of labour conditions in general and in the maritime sphere for seafarers' conditions of employment and shipboard working conditions in particular. Under an Inter-Agency Agreement which came into force in 1959, there is ongoing co-operation and consultation between the ILO and the IMO with a view to their attaining their respective objectives. This co-operation includes arrangements for reciprocal representation at meetings. It also includes the work of the Joint IMO/ILO Committee on Training, which adopted the 1975 Document for Guidance (An international maritime training guide) referred to in the Appendix to Recommendation No. 155, as well as the updated version of 1985. The complementarity of the roles of the ILO and the IMO is further illustrated by the citation in Article 5 of Convention No. 147 of a series of instruments adopted by the IMO relating to the safety of life at sea, load lines, and the prevention of collisions. This has to be discussed now in the context of ratification of Convention No. 147.

VI. Ratification of Convention No. 147 and other relevant Conventions

17. Details of the 20 ratifications of Convention No. 147 by member States and the 18 declarations of application to non-metropolitan territories (all but one (Endnote 24) without modification) are given in Appendix IV. Under Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147, a member State which ratifies it is bound to have provisions substantially equivalent to those listed in the Appendix to the Convention "in so far as the Member is not otherwise bound to give effect to the Conventions in question" and subject in part to the roles played by collective agreements and court decisions. Clearly, there is no obligation on a State to ratify all or any of the Appendix Conventions before it ratifies or implements Convention No. 147. Equally, however, there tends as a matter of fact to be a close relationship between ratification of Convention No. 147 and ratification of the Appendix Conventions. In the case of most seafaring countries it seems natural that the commitment to maritime labour standards should manifest itself in the ratification of several of the individual technical Conventions listed, culminating in ratification of Convention No. 147. Three (Endnote 25) of the States ratifying Convention No. 147 have ratified all of the Appendix Conventions (or rather at least one of the alternatives in the case of minimum age and social security respectively), but some others have ratified only a few. The extent of ratification of those Conventions by all member States is shown in Appendix V.

18. The relatively large number of declarations of application of Convention No. 147 to non-metropolitan territories is not without interest. Most -- but not all -- of the provisions of Convention No. 147, like those of other maritime Conventions, have to be applied by the member State which ratifies it in respect of "ships registered in its territory". In the case of maritime Conventions, it is the size of the merchant fleet of each country rather than the size of its population which gives a general idea of the scope for application of each Convention by each country, i.e. whether relatively large or small numbers of workers are affected. Thus, while most of the non-metropolitan territories to which declarations of application have been made seem to have only small fleets, four (Endnote 26) must rank in their own right among countries having the principal maritime merchant fleets of the world; the application of Convention No. 147 to them is on any view of some consequence.

VII. Prerequisites to ratification

(a) Relation of IMO instruments to Convention No. 147 and their contents

19. In order to be able to ratify Convention No. 147, a member State of the ILO has to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5(1) in relation to certain IMO instruments. Subject to the limited relaxation of these requirements allowed under Article 5(2), IMO instruments governing three vital areas of shipping practice and law must be subscribed to by any member State of the ILO which wishes to ratify Convention No. 147: the three areas are safety of life at sea; load lines; prevention of collisions.

20. Convention No. 147 is the only international labour Convention to impose requirements relating to other international Conventions before ratification by a member State. The presentation of the IMO instruments in this manner -- and not alongside the ILO Conventions listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 -- is the solution agreed by the Conference after concern had been expressed by governments that IMO Conventions should not -- and indeed could not -- be enforced like ILO Conventions through ILO procedures. (Endnote 27) It was felt that the social and labour standards laid down in Convention No. 147 could not be dissociated from the basic safety standards contained in the IMO instruments. Moreover, the Conference considered that the basic safety standards the IMO instruments contain ought not to be attenuated by being subject to the concept of substantial equivalence. In fact, the observation made in the responsible Conference Committee that the IMO Conventions were already widely ratified and that requiring observance of them would not present a major obstacle to ratification if it were made a prerequisite (Endnote 28) seems to have proved right. The IMO instruments included in Article 5 of Convention No. 147 are only ones that are both directly related to the safety of life on board ship in a narrow sense (instruments dealing with, for example, pollution not having been included) and themselves widely recognised through formal ratification or tacit acceptance or observance in law and practice at the national and international levels. (Endnote 29) The best view seems moreover to be that they may all be regarded as laying down what are now "generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices" to which every State is required as a matter of international law in accordance with Article 94(5) of the LOS Convention to conform.

