Chapter II. Labour standards to be applied under Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155

52. The main substantive standards in Convention No. 147 are dealt with by Article 2(a): aside from the provision as to qualifications and training in Article 2(e), (Endnote 1) and in part that as to engagement in Article 2(d), (Endnote 2) the rest of Article 2 and Articles 3 and 4 are essentially concerned with procedures and ensuring the implementation of those standards. Article 2(a) contains the undertaking of a member State which ratifies the Convention first to have certain laws and regulations governing ships registered in its territory; and secondly to satisfy itself that the provisions of such laws and regulations are substantially equivalent to the provisions of the Conventions referred to in the Appendix. The second part of the undertaking applies, of course, only in so far as the State is not otherwise bound (by ratification) to give effect to those Conventions: if it is so bound, then the normal obligations arising from ratification of an international labour Convention -- involving application in full (Endnote 3) -- apply. The laws or regulations referred to in the first part of Article 2(a) are divided into three categories: (i) safety standards, which are defined as including standards of competency, hours of work and manning, the purpose of such standards being to ensure the safety of life on board ship; (ii) appropriate social security measures; and, to a considerable extent at least, (iii) shipboard conditions of employment and shipboard living arrangements. As to (iii), the undertaking to have laws or regulations only applies in respect of matters which, "in the opinion of the Member, are not covered by collective agreements or laid down by competent courts in a manner equally binding on the shipowners and seafarers concerned". Paragraph 2 of Recommendation No. 155 adds a call for the improvement of the standards referred to in Article 2(a) of the Convention up to what is at least equivalent to the provisions appended to the Convention; it also raises the level of action to be taken since, on this point, it uses the word "ensure" rather than "satisfy themselves". Paragraph 2 of the Recommendation in addition provides for member States to satisfy themselves that provisions of collective agreements dealing with shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements attain the level of what is at least equivalent. In Paragraph 3, the Recommendation calls for "steps" to be taken "by stages if necessary" with a view to the laws and regulations or collective agreements containing provisions at least equivalent to the instruments referred to in the Recommendation Appendix. Paragraph 4 of the Recommendation anticipates revision of Convention No. 147 to take account of changes in the circumstances and needs of merchant shipping and finally calls for cognisance to be taken in the application of the Convention and the Recommendation respectively of revisions of Conventions and other instruments mentioned in the two Appendices.

I. Undertaking "to have laws or regulations"

53. Under Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147, the undertaking to have laws or regulations in respect of first safety standards and second appropriate social security measures is unqualified. (Endnote 4) In respect of (other) shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements, (Endnote 5) the undertaking is a qualified one: if, in the opinion of the member State, these matters are covered by collective agreements or laid down by competent courts in a manner equally binding on the shipowners and seafarers concerned, there is no need to have laws or regulations on them, because the undertaking only operates "in so far as" they are not so covered or laid down. The turn of the phrase in Article 2(a)(iii) would seem to imply that the conditions and arrangements might be satisfactorily covered otherwise than by legislation. (Endnote 6) Article 2(a)(iii) thus allows room for the establishment of standards on matters other than safety and social security through two alternative approaches (i.e. collective agreements or the competent courts). In doing so it requires an opinion to be formed by the member State in good faith as to whether those matters are or are not effectively covered by one or both of those alternatives. If such opinion is that they are not so covered, then it seems that an obligation to legislate will arise.

54. The Committee is concerned as to two kinds of gaps which may be identified by the opin on as to coverage required under Article 2(a)(iii): those in the scope and those in the content of the non-legislative provisions. If significant groups of seafarers do not fall within the scope of those provisions or if significant aspects of shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements are not dealt with by them, the question will arise whether the member State is not bound in good faith to form an opinion in favour of legislation and act accordingly. Implementation by the member State of the requirement in Article 2(a)(iii) to form an opinion necessarily comes at a later stage then and is distinct from the exercise of any margin of discretion it might have in the determination of what are "shipboard conditions of employment and shipboard living arrangements" for present purposes. The member State's opinion clearly should be formed both in good faith and in the light of the object and purpose of the Convention (Endnote 7) -- namely to deal with "substandard vessels, particularly those registered under flags of convenience"; the State should thus duly consider how far any gaps identified in the content or scope of non-legislative measures taken might necessitate some "shipboard conditions of employment and shipboard living arrangements" or some ships and seafarers being brought within the coverage of the laws and regulations required by Article 2. In forming its opinion, the member State might also have regard to the fact that many of the Appendix Conventions contain provisions which by the very nature of their subject-matter or by their substantive requirements normally call for legislation.

55. In practice, most of the States which have ratified Convention No. 147 have provided information on legislation dealing with shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements as well as safety standards and social security measures. These -- together with available information as to the alternative approaches -- are considered further below in this chapter. Other countries have also indicated the national position in article 19 reports. In the absence of any indications from, for example, shipowners' and seafarers' organisations that there are problems in this respect, the Committee has not so far had to raise any questions under Article 2(a)(iii) as to the "opinion" of a member State.

II. Application by the State to "ships registered in its territory"

56. The Article 2(a) undertaking and the substantive obligations flowing from it apply to ships registered in the territory of the member State which ratifies the Convention. The expression "registered in its territory" was preferred to "flying its flag" because of the practice in other ILO instruments, although the effect is perhaps the same in virtually all cases. (Endnote 8) The jurisdiction which a State must effectively exercise over ships flying its flag (Endnote 9) is of two kinds: jurisdiction to prescribe, i.e. the power of the State to lay down legislation or other rules; and jurisdiction to enforce, i.e. the power of the State to enforce legislation or other rules. (Endnote 10) Article 2(a) deals, then, with the exercise of that jurisdiction to prescribe. It indicates -- for a State which ratifies Convention No. 147 -- in the first place as regards what matters jurisdiction to prescribe is to be exercised in respect of ships registered in its territory. (Endnote 11) Recommendation No. 155 in Paragraphs 2 and 3 and its Appendix gives further indications for all States as to what measures may be regarded as desirable.

57. Most reports examined by the Committee show that laws or regulations have been adopted on at least some matters covered by Convention No. 147 with reference to ships registered in the national territory. But Article 2(a) by no means prohibits a State from having laws or regulations relating to ships other than those registered in its territory; in many cases (for example, MOU countries), there are laws or regulations of a port State concerning the application of labour and other standards to ships registered in other territories inasmuch as they are physically present within the territory of the port State. This is precisely the situation referred to in Article 4 of the Convention. (Endnote 12) Ships may thus, under the terms of the Convention, at the same time be subject to both the laws and regulations of the territory of registration and those of the port State. If, as a result of different substantive standards (concerning, for example, accident prevention) being fixed by those concurrent (prescriptive) jurisdictions in respect of a given ship in a given foreign port, any doubt arises, it would seem that in the ILO framework such doubt would be resolved by applying the "more favourable conditions". (Endnote 13)

III. Undertaking as to the provisions of laws and regulations

(a) "To satisfy itself"

58. The Article 2(a) undertaking by the member State to "satisfy itself" (in French "vérifier") relates to the laws and regulations in question and not to the other methods of application allowed, to a degree, in respect of the matters referred to in Article 2(a)(iii), i.e. collective agreements and binding court decisions. Article 2(a) aims at the substantial equivalence of those laws and regulations to the Conventions or Articles of Conventions referred to in the Appendix to Convention No. 147. The final version of the Convention is thus less demanding than earlier drafts, in that the State's obligation to "satisfy itself" as to the substantial equivalence of provisions of collective agreements to the provisions of the Appendix Conventions (Endnote 14) no longer obtains. In fact, the "satisfy itself" clause did not in the earlier draft apply at all to the required laws and regulations, the undertaking originally being simply "to have laws or regulations ... which are substantially equivalent." (Endnote 15)

59. The "satisfy itself" clause in Article 2(a), then, gives the "standard of proof" by which a Member's discharge of its undertaking to have laws or regulations substantially equivalent to the Conventions or Articles of Conventions in the Appendix is to be tested. (Endnote 16) It is evident that the discharge of the undertaking in Article 2(a) involves positive action by the government of the member State aimed at the attainment of the requisite degree of compliance. The ILO supervisory procedures triggered by ratification of the Convention involve in turn an objective examination of the steps taken by governments in this regard, and indeed in regard to all of the obligations and undertakings laid down in the Convention. Thus, in appropriate cases, the Committee requests information from governments of countries bound by the Convention in order to appreciate the steps taken by them to satisfy themselves ("vérifier") as required and the manner in which substantial equivalence has been satisfactorily established.

60. Although the second part of Article 2(a) (beginning "and to satisfy itself") links the laws and regulations required by the first part to the Conventions or Articles of Conventions referred to in the Appendix, there remain matters mentioned in the first part which are not dealt with directly in the Appendix Conventions. (Endnote 17) This is in a sense explained by the elision from the Appendices of earlier drafts of the Convention of instruments dealing with hours of work and manning (specifically referred to in Article 2(a)(i)) and a more comprehensive social security regime (similarly in Article 2(a)(ii)). Further, in the very nature of the terms in which Article 2(a) is conceived, there must in any case be a grey area of what may or may not be called standards necessary to "ensure the safety of life on board ship" (Endnote 18) or "appropriate social security measures" (Endnote 19) or again "shipboard conditions of employment and shipboard living arrangements" (Endnote 20) -- an area which may not be entirely covered by the Appendix Conventions or the Recommendation Appendix instruments or indeed any other ILO instruments. For this reason, when questions arise, the Committee may request or examine information from countries bound by the Convention on the basis simply of the first part of Article 2(a), in order to determine whether those countries have the required laws or regulations (or, in the case of shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements, collective agreements or equally binding acts of courts). The test of whether the State has satisfied itself as to substantial equivalence to the Appendix Conventions is of course not available in those cases. (Endnote 21)

61. In two respects it seems that Recommendation No. 155 advocates greater activity by member States than does Convention No. 147 in relation to the Appendix to the Convention. (Endnote 22) Paragraph 2(a) of the Recommendation uses the word "ensure" ("faire en sorte") where Article 2(a) of the Convention uses the expression "satisfy itself" ("vérifier"); this seems to imply a greater, objectively recognisable degree of certitude that the requisite degree of equivalence (not the same in the Recommendation as in the Convention) is achieved and, in order to attain such certitude, greater efforts on the part of the member State. The second additional activity called for in the Recommendation (Paragraph 2(b)) is for States to "satisfy themselves" ("vérifier") that the level of compliance (at least equivalent) is achieved also where shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements are dealt with by collective agreements rather than laws or regulations (no mention being made in Recommendation No. 155 of the case where they are laid down by competent courts).

(b) "Not otherwise bound"

62. All international labour Conventions include the specification that they are binding only upon Members of the ILO whose ratification has been registered with the Director-General. Under article 19(5)(d) of the ILO Constitution, if a Member has obtained the consent of the national competent authorities, it communicates the formal ratification of a Convention to the Director-General and takes such action as may be necessary to make effective the provisions of the Convention. The obligation to make effective the provisions of ratified Conventions applies of course to the Conventions referred to in the Convention No. 147 Appendix. Thus, the inclusion in Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 of the words "in so far as the Member is not otherwise bound to give effect to the Conventions in question" makes it clear that, where a State is bound by both Convention No. 147 and one or more of the Conventions referred to in the Appendix, the normal independent obligations under those Appendix Conventions have to be fulfilled in full and are not subject to any "abatement" by virtue of the substantial equivalence clause in Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147.

63. In practice, therefore, the Committee does not usually in the context of reports under article 22 of the ILO Constitution from countries bound by Convention No. 147 reconsider the position of those countries in respect of Appendix Conventions which have been ratified (or declared applicable without modification, in the case of non-metropolitan territories). For those countries, it is mainly in the case of minimum age and social security, where it appears that advantage may in effect have been taken of possible exclusions under Convention No. 138 and Convention No. 130 respectively to except seafarers from the application of those Conventions, that the Committee may endeavour in the framework of Convention No. 147 to seek information as to the good faith application to seafarers of the minimum age and social security requirements of Article 2(a) read together with the Appendix. (Endnote 23)

64. In the case of non-metropolitan territories in respect of which declarations of application have been made under article 35 of the ILO Constitution, the words "in so far as the Member is not otherwise bound to give effect to the Conventions in question" in Article 2(a) seem to limit the operation of the "satisfy itself" clause in a similar way. That clause may not operate, then, where a declaration of application of the Appendix Convention in question to the territory in question has been made. If the declaration is one of application without modification, then the Member is "otherwise bound" for Article 2(a) purposes, and in the Convention No. 147 framework the Committee will only take up the matters referred to in paragraph 63 above. But if the declaration is one of application with modifications, then it becomes necessary for purposes of Article 2(a) to look into how far the Member is bound by such declaration to give effect to the Appendix Convention in question in the territory in question. If this were not done and the modifications went "so far" as to exclude the application of some of the essential provisions of the Appendix Convention (in other words did not "respect the general goals" of the Appendix Convention in question or did not have sufficient regard to the object and purpose of both Convention No. 147 (Article 2(a)) and the Appendix Convention in question), then the Member might not in fact be "otherwise bound" and moreover it would not be possible to tell whether the Article 2(a) requirement of substantial equivalence were met or not. (Endnote 24) If it thus appears that substantial equivalence has not been demonstrated, then the application of an Appendix Convention to a non-metropolitan territory may be raised under Convention No. 147, declaration of application (with modifications) of that Convention notwithstanding.

(c) Substantial equivalence

65. The question of the Article 2(a) requirement of laws or regulations substantially equivalent ("(qui) équivalent dans l'ensemble") to the provisions of the Conventions referred to in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 and its meaning has from time to time been raised. Although the definitive interpretation of Conventions and Recommendations is under article 37 of the ILO Constitution vested in the International Court of Justice, in order to carry out its function of determining whether the requirements of Conventions are being observed, the Committee has to consider and express its views on the content and meaning of their provisions and determine their legal scope where appropriate. (Endnote 25) It is on this basis and in response to the wishes expressed by various governments that the following analysis is offered.

66. The notion of "equivalence" may be traced first to Paragraph 1 of Recommendation No. 107, (Endnote 26) which referred to conditions in vessels registered in some countries not being generally equivalent to those traditionally observed under collective agreements and social standards in other countries. This term had itself evolved from the original "in conformity" (Office text) through "in accordance" (PTM Conference Committee text) and "equal" (adopted by the PTM Conference); (Endnote 27) generally equivalent was agreed by the drafting committee of the responsible committee of the 41st Session of the Conference. (Endnote 28) Some governments have considered this meant they should "take account" of Recommendation No. 107; others undertook more active measures where conditions were "found to be inferior" (in most cases, articles of agreement were in any event required to be identical or to conform to national provisions). (Endnote 29)

67. In the first draft instrument concerning substandard vessels prepared for the 1975 PTM Conference, the expression at least equivalent was employed to describe the relation between the minimum substantive standards to be required for nationally registered ships and the "basic standards" referred to in a series of appended instruments. According to the record, the Legal Adviser considered that use of this expression meant that "deviations of detail from the terms of a Convention (referred to in the Appendix) could be admitted as long as the general level of protection remained the same": (Endnote 30) it seems to the Committee, however, that that explanation relates to the meaning of "equivalent", without addressing the meaning of "at least". The term substantially equivalent was used in this context in the single draft instrument approved by the PTM Conference, following the decision of the responsible Committee, by a majority, where substantially was preferred by the Shipowners and at least by the Seafarers; (Endnote 31) and following the failure of that Conference to retain a Shipowners' amendment using the words "standards which are substantially in compliance with the basic provisions of" the instruments referred to in the Appendix. (Endnote 32) It was as a result of the comments received after circulation of the PTM Conference report that the Office proposed two instruments: a draft Convention using the words substantially equivalent and a draft Recommendation using at least equivalent. (Endnote 33) This aspect of the drafts was not altered when the two instruments were finally adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1976.

68. During the elaboration of the Convention the concept of substantial equivalence was criticised by some governments, for example, as introducing "serious doubt as to what the international standards are"; "not adequate" (to permit protection of the legislative sovereignty of the member State); "too broad"; "ambiguous and undercuts the desirable standards which one would wish to see embodied in the instrument"; "quite complex ... has a wide range of flexibility being modified by economic, political, educational and social environment"; "could be interpreted as something less than the intent of the instrument". Still, it was on the whole acceptable to the majority of governments replying. (Endnote 34)

69. The responsible Committee of the 62nd Session of the Conference was apparently given it as the Legal Adviser's view that substantial equivalence "implied that the State agreed to take account of the general goal (Endnote 35) of those (Appendix) instruments, whose absolute conformity with national standards (Endnote 36) was not required": (Endnote 37) this has in turn been explained by reference to the minutes of that Committee, which give the Legal Adviser's views as that "national laws and regulations could be different in detail, but that the States should engage themselves to assure (Endnote 38) that the general goals (Endnote 39) intended by these instruments should be respected". (Endnote 40) That Committee's report on one occasion only uses an expression which seems to be a hybrid of the English and French terms: "on the whole substantially equivalent ... within the meaning of the proposed Convention". (Endnote 41) When presenting the same Committee's report to the plenary of the Conference, the Reporter indicated that "in the Convention itself it was deemed necessary to specify exactly what was meant by the term, and this is done in the Appendix in the form of a footnote to the reference to (Convention No. 53), with a view to making it clear to all States exactly what was meant by "substantial equivalence"". (Endnote 42) From the final drafting of the footnote and its presentation in the Convention, though, it seems that this provision, which was added by a working party of the responsible Committee, (Endnote 43) does not clarify the concept of substantial equivalence in general, but merely restates it in the terms of Convention No. 53.

70. One government (Endnote 44) has indicated in its article 19 report the conclusion reached on legal advice by its Federal Task Force on ILO maritime Conventions, to the effect that, "while the words "substantially equivalent" do not require national laws or regulations to be identical in every respect to the Conventions included in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, they do require those laws or regulations to have in all material respects an effect corresponding to the requirements of the Conventions. The task force recognised that this opinion was more restrictive than that provided by the ILO in a Memorandum to the United States Government, i.e. that the general goals of the Conventions in the Appendix must be respected. However, in the absence of a satisfactory objective test of the degree of departure from a Convention's requirements that will or will not be permissible, it was considered that it would be safer for Australia to adopt a more restrictive interpretation."

71. In order to try and clarify the meaning of substantially equivalent, it does also seem desirable as a matter of principle and in the spirit of Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention to refer to the "ordinary meaning" of the words in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of Convention No. 147. This approach might tend to favour the conclusion referred to in the preceding paragraph, that the use of the expression in Article 2(a) implies laws or regulations which "have in all material respects an effect corresponding" to the requirements of the Appendix Conventions.

72. In its examination of article 22 reports from countries bound by the Convention, the Committee has necessarily had to consider whether substantial equivalence has been achieved in concrete cases. For three countries (Endnote 45) the question does not arise at all, and for several others many of the Appendix Conventions are themselves ratified, so that in the end the question of substantial equivalence has in practice arisen relatively rarely. In those cases, the Committee has endeavoured to build on the obviously very helpful statements referred to in paragraph 69 above. This Chapter includes available indications in relation to each of the subjects dealt with by Article 2(a) and the Appendix Conventions.

73. Certainly substantial equivalence is the minimum standard acceptable under Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147. The term does not imply the open-endedness of the expression at least equivalent: Recommendation No. 155, clearly, from its use of the latter expression and from its very title, is concerned with promoting standards at or above the level laid down by the instruments it refers to. Substantially equivalent, then, must be something less than at least equivalent. Since "equivalent" is qualified by "substantially", the level must also be something less than simple equivalence (the notion employed in Article 3 of the Convention). On the other hand, it seems significant that the PTM Conference, in endorsing the use of the expression substantially equivalent, effectively rejected, because of very strong Seafarers' objections, a Shipowners' amendment using the expression substantially in compliance with the basic provisions (of the instruments in question). Thus, it seems that what is called for must be more than merely taking account (Endnote 46) and more than substantial compliance with only basic provisions, although these would no doubt be steps along the way to achieving substantial equivalence proper. (Endnote 47)

74. The Committee accepts the view that there may under Article 2(a) be differences or deviations in detail as between the requisite national laws or regulations and the Appendix Conventions and that literal compliance with every provision of the Appendix Conventions is, for purposes of Article 2(a), not indispensable. Yet to say that national provisions may be different in detail is not in itself to say that they may be inferior.

75. The Committee finds it necessary in the case of each article 22 report on Convention No. 147 to look at the object and purpose of the Appendix Convention in question and the general level of protection it lays down. The Committee cannot but have regard to the general principles applying to the observance, application and interpretation of treaties embodied in the Vienna Convention, Articles 26 to 38, including the principle that a treaty in force (in this case Convention No. 147) is binding on the parties to it and must be performed in good faith. In examining article 22 reports, the Committee has in this spirit endeavoured to apply practical and objective tests to determine what are the minimum labour standards acceptable under Article 2(a) and whether national laws and regulations meet those standards.

76. The Committee endorses the emphasis placed in the Office Memorandum (Endnote 48) on the "goals" of Appendix Conventions, which tends to imply that the notion of substantial equivalence in Article 2(a) involves substantial equivalence with each substantive provision of the Appendix Conventions. The failure to adopt the Shipowners' amendment referred to suggests that this emphasis is right. (Endnote 49)

77. Further, some standards in the Appendix Conventions have explicit quantifiable elements in respect of which it may be possible to determine that substantial equivalence involves a commitment to less than 100 per cent: this might apply as regards, for example, the length of a benefits period, or the rate of benefits, in Conventions Nos. 55, 56 and 130; (Endnote 50) or some of the details of dimensions of sleeping rooms in Article 10 of Convention No. 92; (Endnote 51) it may even apply to the periodicity of medical examinations under Convention No. 73. (Endnote 52) However, in respect of non-quantifiable elements such determination would be difficult, and, especially where questions of safety are involved, it might be impossible to make. In such cases, to be faithful to the wording and spirit of Article 2(a), the Committee's view of what is required is bound to prefer more strict adherence to the provisions of the Appendix Conventions.