(i) Safety of life at sea

21. Under Article 5(1)(a), Convention No. 147 is open to ratification by a member State which is a party, first, to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) of 1960, or that of 1974 or any Convention subsequently revising these two. The 1974 SOLAS Convention had not come into force when Convention No. 147 was adopted in 1976, but since 1980 when it did do so it has replaced the 1960 Convention as between Contracting Governments. There have been no Conventions subsequently revising it, but a Protocol was adopted in 1978 and Amendments in 1981 and 1983, all of which have been widely adhered to and are now in force. Under the tacit acceptance procedure laid down in Article VIII of the 1974 Convention, Amendments come into force at a given time unless objections are received before then from a given number of parties. Under Article X of the 1974 Convention, it may henceforth be adhered to only in its amended form.

22. States which ratify the 1974 Convention have to ensure that nationally registered ships comply with minimum safety standards for their construction, equipment and operation laid down in the Annex to the Convention. They have to carry out initial and periodic surveys of these matters and issue certificates testifying to compliance with the standards; ships should carry such certificates with them. Under Chapter I, Regulation 19, of the Annex, every ship holding such certificates is, while in the ports of any Contracting Government, subject to control for the purpose of verifying that there is a valid certificate on board; if there are "clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of that certificate", a controlling officer may detain the ship until any danger to the passengers or crew is eliminated; the controlling officer should inform the consul of the country of registration of the circumstances of any intervention, and the fact should be reported to the IMO. (Endnote 30) Under Chapter I, Regulation 21, the authorities of the State whose flag a ship is entitled to fly must investigate any casualty involving it, in order to assist in determining whether the SOLAS Regulations ought to be changed: their findings should be forwarded to the IMO, which however may not in any report or recommendation identify any ships concerned or their nationality or in any manner implicate any ship or person. (Endnote 31)

23. The 1978 Protocol relates to the safety of tankers and the prevention of pollution: unscheduled inspections and/or mandatory annual surveys are introduced and the port state control arrangements are strengthened. The 1981 and 1983 Amendments take account of technical advances in the industry.

(ii) Load lines

24. Under Article 5(1)(b), Convention No. 147 is open to ratification by a member State which is a party, secondly, to the International Convention on Load Lines of 1966, or any Convention subsequently revising it. The Load Lines Convention came into force in 1968. Amendments adopted in 1971, 1975, 1979 and 1983 have not yet come into force. There has been no revising Convention.

25. Limitation of the draft to which a ship may be loaded clearly makes a significant contribution to safety. States which ratify the Load Lines Convention undertake to ensure the watertight integrity of ships' holds below the freeboard deck and to see that assigned load lines are duly marked according to the specifications in the Annex to the Convention, which take account of hazards in the various zones and seasons. There is provision for initial and periodical inspection and the issue of certificates by the authorities of the country of registration. There is provision also for port state control comparable to that exercised under the SOLAS Convention. The Amendments adopted would make some changes in respect of the zoning in the 1966 Convention and would introduce a procedure of tacit acceptance.

(iii) Collision prevention

26. Under Article 5(1)(c), Convention No. 147 is open to ratification by a member State which is a party to or has implemented, thirdly, the provisions of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea of 1960 or the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG) of 1972, or any Convention subsequently revising them. The 1960 Regulations earlier formed part of the Annex to the 1960 SOLAS Convention. The 1972 Convention is thus the embodiment of these Regulations for the first time in independent treaty form. It had not come into force when Convention No. 147 was adopted, but did so in 1977. There has been no revision of the 1972 Convention, but 1981 Amendments came into force in 1983.