78. Given the way in which Article 2(a) is phrased, it must be first for the Government concerned to weigh the question whether due regard is had to the object and purpose ("general goals") of relevant Appendix Conventions. It is nevertheless the Committee's task in accordance with its terms of reference itself to examine the measures taken by member States to give effect to the provisions of Article 2(a): this means, in addition to examining whether the member State has satisfied itself ("vérifié") that there is substantial equivalence, examining in an objective manner the measures taken and the reasoning leading to a conclusion that there is substantial equivalence. In doing this, the Committee may express its view as to whether substantial equivalence seems to have been attained.

79. Where there is not full conformity with the Appendix Conventions, the test the Committee will apply will involve first determining what the general goal or goals of the Convention is or are, i.e. its object or objects and purpose or purposes. These may present themselves as one main general goal and several subordinate goals. The test for substantial equivalence may then be, first, whether the State has demonstrated its respect for or acceptance of the main general goal of the Convention and enacted laws or regulations which conduce to its realisation; and if so, secondly, whether the effect of such laws or regulations is to ensure that in all material respects the subordinate goals of the Convention are achieved. It is on this basis that the Committee has endeavoured to deal with individual cases arising in its examination of article 22 reports and with the other questions considered in this Chapter.

IV. Safety standards

80. Article 2(a)(i) of Convention No. 147 formulates the undertaking "to have laws or regulations laying down ... safety standards, including standards of competency, hours of work and manning, so as to ensure the safety of life on board ship". The notion of safety standards and the obligations attached to it are, in the first place, on this wording limited neither to the three topics mentioned in this clause nor to elements of the Conventions listed in the Appendix (hours of work and manning manifestly not being substantively covered by the Appendix Conventions). (Endnote 53) In the second place, no indication has been given either expressly in the Convention or indirectly in the preparatory work as to which of the Appendix instruments are to be regarded as establishing safety standards -- and therefore giving rise to the obligation to legislate laid down in Article 2(a)(i) -- and which of them establish shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements which, under Article 2(a)(iii), may be the subject of collective agreements or laid down by competent courts in a manner equally binding. In the third place, the notion of safety standards in the Convention is limited to those designed to protect life on board ship.

81. The first of these observations relates to the grey area of safety standards going beyond what is given specifically in either Article 2(a)(i) or the Appendix Conventions, which is a matter initially for the good faith appreciation of the Government of a ratifying State and later, of course, for the consideration of the supervisory bodies of the ILO. (Endnote 54) As for the second observation, analysis of the Appendix Conventions assists in reaching a reasonable understanding of the notion of safety, although some of those Conventions include both safety and "non-safety" standards. (Endnote 55) From the third observation, it appears that the required safety standards are concerned with the more urgent matters, i.e. where life is endangered: the life in question may be not only that of the persons who are the object of the relevant standards (concerning, for example, competency, minimum age or medical examination) but also that of others on board the ship in question or any other ship (the safety standards do not, it seems, extend to life on shore). This said, the Committee cannot but insist that it is bound to view all aspects of the safety of life on board ship as important ones. It is, then, in any event clear that laws or regulations on competency, hours of work, manning, prevention of accidents, minimum age, medical examination, crew accommodation, and food and catering are a requirement of Article 2(a)(i) of Convention No. 147, inasmuch as those matters concern the safety of life on board ship.

(a) Competency and qualifications

82. Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 requires the ratifying State to have laws or regulations laying down standards in relation to "competency" (in French, "compétence de l'équipage"), so as to ensure the safety of life on board ship; and to satisfy itself that the provisions of such laws and regulations are substantially equivalent to Articles 3 and 4 of Convention No. 53, in so far as it is not otherwise bound to give effect to those Articles. The obligation in respect of officers' competency is thus fairly clear. Articles 3 and 4 of Convention No. 53 are the only provisions referred to in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 laying down standards of competency. (Endnote 56) It was in the PTM Conference that "standards of competency" was subsumed under safety standards (Endnote 57) and it is thus with the safety aspects of competency that Article 2(a)(i) is concerned. However, this provision should clearly be read alongside Article 2(e), which is concerned both with ensuring the actual qualification and training of seafarers employed on ships registered in the territory; and with the due regard which should be had to the issues dealt with in Recommendation No. 137, namely, the objectives of a policy for seafarers' training, the planning and administration of it, and the methods by which it is pursued. (Endnote 58)

83. The first consideration referred to in paragraph 80, above, means in effect that there is no exhaustive indication as to what standards of competency are included in Article 2(a)(i). The English "competency" is normally of general application in the terminology of ILO maritime standards. (Endnote 59) The reference in the French to competency of the crew ("de l'équipage") certainly indicates a reading not limited to officers' competency: indeed, the PTM Conference's addition of those words in the French version was associated with the assimilation of standards of competency to safety standards. (Endnote 60) The elimination of Convention No. 74 from the Appendices to both the Convention and the Recommendation thus seems to leave the question of competency of the crew (other than the officers referred to in Convention No. 53) in a position analogous to that of hours of work and manning. (Endnote 61) On this basis alone it would be possible to say that the laws or regulations laying down standards of competency required under Article 2(a)(i) so as to ensure the safety of life on board ship should deal with both the officers covered by Convention No. 53 and other crew members -- including officers not covered by Convention No. 53, able seamen and specialised ratings. Such an approach to Article 2(a)(i) clearly accords with the logical and empirical connection between the competency of seafarers of virtually all categories on the one hand and the assurance of safety of life on board ship on the other. In supervising this aspect of the Convention, the Committee is bound to stress the safety content of the Article 2(a)(i) requirement.

84. Reading Article 2(a)(i) and Article 2(e) together moreover allows a clearer image of the entirety of the Article 2 undertaking as to competency and qualifications to emerge. The first aspect of Article 2(e) directly enhances the undertaking as to competency in Article 2(a)(i): for Article 2(e) lays down the State's undertaking "to ensure that seafarers employed on ships registered in its territory are properly qualified or trained for the duties for which they are engaged". This undertaking is not limited to national seafarers or even to those who have qualified or undergone training in the territory. It recasts, in respect of the officers covered by Convention No. 53, the requirement of Article 3(1) -- read together with Article 4(1)(c) -- of that Convention, that "no person shall be engaged to perform or shall perform ... the duties (of such officers) unless he holds a certificate of competency to perform such duties ..." and "no person shall be granted a certificate of competency unless ... he has passed the examinations organised ... for the purpose of testing whether he possesses the qualifications necessary for performing the (corresponding) duties". There is then a further two-part undertaking under Article 2(a) and (e): to have laws or regulations laying down standards in relation to competency of the crew so as to ensure the safety of life on board ship; and to ensure that seafarers (crew members) employed on ships registered in the territory are properly qualified or trained for the duties for which they are engaged, due regard being had to Recommendation No. 137. The latter undertaking is pitched at the high "standard of proof", i.e. to "ensure". For the first part of this undertaking, then, the test is that of ensuring the safety of life on board ship; for the second, the test is whether due regard is had to Recommendation No. 137. (Endnote 62)

(i) Officers

85. Article 3 of Convention No. 53 lays down the basic requirement of a certificate of competency for masters or skippers, navigating officers in charge of a watch, chief engineers, and engineer officers in charge of a watch, exceptions being allowed only in the case of force majeure. Article 4 lays down that there should be prerequisites (not articulated by the Convention) as to minimum age, professional experience and passing exams for testing whether seafarers have the necessary qualifications, these matters being prescribed by national legislation; it also provides for an initial transition period. Other Articles of the Convention (referred to in the Appendix to Recommendation No. 155) are concerned with scope (Article 1), definitions (Article 2), inspection (Article 5) and penalties (Article 6).

86. The footnote (Endnote 63) joined as an integral part of Convention No. 147 to the reference to Articles 3 and 4 of Convention No. 53 would appear to have the effect of allowing greater flexibility in respect of these two Articles than is allowed in respect of other Conventions and provisions listed in the Appendix: it appears to permit established arrangements for certification to coexist with Articles 3 and 4 in any case where strict adherence to Articles 3 and 4 might give rise to problems. The footnote was elaborated by a working party of the responsible Conference Committee: (Endnote 64) it is indicated by that Committee that the working party took the view that the system applied by India concerning officers' competency certificates was "on the whole substantially equivalent" to the text of Articles 3 and 4 of Convention No. 53, account being taken of the footnote to these Articles. That Committee's report unfortunately does not describe the Indian system. The relevant legislation examined by the present Committee (Endnote 65) lays down a general requirement of a certificate of competency and specifies the various ranks: the central government should grant a certificate of competency to any applicant reported by the examiners to have passed the examination of qualifications satisfactorily and to have given satisfactory evidence of his "sobriety, experience and ability and general good conduct on board ship"; the central government has powers to supervise the system; the 1961 Rules concern only the form of certificates, which must indicate that an examination has been passed. It thus seems that in that Committee's view substantial equivalence for present purposes involves essentially a licensing system which is compulsory (Article 3 of Convention No. 53) and in which both experience -- leading to demonstrable ability on board ship -- and the examination of qualifications are required (Article 4(1)(b) and (c)). The present Committee's position has coincided with that view. No information is available as to any requirement in such a system in respect of minimum age or the minimum duration of the experience regarded as necessary for certification (Article 4(1)(a) and (b)). The questions of "sobriety" and "general good conduct" may well be important ones falling within the notion of "safety standards" in the broad sense, but they seem to go beyond the scope of Convention No. 53.

87. In its supervision of article 22 reports on Convention No. 147 (as in its supervision of the relevant Conventions in their own right) the Committee cannot but bear in mind current news reports of the incidence that non-observance of competency standards can have on safety. Eleven of the States bound by Convention No. 147 are also bound by Convention No. 53, and for some of these the Committee has outstanding comments. Of the others, the Committee has in one case (Endnote 66) noted with satisfaction that following observations by a workers' organisation previous legislation enabling some certificates of competency to be issued without an examination being passed was amended to provide for examinations. In five cases (Endnote 67) it has inquired whether exceptions are limited to cases of force majeure. In another case (Endnote 68) it has repeatedly requested information on the enactment of legislation proposed to establish a system of certification where none exists. The Committee has in two cases inquired as to the organisation and supervision of examinations. (Endnote 69) And in another, (Endnote 70) where the report stated that watchkeeping by an unlicensed seafarer under the supervision of a licence-holder was allowed, the Committee has asked for the practical meaning of "under the supervision". Where the certification system is based not on a nationally legislated system prescribing minimum age and experience and examinations as laid down in Article 4 of Convention No. 53, but on the recognition of certificates of other countries (an approach which does not seem necessarily to be contrary to the requirements of Convention No. 147), (Endnote 71) the Committee has tried to ascertain how the country granting recognition ensures that substantial equivalence to Articles 3 and 4 of Convention No. 53 is guaranteed. There are other cases (Endnote 72) where the Committee has not raised the question of minimum age in this context (Article 4(1)(a) and (2)(a) of Convention No. 53); or has not insisted on the need for specific legislation as to a minimum age for the grant of a certificate: (Endnote 73) it seems that a provision dealing specifically with a minimum age for certification is not essential to establish substantial equivalence where the requirements of practical professional experience or training in addition to the requirements of Convention No. 147 as to minimum age for service at sea (Endnote 74) mean that in effect a minimum age for the grant of a certificate of competency operates. If there is no information as to either minimum age or experience requirements, the Committee may raise both, however. (Endnote 75)

88. Apart from the other countries bound by Convention No. 53 (for some of which there nevertheless remain outstanding comments of the Committee), article 19 reports have in many cases given information, and there is a national system for issuing officers' competency certificates. (Endnote 76) In some cases in particular there seems (depending on the manner of application) to be a basis for concluding that there is substantial equivalence to Articles 3 and 4. (Endnote 77) In others, although regulations may be made, no details are available. (Endnote 78)

(ii) Other crew members

89. The first part of the undertaking referred to in paragraph 84 above as to seafarers not covered by Convention No. 53 applies to any crew members (officers or ratings) employed in the radio or catering departments or for general purposes, in addition to those in the deck and engine departments (cf. Paragraph 1(2) of Recommendation No. 137). Of the States which have ratified Convention No. 147, nine are bound by Convention No. 74 and 11 by Convention No. 69. In general, the Committee considers that the question of the competency and qualifications of seafarers other than officers covered by Convention No. 53 may require closer examination in future under Convention No. 147, especially in order to establish that they are properly qualified or trained, having due regard to Recommendation No. 137 and the overall concern for the safety of life on board ship. (Endnote 79) For this reason, the Committee welcomes the available information from many countries, particularly in article 19 reports, as to legislation concerning the qualifications of, for example, able seamen (Endnote 80) and ships' cooks. (Endnote 81)

(iii) Further guidance and information provided

90. Under Paragraph 3 of Recommendation No. 155, steps should also be taken "by stages if necessary" with a view to laws or regulations (or, if it were appropriate, collective agreements) containing provisions at least equivalent to the IMCO/ILO Document for Guidance, 1975. That Document essentially contains recommendations as to points which should be included in the training of seafarers, including what may consequently be considered as ideally forming part of the qualification for possessing a certificate of competency under Articles 3 and 4 of Convention No. 53. The Document deals in a practical way with many technical matters relating to navigation, life-saving, use of machinery and the application of modern technology -- all contributing to the safety of life on board ship. Under Paragraph 4(2) of Recommendation No. 155, (Endnote 82) cognisance should moreover be taken (after consultation with the most representative organisations of shipowners and seafarers) of the revised (1985) version of the Document for Guidance, which updates the contents of the 1975 Document (adding new sections on medical training; ship management for masters and officers; human relationships and social responsibilities; and maritime law: officers should have a knowledge of international maritime law as it affects their work, particularly in relation to safety and the protection of the marine environment, including a knowledge of national arrangements for implementing international agreements and Conventions). The 1985 revision, significantly, is based very largely on the STCW Convention, with its Annex and accompanying resolutions. In both its 1975 and 1985 versions the Document relates to ratings as well as officers. Finally, under Paragraph 3 of Recommendation No. 155, steps should be taken with a view to the laws and regulations -- or perhaps in some respects collective agreements -- also containing provisions at least equivalent to Recommendation No. 137, since that Recommendation too is included in the Appendix to Recommendation No. 155.

91. In article 19 reports, several governments have referred in this context to the STCW Convention. (Endnote 83) The Committee has no competence to examine the application of the STCW Convention as such, although it notes that that Convention, which has been adhered to by 77 States, includes in its Annex and the resolutions adopted simultaneously detailed requirements for the issue of certificates to masters, officers and ratings of nearly all categories. As regards officers, it seems to the Committee that those requirements go beyond Articles 3 and 4 of Convention No. 53, so that it may at least be possible to say that where the STCW Convention is applied in full the requirement of substantial equivalence to Articles 3 and 4 of Convention No. 53 will be met.

92. As regards all categories of seafarers, the STCW Convention with its Annex and connected resolutions contains what amounts to a far-reaching statement of basic competency standards which, although in itself going beyond Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155, in the form of the 1985 version of the Document for Guidance which is appended to Recommendation No. 155, is recommended to all ILO member States. In respect of able seamen, however, it is noticeable that the minimum age and periods of service required may be lower in the STCW Convention than in ILO Convention No. 74. The STCW Convention does not cover ships' cooks, dealt with in ILO Convention No. 69.

93. Several governments have indicated that in the organisation of training for seafarers the Document for Guidance is taken into account in accordance with Recommendation No. 155. (Endnote 84) The Committee particularly welcomes such information and would invite all governments to make use of the Document as an authoritative and concise statement of what goes to ensure that standards of competency are adequate, in particular to the task of ensuring the safety of life on board ship.

(b) Hours of work and manning

94. Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 requires the ratifying State to have laws or regulations laying down standards on hours of work (in the French version "la durée du travail") and manning so as to ensure the safety of life on board ship. Recommendation No. 155 does not deal with this subject. (Endnote 85) There is no further indication in Convention No. 147 or its Appendix as to the meaning of "hours of work" or "manning", (Endnote 86) or the content of the requisite laws or regulations: the substantially equivalent clause in Article 2(a) thus has no application in this respect. Apparently the Conference intended (Endnote 87) and the context would imply that it is as safety standards that hours of work and manning are expressly covered in Article 2(a).

95. The Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Recommendation, 1958 (No. 109) was included in the Appendix of the original draft instrument, (Endnote 88) but deleted later: it was considered that the inclusion of a Recommendation in the Appendix to the Convention was inappropriate; and Convention No. 109 was not included either since it was considered not to have received a sufficient degree of acceptance. (Endnote 89) Still, the references to hours of work and manning were left in Article 2(a)(i) of Convention No. 147, the majority of the responsible Committee of the Conference considering that hours of work and safety could not be separated. (Endnote 90) The Employers' members of that Committee and the Reporter stated -- ostensibly in connection with Article 2(b) -- that "working hours" (Endnote 91) as used in the text would relate only to safety on board and not, for example, to overtime compensation. (Endnote 92) The inclusion of Recommendation No. 109 in the Appendix to Recommendation No. 155 was narrowly rejected by the responsible Committee of the Conference. (Endnote 93)

(i) Hours of work

96. In ILO standards (Endnote 94) the expression "hours of work" is generally taken to refer to the time during which persons employed are at the disposal of the employer: in Convention No. 109, Article 12(d), it is defined as "time during which a person is required by the orders of a superior to do work on account of the vessel or the owner". Since the present provision as to hours of work is placed by the Conference in the context of ensuring the safety of life on board ship, it appears, then, that the essential requirement may be satisfied at a minimum by legislation laying down in the light of safety demands a reasonable level of normal daily hours of work at sea for all officers and ratings. (Endnote 95) Such legislation should not be limited in application to watchkeepers. (Endnote 96) Keeping in mind the purpose of ensuring safety of life on board, it seems to the Committee that such normal hours may be defined differently for near-trade ships than for distant-trade ships. (Endnote 97) It appears also in this light that, whilst the amount of compensation for overtime may be outside the scope of Article 2(a)(i) of Convention No. 147, the length of overtime should be limited in a reasonable way. Where safety is at issue, it would naturally be a matter for national laws or regulations to determine the duties the time spent on which should be included in normal hours of work, and to regulate other aspects of hours of work than merely a daily or weekly norm -- for example daily rest periods or maximum overtime allowable. (Endnote 98) At this point the question of hours of work melds into the question of manning.

97. Of the countries bound by Convention No. 147, most have the required legislation on hours of work at sea, and in most cases normal hours are fixed at eight per day or 40 per week. (Endnote 99) Some countries have indicated that hours of work are governed solely by collective agreements or administrative measures, and in those cases (Endnote 100) the Committee has asked the Government to indicate legislative measures proposed to comply with the Convention. Where collective agreements are given general application by law, there need be no difficulty in this respect. (Endnote 101) In several cases governments have provided information on legislation regulating other aspects of hours of work, such as mandatory rest periods (Endnote 102) or compensation (Endnote 103) or various aspects of the organisation of working time. (Endnote 104)

98. Article 19 reports show that there is legislation as to normal working hours of seafarers in many countries, sometimes laying down a normal working day. (Endnote 105) In some other countries, though there appears to be legislation as to various aspects of working time, there is no available indication of what is considered a reasonable daily limit. (Endnote 106) On the other hand, as far as safety is concerned, the limitation of overtime work allowable, say, per month, (Endnote 107) or the granting of shorter hours for workers in arduous conditions (Endnote 108) may well have a role to play. The Committee notes that one government (Endnote 109) has circulated for the comments of employers' and workers' organisations draft regulations imposing monthly maximum hours and a daily rest period, in addition to the provision that the efficiency of watchkeeping officers and ratings should not be impaired by fatigue. In some countries there appears to be legislation laying down a maximum period which may be spent at sea. (Endnote 110)

(ii) Manning

99. The reference to manning was added by the working party of the responsible Committee of the PTM Conference, the Shipowners emphasising their view that it meant "minimum safe manning". (Endnote 111) When all reference to Convention No. 109 and Recommendation No. 109 was excised from both Appendices, a clause was drafted into the proposed Convention laying down an undertaking by the State "to ensure that ships registered in its territory are sufficiently manned to ensure the safety of life at sea". (Endnote 112) The responsible Committee of the International Labour Conference deleted that clause on the ground that the provision now appeared in slightly modified wording in Article 2(a)(i). (Endnote 113) It may therefore be inferred that the essential requirement of this provision is that ships should be sufficiently manned to ensure the safety of life on board. (Endnote 114)

100. The requirement of legislation laying down safe manning standards seems to be met by nearly all countries whose article 22 reports the Committee has examined. In a fairly typical case (Endnote 115) the legislation provides for each ship's manning to be fixed by the shipowner, if not already agreed between the interested parties, the shipowner then submitting it for approval by the competent authorities. In three cases where Convention No. 147 applies (Endnote 116) there is no information as to the necessary legislation; in another two cases (Endnote 117) the Committee has requested information whether there is legislation applying to ratings as well as officers.

101. From article 19 reports it seems that most other countries with merchant ships have some legislation on manning requirements. (Endnote 118) In some, it may cover only officers. (Endnote 119) Other countries have legislation enabling manning regulations to be made (Endnote 120) and in one such regulations are being processed. (Endnote 121)

(c) Other safety standards

(i) Prevention of accidents

102. The prevention of accidents is by definition a matter of safety standards. Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147, then, requires ratifying States to have laws or regulations laying down safety standards and to satisfy themselves that the provisions of such laws or regulations are substantially equivalent to Articles 4 and 7 of Convention No. 134, in so far as they are not otherwise bound to give effect to that Convention. Article 4 of Convention No. 134 states that there should be laid down by laws or regulations, codes of practice or other appropriate means, provisions relating to accident prevention in maritime employment, in particular including, apart from general and basic matters, provisions on eight specific topics: structural features of the ship; machinery; special safety measures on and below deck; loading and unloading equipment; fire prevention and fire-fighting; (Endnote 122) anchors, chains and lines; dangerous cargo and ballast; and personal protective equipment for seafarers. Under Article 7 there should be provision for the appointment from amongst the crew of a suitable person or persons or a committee responsible under the master for accident prevention.