27. The 1972 Convention lays down traffic separation schemes, and deals with steering, sailing and signalling. Under the tacit acceptance procedure laid down in Article VI, the 1981 Amendment, which concerns traffic separation schemes for vessels such as dredgers and those engaged in surveying, replaces and supersedes any previous provision to which it refers for all Contracting Parties which have not objected to it.

(b) Countries not party to IMO instruments

28. Article 5(2) in addition opens Convention No. 147 to ratification by "any Member which, on ratification, (Endnote 32) undertakes to fulfil the requirements to which ratification is made subject by paragraph 1 of this Article and which are not yet satisfied". On the two occasions on which the question has arisen (in all the others the member State concerned was already a party to the IMO Conventions), the paragraph has been applied so as to make registration of the ratification of Convention No. 147 possible only after an undertaking in the shape of a formal declaration has been made by the Government of the State concerned. In one such case (Endnote 33) the declaration was made in two parts: in the first, the Government stated that in conformity with paragraph 2 it undertook to fulfil as soon as possible the requirements of paragraph 1 as regards prompt adherence to the 1974 SOLAS Convention; in the second, it stated that in accordance with paragraph 2 and in completion of its previous declaration it undertook to comply progressively with all the requirements of paragraph 1. In comments addressed to the Government the Committee has noted that technical assistance has been provided by the IMO in relation to the application of those instruments and has requested information from the Government as to steps being taken to fulfil its undertakings to the ILO in this respect. In the other case, (Endnote 34) the declaration contained a similar undertaking to fulfil progressively all the requirements of paragraph 1 not yet satisfied: the Committee has also asked that Government for details of steps being taken.

29. Article 5 is concerned only with the question of ratification of the Convention and does not therefore deal with questions of declaration of application to non-metropolitan territories. The first such declaration of application (with modifications) was made in 1982: (Endnote 35) that territory is in a different position from other non-metropolitan territories in that it is an Associate Member of the IMO; according to the Government's first report on Convention No. 147, the 1974 SOLAS Convention with its 1978 Protocol and the 1966 Load Lines Convention are extended to the territory, and the 1972 COLREG Convention is applied there. Although there is no formal requirement under Article 5 in respect of non-metropolitan territories, the Committee finds this information helpful as an indication of the Government's commitment to the essential safety standards which the Conference has formally linked to Convention No. 147. In other cases where no information has been given on this point, therefore, the Committee may make a direct request as to how far the Article 5(1) instruments are observed by a non-metropolitan territory in respect of which a declaration of application is made. (Endnote 36)

(c) "Generally accepted" IMO instruments

30. The standing in international law (Endnote 37) of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, the 1966 Load Lines Convention and the 1972 COLREG Convention has evolved somewhat since Convention No. 147 was adopted in 1976. The 1974 and 1972 Conventions have now come into force. The 1974 SOLAS Convention and the 1972 COLREG Convention have been ratified, acceded to, approved or accepted by a total of 106 countries each, the 1966 Load Lines Convention by 118 countries. It seems fair to say that acceptance of the provisions of these three Conventions is now regarded, for example by shipping insurers, as a basic necessity, to the extent that in practice there is almost universal recognition of the need to implement them. That is not to say that there are never any difficulties in implementing them. It may however be thought that the requirements of Article 5 should not in any case constitute an obstacle to ratification of Convention No. 147.

VIII. Coming into force of Convention No. 147

31. Article 6 provides for Convention No. 147 to come into force 12 months after the registration of ratifications by at least ten member States with a total share in world shipping gross tonnage of 25 per cent. Whilst all recent non-maritime Conventions come into force 12 months after the second ratification, it has long been the practice of the International Labour Conference to require some maritime Conventions to achieve a greater degree of acceptance (ratification) specifically by the countries with the principal merchant fleets of the world before they come into force. (Endnote 38) There are indeed a number of earlier Conventions which have failed to come into force because such a requirement has not been met. (Endnote 39) The figure of 25 per cent in this case is the result of a compromise reached in the responsible Committee of the Conference. (Endnote 40) Convention No. 147 came into force on 28 November 1981.