103. Under Recommendation No. 155, Paragraph 2(a), the State should ensure that the laws or regulations are at least equivalent to Articles 4 and 7 and under Paragraph 3 should take steps to implement the rest of Convention No. 134. The rest of Convention No. 134 provides for reporting and investigation of accidents and the keeping of statistics (Article 2); research (Article 3); making sure Article 4 provisions are binding on shipowners, seafarers and others concerned (Article 5); inspection and enforcement (Article 6); accident prevention programmes and instruction (Articles 8 and 9); and the promotion of international uniformity (Article 10). It is clear also that much of what Recommendation No. 137, especially Paragraphs 2(b) and (f) and 12(f), and the Document for Guidance included in the Appendix to Recommendation No. 155 are concerned with (Endnote 123) goes to improve performance in safe working practices and the prevention of accidents. (Endnote 124)

104. It is evident from the opening words of Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 that a country bound by Convention No. 147 should deal with the matters included in Articles 4 and 7 of Convention No. 134 by legislation rather than the other means foreseen in that Convention. (Endnote 125) To this extent, as regards methods of application, Convention No. 147 reflects the practice of many countries bound by Convention No. 134. (Endnote 126) Convention No. 147's emphasis on legislation on this point arises no doubt from the object and purpose of dealing effectively with the problem of substandard vessels, first place in Article 2 being given to safety.

105. Twelve States bound by Convention No. 147 are also bound by Convention No. 134. In its supervision of Articles 4 and 7 of Convention No. 134 under Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147, the Committee has found that, of the countries not otherwise bound by that Convention, some have satisfactory legislation on Article 4 (Endnote 127) and Article 7. (Endnote 128) Where information has not been provided on legislation giving effect to either Article 4 or Article 7, the Committee will request it. (Endnote 129) Where a modification to the declaration of application to a non-metropolitan territory (Endnote 130) stated that there were no relevant legislative provisions, the Committee has noted with interest that such provisions have been envisaged.

106. In article 19 reports, other countries not bound by Convention No. 134 have indicated in some cases that they have legislation complying with several of the items included in Article 4(3) of Convention No. 134. (Endnote 131) In several countries there is also provision allotting accident-prevention responsibility on board ship. (Endnote 132) In others, either no information is supplied or there appears to be no specific legislation as to accident prevention on board ship. (Endnote 133) In practice, however, there are various provisions of the 1960 and 1974 SOLAS Conventions, binding on a large number of countries, which deal with safety in the same matters as referred to in Article 4(3) of Convention No. 134.

107. It seems to the Committee that the essential features of Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 in relation to Articles 4 and 7 of Convention No. 134 are that there should be laws or regulations on the nine general and specific subjects listed in Article 4(3); and that one or more crew members should be appointed as responsible for accident prevention under Article 7.

(ii) Minimum age

108. As well as being a matter of conditions of employment the question of minimum age for employment at sea must be regarded as a matter of safety in terms of Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147, in respect of both the individual seafarer concerned and other lives on board ship: like the question of competency, it is directly connected to the individual seafarer's ability to function correctly in his employment. Article 2(a), then, requires ratifying States to have laws or regulations laying down safety standards in relation to the minimum age for employment at sea and to satisfy themselves that such laws and regulations are substantially equivalent to Convention No. 138 or Convention No. 58 or Convention No. 7, in so far as they are not otherwise bound to give effect to those Conventions. (Endnote 134) The earliest of the three, No. 7, sets a minimum age of 14 years for employment on any vessel except one where only members of the same family are employed or an authorised training ship; it provides for a register of all persons under 16 to be kept by the master. (Endnote 135) In Convention No. 58 the minimum age is set at 15 years (14 years for authorised educational purposes), with the same provision as to families, training ships and registers. Ratification of Convention No. 138 involves an undertaking to pursue a national policy of abolishing child labour and progressively to raise the minimum age for any work or employment to a level where young persons' physical and mental development is assured (Article 1); it must be accompanied by a declaration specifying "a minimum age for admission to employment or work within (the State's) territory and on means of transport registered in its territory" (Article 2(1)): (Endnote 136) the minimum age should be at least the school-leaving age and normally not less than 15 (it may initially be 14 in the case of countries whose economic and educational facilities are insufficiently developed -- Article 2); where health, safety or morals may be jeopardised, it should be at least 18 (Article 3: this may or may not be considered the case for maritime employment -- Article 10(4)(d)) or, with adequate safeguards, 16; although some exceptions are allowed under Articles 4 and 5, clearly the former may not for present purposes and the latter may not in any event be applied to maritime employment; (Endnote 137) where duly authorised and controlled, exclusions for educational work, light work, artistic performances, may be possible (Articles 6, 7, and 8); there is provision for the keeping of registers and enforcement (Article 9). Given the flexibility allowed to developing countries, it appears that Convention No. 138 may thus in particular circumstances allow a lower minimum age than Convention No. 58. Under Recommendation No. 155, Paragraph 2(a), States should ensure that the laws or regulations are at least equivalent to Conventions Nos. 138, 58 or 7. (Endnote 138)

109. Of the countries bound by Convention No. 147 whose reports the Committee has examined, only two (Endnote 139) are not bound by one of the three, and in these cases the Committee therefore seeks information as to the application of the minimum standard acceptable under Convention No. 147, i.e. that laid down in Convention No. 7. Three of the countries bound by Convention No. 147 are bound also by Convention No. 7, eight by Convention No. 58; the others, which are bound by Convention No. 138, have all specified a minimum age of 15, although in practice it seems that a minimum age of 16 may be applied to seafarers in some countries. (Endnote 140) No use has been made of Article 4 of Convention No. 138 in order to exclude maritime employment; on the other hand, no express use seems to have been made either of Article 3 to set a minimum age of 18 for maritime work on the grounds that "by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out (it) is likely to jeopardise the health, safety or morals of young persons".

110. A total of 87 States are bound by one or another of the three Conventions. Many article 19 reports from other countries have indicated that for seafarers a minimum age of 14, (Endnote 141) 15, (Endnote 142) 16 (Endnote 143) or 18 (Endnote 144) is provided for. In all of those countries, then, there is a basis for compliance with the minimum age safety standard required under Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147.

111. Given the inclusion of the Convention No. 7 alternative in the Convention No. 147 Appendix, it seems that the substantially equivalent requirement in Article 2(a) may be met where standards to ensure the safety of life on board ship include a minimum age of 14 applied by legislation except to vessels where only members of the same family are employed or on authorised school or training ships; and where laws and regulations provide also for some form of registers in order to facilitate enforcement. For purposes of Recommendation No. 155, Convention No. 138 gives the highest standards on minimum age towards which national laws and regulations should be raised.

(iii) Medical examination

112. A medical examination involves the establishment by a medical practitioner of a person's fitness for the maritime work for which he is to be employed (Endnote 145) and thus affects the safety both of that person's life and of the lives of others on board ship. Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 requires ratifying States to have laws or regulations laying down safety standards in relation to medical examination and to satisfy themselves that the provisions of such laws and regulations are substantially equivalent to Convention No. 73, in so far as they are not otherwise bound to give effect to that Convention. Convention No. 73 makes a certificate of fitness a prerequisite for employment at sea (Article 3); the nature of the examination and the particulars to be included in the certificate are to be determined by the competent authority after consultation of shipowners and seafarers, having regard to the age of persons concerned and the duties to be performed; the certificate should attest to hearing and sight plus, for the deck department, normally, colour vision, and to the seafarer's not suffering any disease likely to be aggravated by or make him unfit for service at sea or to endanger the health of others on board (Article 4); the certificate may remain in force for a period not exceeding two years (or for colour vision, six years (Article 5)); there is limited flexibility to finish or in urgent cases undertake a single voyage without a valid certificate (Article 6); and for re-examination in case of refusal of a certificate (Article 8). (Endnote 146) Under Recommendation No. 155, Paragraph 2(a), States should ensure that laws and regulations are at least equivalent to Convention No. 73.

113. The responsible Committee of the Conference which adopted Convention No. 147 indicated (Endnote 147) that it took note of the view of its working party (Endnote 148) that the arrangements applied in Denmark for the medical examination of seafarers were "on the whole substantially equivalent" to those prescribed in Convention No. 73, within the meaning of the proposed Convention. The report does not give details of the information on which that view was based. In its first article 22 report on Convention No. 73, which it subsequently ratified in 1980, the Government indicated that new legislation had been necessary because the previous Order (Endnote 149) only prescribed regular medical examination of seafarers under the age of 18. The 1952 legislation also laid down the requirement of an annual X-ray for pulmonary tuberculosis for all seafarers (a respite of six months being allowed except for catering staff). Under section 4(2) of the new legislation, (Endnote 150) no one might serve on board if he has not passed the (free) medical examination prescribed; rules for medical examination were to be made by the Minister of Commerce. (Endnote 151) In the absence of any information as to the arrangements -- under regulations or otherwise -- whereby all seafarers covered by Convention No. 73 were at the relevant time (1976) subjected to regular medical examinations, the Committee has unfortunately not been able to determine more precisely on what basis the view of what could constitute "on the whole substantially equivalent" provisions for purposes of Convention No. 147 was reached by the working party.

114. Of the States bound by Convention No. 147, six are not bound by Convention No. 73. Under Convention No. 147, the Committee has asked for specific information from two of these (Endnote 152) as to the nature of their certificates of medical examination and provision for re-examination in the case of refusal of a certificate; and for general information from another (Endnote 153) as to legislation on the matters dealt with in the Convention.

115. In four cases, (Endnote 154) it has been considered that the exclusion of all vessels of 1,600 GRT and under is too wide. The Committee has also considered the legislation of one country (Endnote 155) in relation to Article 5(1) of Convention No. 73: the Regulations lay down a maximum period of validity for medical fitness certificates in respect of seafarers between 18 and 40 years of age of five years (for those under 18 it is one year, and for those over 40, two years), whereas under Convention No. 73 a medical certificate may remain in force only for a period not exceeding two years. The Government has stated its view that it is sufficient to allow most people under the age of 40 to be medically examined every five years; no employers' or workers' representatives have asked for the period to be reduced; and a doctor has a discretion to limit the period of validity for any seafarer whose health he believes likely to decline. Nevertheless the Committee has had to conclude that the discrepancy between five years and two years is too wide for the regulations to be considered substantially equivalent for the purpose of the Convention, this being a material point. (Endnote 156)

116. The modification included in the declaration of application to one territory stated: "There is no legislative provision requiring seafarers to be medically examined at two-yearly intervals as stipulated in (Convention No. 73)". The Committee has in that case (Endnote 157) noted in direct requests that, in the absence of the laws or regulations on the subject which would otherwise be required under Article 2(a)(i) of Convention No. 147, seafarers are in practice generally examined about every two years; in the meantime, the Government has indicated that regulations being enacted would give effect to Article 8 (re-examination after refusal) and lay down the two-yearly examination requirement.

117. Apart from the countries bound by Convention No. 73, those sending article 19 reports often seem to have insufficient legislation as to medical examinations. In some cases, the Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea) Convention, 1921 (No. 16), which requires annual examinations for under-18-year-olds, seems to be applied. (Endnote 158) In others, either examinations are available only on request (usually by the shipowner), (Endnote 159) or the legislation only lays down the power to make regulations on the subject, no details being available. (Endnote 160) One country indicates that there is disagreement among shipowners and seafarers, in particular as to the periodicity of examinations. (Endnote 161) However, a further country has three-yearly examinations; (Endnote 162) and another has indicated that new legislation has reduced the periodicity of examinations from five years to two, with further legislative improvements relating to Convention No. 73 expected in the next three years. (Endnote 163)

118. It seems to the Committee that the requirement of substantial equivalence in Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 may be met in respect of Convention No. 73 where there are laws or regulations providing for compulsory regular medical examinations for seafarers, preferably every two years (six years in respect of colour vision), but certainly more frequently than every five years; the certificate issued should attest to fitness in respect of hearing and sight and, where necessary in the deck department, colour vision, and should attest that no disease (including but not limited to pulmonary tuberculosis) incompatible with service at sea or likely to endanger the health of others is suffered; there should preferably be arrangements for re-examination in case of refusal of a certificate.

(iv) Crew accommodation

119. From the wording and content of Convention No. 92, it can be shown that several of its provisions should be considered matters of safety for purposes of Article 2(a)(i) of Convention No. 147. In some instances it may be hard to determine whether other aspects of Convention No. 92 are questions of safety or questions of shipboard living arrangements falling under Article 2(a)(iii). (Endnote 164) In practice, such a determination may not be necessary, where shipboard living arrangements in general -- and safety standards in particular -- are the subject of laws and regulations: it is only in cases where shipboard living arrangements are, in the opinion of the ratifying State, covered by collective agreements or laid down by competent courts in a manner equally binding on the shipowners and seafarers concerned, that such a determination might be needed. Some provisions of Convention No. 92 -- especially Articles 3(2), 4, 5 and 18 (dealing with planning, control and enforcement) -- do not seem to lend themselves to application otherwise than by laws and regulations; if other aspects of Convention No. 92 in a country which became bound by Convention No. 147 were dealt with not by laws or regulations but by collective agreements or laid down by competent courts in a manner equally binding, it would be for that country to form an "opinion" under Article 2(a)(iii). (Endnote 165)

120. Article 2(a)(i) of Convention No. 147, then, requires ratifying States to have laws or regulations laying down safety standards in relation to crew accommodation and to satisfy themselves that the provisions of such laws and regulations are substantially equivalent to the safety standards laid down in Convention No. 92 in so far as they are not otherwise bound to give effect to that Convention. The substantive safety standards in Convention No. 92 seem to include those requiring adequate security, protection against weather and insulation in respect of the location, means of access, structure and arrangement in relation to other spaces of crew accommodation, having regard to, amongst other things, fire prevention needs (Article 6(1) and (8)); (Endnote 166) adequate ventilation of sleeping and mess-rooms (Article 7(1)); an adequate system of heating, avoiding the risk of fire or other danger (Article 8(1) and (6)); (Endnote 167) adequate lighting (Article 9(2)); the normal situation of sleeping rooms amidships or aft above the load line (Article 10(1)); sufficient sanitary accommodation, ventilated and with adequate disposal pipes (Article 13(1), (8) and (10)); an approved medicine chest and, where a crew of 15 or more is carried, separate hospital accommodation (Article 14(1) and (7)). (Endnote 168) It may be considered that in order to "ensure the safety of life on board ship" further requirements should also be included. The measures laid down in Convention No. 92 to ensure the implementation of those standards are of the kind laid down also in Convention No. 147, especially the enactment of legislation on substantive questions and consultation of shipowners and seafarers in the framing and administration of them (Article 3(2)(e)); and inspection of crew accommodation by the competent authority on registration or re-registration of the ship and when a complaint is received (Article 5) and by the responsible officer and crew members at least once a week (Article 17). (Endnote 169) In addition, Convention No. 92 provides for the approval of plans in advance (Article 4). There are transitional provisions for application to existing ships (Article 18). And, to provide further flexibility, Article 1(5) allows variations to be made in respect of the substantive provisions if the competent authority is satisfied after consultation of shipowners and seafarers that the variations provide corresponding advantages as a result of which the overall conditions are not less favourable than those which would result from the full application of the provisions of the Convention. Under Recommendation No. 155, Paragraph 2(a), States should ensure that laws and regulations are at least equivalent to safety provisions in Convention No. 92. (Endnote 170)

121. The preparatory work provides little guidance in respect of crew accommodation. The PTM Conference particularly included the whole of Convention No. 92 in the draft instrument it adopted, (Endnote 171) although without any indication as to the safety implications. In the replies to the preparatory questionnaire, one shipowners' organisation expressly assimilated Convention No. 92 to safety questions. (Endnote 172)

122. Of the countries bound by Convention No. 147 whose reports the Committee has examined in detail, four are not bound by Convention No. 92. In one of those cases (Endnote 173) the Committee has requested information on various aspects of Convention No. 92 which do not seem to be covered by the national regulations, especially questions of inspection and enforcement and some aspects of sanitary facilities and hospitals, together with other questions perhaps going beyond safety matters. In another (Endnote 174) it has raised the question of possible derogations under Article 1(5). In the others, (Endnote 175) the Committee has asked in general for legislation on crew accommodation. In an earlier case (Endnote 176) -- a country which has since ratified Convention No. 92 -- the Committee also raised questions as to inspection. In the case of one non-metropolitan territory, (Endnote 177) the modifications attached to the declaration of application of Convention No. 92 concern provisions for consultation of shipowners and seafarers in Articles 1(5) and 10(10) and for complaints by a trade union in Article 5(c): the Government's latest report on that Convention refers to new consultative machinery in relation to crew accommodation and, given that the other substantive provisions of the Convention seem to be applied, the issue has not been raised under Convention No. 147.

123. Article 19 reports from countries not bound by Convention No. 92 have not dealt specifically with the safety aspect of crew accommodation. They have often referred to legislation along the lines of Convention No. 92. (Endnote 178) In some countries, although there is a power to make regulations on the subject, no details are available. (Endnote 179) In some, there is particular provision for medicines. (Endnote 180) One country indicates that, while construction plans are approved before registration, such living arrangements are settled by direct negotiation (supervised by officials). (Endnote 181) In another two countries, legislation seems very largely to conform with Convention No. 92. (Endnote 182)

124. Given that all matters of safety of life on board ship are material ones, any view of what is substantially equivalent to the provisions of Convention No. 92 in respect of safety must bear in mind the object and purpose of both Convention No. 147 and Convention No. 92 in relation to safety. National regulations on crew accommodation should be such as to ensure the safety of life on board ship in respect of the points referred to here.

(v) Food and catering

125. The considerations referred to in paragraphs 119 and 124 above would seem to apply also in respect of food and catering on board ship. (Endnote 183) Article 2(a)(i) of Convention No. 147, then, requires ratifying States to have laws or regulations laying down safety standards in relation to food and catering and to satisfy themselves that the provisions of such laws and regulations are substantially equivalent to Article 5 of Convention No. 68 in so far as they are not otherwise bound to give effect to that Convention. The substantive safety standards in Article 5 of Convention No. 68 seem to be those requiring food and water supplies which are suitable in quantity, nutritive value and quality to secure the health of the crew. (Endnote 184) Under Recommendation No. 155, Paragraph 2(a), States should ensure that the laws and regulations are at least equivalent to those safety standards. (Endnote 185)

126. The PTM Conference particularly included the whole of Convention No. 68 in the draft instrument it adopted, again without any indication as to any safety implications. After it was removed from the draft Convention Appendix following replies to the questionnaire, (Endnote 186) the working party of the responsible Committee of the International Labour Conference decided to bring Article 5 back (retaining the rest of it in the Recommendation Appendix). (Endnote 187) Perhaps for purposes of Article 2(a)(i) of Convention No. 147 it could be said that the requirement of substantial equivalence to Article 5 may be met simply where food and water are safe for consumption, without risk to health.

127. Of the States bound by Convention No. 147, ten are not also bound by Convention No. 68. For the purposes of Convention No. 147, the Committee has considered substantial equivalence to have been shown where there is legislation even if in only the general terms of Article 5, (Endnote 188) and where no legislation on the subject seems to have been enacted the Committee has asked for this to be done. (Endnote 189)

128. Article 19 reports have not dealt specifically with the safety aspect of food and water provisions. Several countries not bound by Convention No. 68 but sending article 19 reports appear to have legislation along the lines of Article 5 of Convention No. 68. (Endnote 190) Others seem to have legislation as to the fitness of provisions, (Endnote 191) or in other general terms as to its quality or quantity. (Endnote 192) In other cases, though there is a power to make regulations on the subject, no details are available. (Endnote 193)

129. The Committee's consideration of article 22 reports on Convention No. 68 where it is ratified has shown that vigilance is required to ensure that standards of hygiene in relation to food and water are maintained: without such vigilance, there can be no doubt that it is not a luxury which is at stake but indeed the health and thus the safety of crew members. For this reason, regular inspection and an active interest on the part of crew members and union representatives may guarantee the safety standards aimed at by Convention No. 147, Article 2(a), are applied. (Endnote 194)

V. Social security

130. Article 2(a)(ii) of Convention No. 147 formulates the undertaking "to have laws or regulations laying down ... appropriate social security measures" ("un régime approprié de sécurité sociale"); and for the State to satisfy itself that the provisions of such laws and regulations are substantially equivalent to the Conventions or Articles of Conventions referred to in the Appendix, in so far as the member State is not otherwise bound to give effect to the Conventions in question. The meaning of "appropriate social security measures" is not given, nor is it indicated which of the Appendix instruments are to be regarded as establishing them -- thus giving rise to the obligation to legislate. (Endnote 195) The Appendix lists three alternative Conventions which naturally fall within the term "appropriate social security measures" -- Nos. 55, 56 and 130 -- plus another one -- No. 23 -- which is often assimilated to social security standards. (Endnote 196)

131. Under Paragraph 2(a) of Recommendation No. 155, States should ensure that their laws or regulations are at least equivalent to the Conventions referred to in the Convention No. 147 Appendix; under Paragraph 3 they should take steps with a view to such laws or regulations containing provisions at least equivalent to the Social Security (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 70); under Paragraph 4(1) cognisance should be taken of the Social Security (Seafarers) Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 165), when it comes into force, in so far as it revises Convention No. 56, and of the Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166), in similar circumstances in relation to Convention No. 23; and under Paragraph 4(2) cognisance should be taken of Convention No. 165, when it comes into force, in so far as it revises Convention No. 70.