IX. Available information

32. Several reports received, together with other information available, indicate various governments' views on the prospects for ratification of Convention No. 147, and these are considered in the Conclusions of this general survey. It is obvious that Convention No. 147 -- more than any other ILO maritime Convention -- calls for such a sweeping commitment to the implementation of basic standards in merchant shipping that ratification of it can by no means be lightly undertaken. It is entirely natural that a number of developing and some other countries which have either no coastline or no merchant fleet have little interest in ratification. It is also understandable that, for a number of other developing countries which are island States or do have a coastline and indeed depend on the sea (often through the fishing industry) for much of their livelihood, ratification of Convention No. 147 is not being actively considered. Where these are countries with no sea-going merchant ships on their registers, there may be no awareness of any problem in this respect (although even here the question of port state action -- Article 4 of the Convention -- might arise). However, this still leaves a large number of developing and industrialised countries among the principal maritime nations of the world which have not yet indicated their willingness to adhere to the minimum standards of Convention No. 147.

33. Reports under article 22 or article 35 of the ILO Constitution where applicable or under article 19 have been communicated by 95 States and 18 non-metropolitan territories (details are given in Appendix VI). Comments made by employers' and workers' organisations have also been taken into account. (Endnote 41) The Committee has as usual tried to supplement the information thus provided by taking account of legislation and collective agreements available, as well, of course, as information provided in relation to other international labour Conventions, particularly those listed in the Appendices to Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155.

X. Outline of the survey

34. It is not possible in this survey to examine systematically substantive details of the issues dealt with in the instruments listed in the Appendices to Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155. The aim has rather been to provide a useful review of the information available on these two instruments themselves, concentrating on their particular features and the main problems arising so far. The survey therefore first considers their scope (Chapter I). It then considers how far the requirements of Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 -- especially to have legislation substantially equivalent to the appended provisions -- are met and what further improvements are applied in accordance with Recommendation No. 155 (Chapter II). Training arrangements (Chapter III), engagement procedures (Chapter IV), and the role of shipowners' and seafarers' organisations (Chapter V) are examined separately. Questions of jurisdiction, inspection and control are reviewed, including questions relating to foreign-registered ships (Chapter VI). Chapter VII contains some conclusions drawn by the Committee.

Endnotes

Endnote 2

Endnote 3

Endnote 4

Endnote 5

Endnote 6

Endnote 7

Endnote 8

Endnote 9

Endnote 10

Endnote 11

Endnote 12

Endnote 13

Endnote 14

Endnote 15

Endnote 16

Endnote 17

Endnote 18

Endnote 19

Endnote 20

Endnote 21

Endnote 22

Endnote 23

Endnote 24

Endnote 26

Endnote 27

Endnote 28

Endnote 29

Endnote 30

Endnote 31

Endnote 32

Endnote 33

Endnote 34

Endnote 35

Endnote 36

Endnote 37

Endnote 38

Endnote 39

Endnote 40

Endnote 41

Cross references
Constitution: Article 19
Constitution: Article 22
Constitution: Article 35
Conventions: C108 Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958
Conventions: C133 Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1970
Conventions: C145 Continuity of Employment (Seafarers) Convention, 1976
Conventions: C146 Seafarers' Annual Leave with Pay Convention, 1976
Conventions: C163 Seafarers' Welfare Convention, 1987
Conventions: C165 Social Security (Seafarers) Convention Revised), 1987
Conventions: C166 Repatriation of Seafarers Convention Revised), 1987
Recommendations:R107 Seafarers' Engagement (Foreign Vessels) Recommendation, 1958
Recommendations:R108 Social Conditions and Safety (Seafarers) Recommendation, 1958
Recommendations:R173 Seafarers' Welfare Recommendation, 1987
Recommendations:R174 Repatriation of Seafarers Recommendation, 1987