132. The original Office draft instrument which later became Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155 did not mention social security measures in the body of the text, although it did include Conventions Nos. 55, 56, 130 and 23 in the Appendix. (Endnote 197) The reference to "social security measures" was added by the PTM Conference along with reference to Convention No. 70 in the Appendix. (Endnote 198) After government replies to the questionnaire were examined, the French version became "un régime". (Endnote 199) The word "appropriate" appeared in the responsible Conference Committee version, as the result of an amendment proposed by the United Kingdom Government member on the ground that shipowners and seafarers not domiciled in his country were not required to pay social security contributions: the implication was that coverage in such a case can be ensured by either public or private schemes (no mention was made of excluding some shipowners or seafarers on grounds of "domicile"). (Endnote 200) The fact remains that the social security measures specifically referred to in the Convention No. 147 Appendix are only partial: they cover only sickness and medical care, as well as, to a limited extent, death and employment injury, plus repatriation. Even given that the adjective "appropriate" was apparently added in order to describe the mode of social security coverage rather than its extent, it has been suggested that a social security regime based only on Convention No. 55 or Convention No. 56 or Convention No. 130 "would appear to be less than adequate in today's circumstances". (Endnote 201) Recommendation No. 155 contains the Conference's further advice on the subject. (Endnote 202)

(a) Sickness, injury and medical care

133. Article 2(a)(ii) and the Appendix of Convention No. 147 are presented in such a way that the requirement of substantial equivalence has to be met in respect of only one of the three Conventions Nos. 55, 56 and 130. (Endnote 203) The latest of these, No. 130, sets a higher level of protection with more broadly defined contingencies than Nos. 55 and 56 (or even the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) (Part III in particular)): in this sense it must be regarded as more than a "minimum standard", and, when it is duly applied to all the persons who should be protected under Article 2(a)(ii) of Convention No. 147, it is the instrument to be preferred in respect of medical care and sickness benefits. (Endnote 204)

134. The determination as to whether there is substantial equivalence to one of the three Conventions must, it seems to the Committee, refer to the following points. Under Convention No. 55, shipowners must, subject to certain limitations, be made liable for sickness and injury occurring while on articles (Article 2); medical care and maintenance should be defrayed for up to at least 16 weeks: although shipowner liability ceases where there is a compulsory insurance scheme (perhaps of the kind anticipated in Convention No. 56), it may not so cease in respect of foreign workers or those not resident in the territory who are excluded as such from the scheme (Article 4); wages while on board should be paid plus whole or partial wages from the time landed, subject to the same conditions as in Article 4 (Article 5); there is liability for repatriation (Article 6) and burial expenses (Article 7); there is provision for equality of treatment irrespective of nationality, domicile ("résidence" in French) or race (Article 11). Under Convention No. 56 there should be a compulsory sickness insurance scheme (Article 1), with -- subject to the usual limitations -- cash benefits for the seafarer or his family at the national going rate for at least 26 weeks (Articles 2 and 4); medical benefit (Article 3); maternity benefit (Article 5); and death or survivors' benefit (Article 6); benefits should cover the normal interval between engagements (Article 7); the shipowners and seafarers should share the expenses of the scheme (Article 8). Convention No. 130, which includes flexibility provisions in favour of countries whose economic and medical facilities are insufficiently developed, lays down amongst other practical matters details of the kind of medical care to be secured (Articles 13 and 14); for sickness benefit it prescribes detailed methods for calculating earnings-related payments (Articles 21 to 24); there are safeguards in respect of qualifying periods (Articles 15 and 25) and cost sharing (Article 17). (Endnote 205)

135. Of the countries bound by Convention No. 147, most are bound also by one or more of the three sickness Conventions. In the other cases the Committee has examined so far, it has found that there appears to be substantial equivalence to Convention No. 55 on most points in one, (Endnote 206) although it has at the same time requested and received clarification as to the provision of board and lodging (Articles 3(b) and 6(3)) and as to how far recent legislation enables a general sickness insurance scheme along the lines of Convention No. 56 to be applied; and in one other case. (Endnote 207) under Article 5(2) liability to pay wages in whole or in part may be limited to no less than 16 weeks, but, where the rule is one of full wages for no less than only 12 weeks, substantial equivalence may be considered to have been achieved. In another country, (Endnote 208) where there is a compulsory insurance scheme, there appears, given what the Government refers to as the system of "continuous employment" for seafarers (and other workers) in the country, to be substantial equivalence to Convention No. 56 despite the absence of cover "between successive engagements" (Article 7); the Committee has none the less requested information to clarify whether benefits are withheld only in the conditions contemplated in Article 2(4), since if benefits were unduly withheld the whole object and purpose of the Convention could be undermined. Two other such countries (Endnote 209) have referred to their compliance with Convention No. 56, but the Committee has recently requested further information. And in a final case, (Endnote 210) the Committee has asked for clarification and details of legislation, when it is not clear whether Convention No. 55 or Convention No. 56 is relied on.

136. Aside from those six cases referred to in paragraph 135, five countries (Endnote 211) bound by Convention No. 147 are bound also by both Conventions Nos. 55 and 56. Two (Endnote 212) are bound by both Conventions Nos. 56 and 130. In these seven cases, it may be arguable, subject to any outstanding comments of the Committee under those Conventions, (Endnote 213) that satisfactory social security measures of the kind required under Article 2(a)(ii) of Convention No. 147 in respect of sickness and medical care are in operation. The protection given in countries bound by only Convention No. 55 (Endnote 214) or only Convention No. 56 (Endnote 215) should probably, with similar reservations, also be regarded as meeting the specific Article 2(a)(ii) requirement in relation to sickness benefit and injury -- but with the additional reservation that the protection afforded by only one of these two Conventions may to other intents and purposes be considered not "complete" or "satisfactorily secured". (Endnote 216) The position of the four countries bound only by Convention No. 130 (Endnote 217) is less simple: the problem of scope has been raised under Convention No. 130 for one of these countries (Endnote 218) in relation to Article 5 of that Convention; the problem of suspension (Endnote 219) does not seem to have arisen for these countries; and, apart from that one country in respect of which the question of scope has been raised, the problem of limiting application of Convention No. 130 in developing countries does not arise either. The legislation examined under Convention No. 130 for the remaining three countries has in one case (Endnote 220) apparently provided sickness and medical care protection for all those employed on board nationally registered ships: this seems satisfactory in terms of Article 2(a)(ii) of Convention No. 147. However, in another case (Endnote 221) the residence qualification in Article 10(c) of Convention No. 130 is applied; and in the final case (Endnote 222) protection of non-nationals resident abroad seems also to be excluded.

137. The countries not bound by one of the three Conventions which have sent article 19 reports often seem to have legislation corresponding to or along the lines of Convention No. 55, providing for shipowners' liability in cases of sickness or injury. (Endnote 223) In some cases there is compulsory sickness insurance along the lines of Convention No. 56. (Endnote 224) And in some there are either general schemes or special seafarers' schemes of benefits, providing at least some protection of the kind laid down in Convention No. 130. (Endnote 225)

138. The major problem in the application of any kind of social security measures under Convention No. 147, Article 2(a)(ii), is that a large proportion -- even a vast majority -- of seafarers may as a matter of fact be excluded from protection because of their residence outside the country of registration of their ship. Such exclusion may conform to the provisions of the three Conventions Nos. 55, 56 or 130, though the Committee has raised problems in respect of foreign seafarers where appropriate under those Conventions. (Endnote 226) Some governments have not supplied full details on questions relating to seafarers arising under Convention No. 130. (Endnote 227) The problem occurs especially but not exclusively in flag of convenience ships and those registered in "off-shore" or international registers. In order to be satisfied that the substantial equivalence requirement in Convention No. 147 has been met, it may be necessary for each country to consider what proportion of seafarers are in fact not covered on account of their nationality, residence or domicile. Subject to this, on the basis of government replies to an ILO questionnaire, it has recently seemed that "there is no social security protection of non-national, non-resident seafarers" in the legislation of several countries, including some bound by Convention No. 147 (Endnote 228) and several other countries with large registers. (Endnote 229)

139. Something of the complexity of the issue can be gathered from the foregoing paragraphs. But the issues raised go beyond cover for sickness, to the question of a more comprehensive social security regime. The Committee has noted the considerable study and analysis undertaken by the Office in performance of two connected resolutions adopted by the 62nd Session of the Conference. One (Endnote 230) called for the completion by the office of a survey of the extent to which provisions concerning social security and conditions of employment are applied on board flag of convenience ships; the other (Endnote 231) noted the very small number of ratifications of Conventions concerning social security for seafarers, considered that new problems such as those arising from the supply of maritime manpower from developing countries to foreign vessels necessitate effective social security protection, and called for the review of seafarers' social security Conventions in the light of more recent general social security Conventions (the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 (No. 121), the Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors' Benefits Convention, 1967 (No. 128), and No. 130). That review (Endnote 232) revealed the considerable lacunae in the social security protection of non-national and non-resident seafarers, including in some countries bound by Convention No. 147 and other countries with large registers, referred to above. (Endnote 233) In some of those countries there was found to be no legislation giving social security protection to non-national, non-resident seafarers. This led directly to the consideration and adoption of Convention No. 165 by the 74th (Maritime) Session of the Conference in 1987. (Endnote 234) But the upshot of the present examination of the application of Conventions Nos. 55, 56 and 130 within the Convention No. 147 framework is that it is possible in relatively few cases to conclude that the apparent object and purpose of Convention No. 147 of establishing at a minimum laws and regulations laying down social security measures in respect of sickness and injury benefit and medical care for seafarers on board ships registered in the territory has been fulfilled. The Committee's understanding of the situation would in all cases benefit from clarification as to the position of non-domiciled or non-resident and foreign workers on board such ships.

(b) Repatriation

(i) Convention No. 23

140. Taking into account paragraph 130 above, it may not be essential in all cases for purposes of Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 to insist on laws and regulations (as opposed to other methods of application) in relation to repatriation. (Endnote 235) Given what is in any event the strong social security flavour in repatriation, the Committee has sometimes had to examine whether substantial equivalence to Convention No. 23 was attained by legislation or other means.

141. The question whether there is substantial equivalence would seem to turn on the following points. Under Convention No. 23 (Article 3), a seafarer (except a master, pilot, cadet or pupil) (Endnote 236) landed during or on the expiration of his engagement is entitled to be taken back to his own country or the port of engagement or where the voyage commenced; the provision of suitable employment on a vessel going to such a destination counts as repatriation; such provision should apply to any seafarer engaged in a port of his own country, but otherwise national provisions may decide under what conditions a foreign seafarer has the repatriation right (Article 3(4)). The expenses may not be charged to a seafarer in cases of injury sustained in the service of the vessel, shipwreck (Endnote 237) or no-fault illness or discharge (Article 4). Relevant maintenance, accommodation and food expenses should be paid in addition to transport; if the seafarer is repatriated as part of a crew he should be remunerated (Article 5). And the public authority of the country of registration of the vessel should take responsibility for supervising repatriation -- including of foreigners -- and where necessary giving the seafarers expenses in advance (Article 6).

142. Of the countries bound by Convention No. 147, reports from eight not also bound by Convention No. 23 have so far been examined by the Committee, and in two of those cases (Endnote 238) substantial equivalence or better seems to have been attained: in one of those two (Endnote 239) some details of coverage and benefits -- such as in cases of shipwreck and provision of food -- are dealt with by collective agreement, and coverage of foreign (Endnote 240) seafarers is ensured once they obtain an employment permit (in the first month of employment, before the permit is obtained, the employer is obliged by legislation to promise to pay repatriation costs). In a third case (Endnote 241) there appears to be no relevant legislation so far. And in a fourth, (Endnote 242) the Committee has raised questions as to repatriation after shipwreck, the payment of expenses, and the role of the public authority. In each of the remaining four (Endnote 243) there appears to be legislation in one way or another restricting coverage of seafarers who are not domiciled in or not residents or nationals of the country in question, and to this extent it is again hard for the Committee without more information to appreciate how far the Convention No. 147 requirement of substantial equivalence is attained. (Endnote 244)

143. Many of the countries not bound by Convention No. 23 which have sent article 19 reports have some legislation on repatriation. (Endnote 245) In some, there seems to be conformity with much of the Convention. (Endnote 246)

(ii) Convention No. 166

144. When it comes into force, 12 months after its second ratification, (Endnote 247) Convention No. 166 will be formally linked to Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155 under Paragraph 4(1) of the latter. (Endnote 248) In any event, it constitutes a modern revision of the repatriation requirements of Convention No. 23, taking account in particular of the widespread growth in employment of non-national seafarers. It is intended to deal with the entitlements of seafarers who are engaged outside the country of registration of their ships or who are not domiciled in or residents or nationals of the country of registration, including the question of the appropriate destination for repatriation; to lay down precisely what costs should be covered; and to accommodate all cases where seafarers find themselves stranded through no fault of their own. It also takes account of the increased use of air travel (for leave -- even in mid-voyage -- as well as repatriation). (Endnote 249)

145. Convention No. 166 applies to all those on board (Article 1). It indicates the occasions when repatriation entitlement arises (Article 2). The possible places of repatriation must include the place of engagement, the seafarer's country of residence, and any agreed place (Article 3). Repatriation should normally be by air and the cost is to be borne by the shipowner except, ultimately, in cases of serious default on the part of the seafarer; the elements making up the cost of repatriation are listed (transport, food, pay, medical care, etc. -- Article 4). If the shipowner fails in this respect, the State of registration has responsibility (Article 5). The Convention includes other practical provisions.

146. In article 19 reports, three governments have indicated that they are considering ratifying Convention No. 166. (Endnote 250) Another indicates that legislation needs to be amended before ratification is possible. (Endnote 251)

(c) More general social security measures

147. The inclusion of Convention No. 70 in the Recommendation No. 155 Appendix already gives a clear signal that the Conference also had in mind more far-reaching social security measures. But it was at the same time aware of the need for review of social security Conventions with such a small number of ratifications, in order to promote seafarers' "effective protection by social security arrangements". (Endnote 252) To the degree indicated, (Endnote 253) then, there is a formal exhortation in Recommendation No. 155 to have regard to Conventions Nos. 70 and -- later -- 165.

148. The question of what aspects of "social security measures" are required by Convention No. 147 to be the object of laws or regulations may be answered differently. Given that the wording and ordinary meaning of Article 2(a)(ii) is not of itself limited to sickness and injury benefits and medical care, the situation is similar to that under Article 2(a)(i): (Endnote 254) there is a grey area going beyond Conventions Nos. 55, 56, 130 and 23, in which it is a matter first for the good faith appreciation of the government concerned and secondly for the consideration of the ILO's supervisory bodies to decide what measures should be taken. In its consideration of the question, the Committee too is bound to have in mind the context in which Convention No. 147 was adopted by the Conference -- i.e., Recommendation No. 155 and the resolutions adopted at the same time (Endnote 255) -- not forgetting, at the same time, the basic distinction between a Convention (which creates obligations) and a Recommendation (which does not). The Committee's role, where a State has decided that additional social security measures should be taken under Article 2(a)(ii), is to consider the information supplied in the reports of the government concerned (including any observations from employers' or workers' organisations) and, on the basis of any criteria provided by the government, to note and appreciate. Several governments have thus referred in article 22 reports to more varied or comprehensive social security measures, including some international arrangements (Endnote 256).

(i) Convention No. 70

149. Convention No. 70 has been ratified by seven countries, but this is insufficient to bring it into force. (Endnote 257) Under this Convention, where resident in the country of registration of the ship, seafarers should be entitled to medical benefits, benefits in the event of employment injury or any other incapacity, unemployment (Endnote 258) and old-age (Endnote 259) benefits; and their dependants should be entitled to medical benefits and death benefits on terms not less favourable than those afforded in the case of industrial workers (Endnote 260) (Article 2). There is provision for employment injury and medical care benefits abroad and repatriation for seafarers resident in the territory of registration of the ship (Article 3). There should, as between shoreworkers' and seafarers' schemes, be maintenance of rights in course of acquisition (Article 4). There are provisions for equality of treatment in general irrespective of nationality or race (Article 5), and in regard to sickness, injury or death irrespective also of residence (Article 6). There is provision for international reciprocity (Articles 7 and 8). (Endnote 261)

150. Social security arrangements in general for seafarers have recently been analysed elsewhere. (Endnote 262) In article 19 reports, some governments have indicated that Convention No. 70 is complied with (Endnote 263) or at least partially applied. (Endnote 264) Others show that it is not applied. (Endnote 265)

(ii) Convention No. 165

151. The effect of Paragraph 4 of Recommendation No. 155, as indicated in paragraph 131 above, is to encourage consideration of certain instruments laying down more general social security measures. In the 1980s greater attention has been given by the Office, the Joint Maritime Commission and the PTM Conference to the way in which comprehensive social security protection could be accorded to seafarers, given that Convention No. 70 never received the requisite adherence in terms of ratifications in order to come into force, and given also the need for modernisation. Many countries can be said to have improved the social security protection of seafarers, although for some developing countries and flag of convenience countries this is not so. Gaps in respect of fatal non-occupational accidents, maternity, dependants, unemployment were identified. But one of the most pressing problems has undoubtedly become that of seafarers who are not nationals or residents of or not domiciled in the country of registration of their ships. Equality of treatment is ensured in several countries in respect of shipowners' liability -- but this is only one aspect of what may be considered an adequate social security regime. Increasing numbers of seafarers have not been able to accumulate or enjoy entitlements under their national schemes or under the schemes of the country of registration of their ships or the country where the shipowner or manager is incorporated. Globally, this lack of protection is only partly mitigated by a series of bilateral (and, especially in Western Europe, multilateral) reciprocity agreements. (Endnote 266)

152. It has been observed in the preparation of Convention No. 165 (Endnote 267) that the system of social security protection provided in Convention No. 147 appears to be less than adequate in modern circumstances, on the grounds that Conventions Nos. 55, 56 and 130 cover only two contingencies (medical care and sickness benefit); that Conventions Nos. 55 and 56 are rather old and in any event complement each other rather than being alternatives, whilst Convention No. 130 represents the highest possible standard (the more easily attainable standard in Convention No. 102 not having been used); and that the provisions of the Equality of Treatment (Social Security) Convention, 1962 (No. 118), and the Maintenance of Social Security Rights Convention, 1982 (No. 157), should be taken into account. The same report suggested revision of the Appendix to Convention No. 147 in respect of social security instruments. (Endnote 268) Convention No. 165 is expressly aimed at the social security protection of seafarers including those serving in ships flying flags other than those of their own country. (Endnote 269)

153. Either minimum or superior standards may be applied in virtue of Convention No. 165 (Articles 4 and 9), but treatment should not be less favourable than that given to shoreworkers (Article 7). (Endnote 270) As a statement of basic social security standards, Convention No. 165 is modelled on Convention No. 102: at least three of the branches medical care, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, old-age benefit, employment injury benefit, family benefit, maternity benefit, invalidity benefit, survivors' benefit, should be applied (Article 3). (Endnote 271) There should be maintenance of rights in course of acquisition as between shoreworkers' and seafarers' schemes (Article 8). Shipowners should be liable for medical care and wages on board and, where seafarers irrespective of their residence (Article 20) are left behind through sickness, until repatriation or for up to at least 12 weeks or until the seafarer is landed in a country where he can claim benefits or until he has an offer of suitable employment (Articles 13 to 15). Seafarers' protection should in principle be governed by the legislation of either their ship's flag State or the country where they are resident (Article 17). There should also be equality of treatment as between nationals and non-nationals in respect of coverage and the right to benefits (Article 18), although non-contributory benefits may be made subject to residence requirements (Article 19). There are provisions for the maintenance as between States of rights in the course of acquisition (Articles 21 to 23). Benefits should be payable to beneficiaries irrespective of their place of residence, although for non-contributory benefits there must be agreements among States (Articles 24 and 25). The Convention finally provides for administrative safeguards (appeals, dispute settlement procedures). It revises both Conventions Nos. 56 and 70.

154. In article 19 reports, some governments have referred to Convention No. 165 or particular elements of the social security regime for seafarers. One indicates the Convention is generally applied; (Endnote 272) another is considering ratification; (Endnote 273) a third refers to obstacles to ratification. (Endnote 274) Other governments have referred to pension arrangements for seafarers, (Endnote 275) particularly under Convention No. 71; (Endnote 276) one refers to special early retirement for seafarers. (Endnote 277) In its report, another government stated that it intended to ratify Conventions Nos. 102 and 128 shortly. (Endnote 278)

155. It appears that Convention No. 165 represents the best possible authoritative statement of what a modern social security regime for seafarers might consist of. If -- or when -- it comes into force it will also formally be included in the package of merchant shipping standards delivered by Recommendation No. 155. (Endnote 279) Convention No. 165 meets the need both for the determination of the extent and content of social security measures appropriate to the employment and living conditions of seafarers and for the promotion of co-ordination of social security among States. In the present context, action on these two fronts seems to be necessary in order more fully to implement the aims of Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 for all seafarers, whether or not they are nationals of or domiciled or resident in the country of registration of the ships on which they sail.

VI. Shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements

156. Article 2(a)(iii) of Convention No. 147 formulates the undertaking to have laws or regulations laying down shipboard conditions of employment and shipboard living arrangements, in so far as these, in the opinion of the Member, are not covered by collective agreements or laid down by competent courts in a manner equally binding on the shipowners and seafarers concerned; and Article 2(a) goes on to state that, where laws and regulations are enacted for this purpose, the State should satisfy itself that they are substantially equivalent to the Conventions or Articles of Conventions in the Appendix, in so far as it is not otherwise bound to give effect to those Conventions. As with Article 2(a)(i) and (ii), it may be said that in this wording the requirements of Article 2(a)(iii) are not limited to elements of the Conventions referred to in the Appendix. This follows also from the discussion in the PTM Conference Committee (Endnote 280) in relation to what now corresponds to Article 2(b) of the Convention: (Endnote 281) a working party of the Committee had agreed on the phrase "conditions of employment and shipboard living arrangements", but the Shipowners wanted the words "that are covered by instruments in the Appendix" to be added; the Seafarers opposed the addition on the ground that it would limit the scope of the provision, and the Committee decided against it. This said, there is no further direct indication in the Convention as to the meaning of the term. (Endnote 282)

157. The variety of possible methods of laying down the shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements distinguishes them from safety standards and social security measures. The distinction appeared in the PTM Conference, (Endnote 283) where it was indicated that they could alternatively be fixed by collective agreement. (Endnote 284) The reference to the possibility of those conditions and arrangements being governed by "labour court decisions" appeared in the PTM Conference Committee (Endnote 285) with the added proviso (Endnote 286) "where such courts operate in this field and where the court decisions are equally binding on shipowners and seafarers". (Endnote 287)

158. Under Recommendation No. 155, Paragraph 2(a), States should, where shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements are fixed by laws or regulations, ensure that such laws and regulations are at least equivalent to the Conventions in the Appendix to Convention No. 147. Under Paragraph 2(b) they should satisfy themselves, where they are fixed by provisions in collective agreements, that such provisions are similarly at least equivalent. Under Paragraph 3, steps should be taken with a view to those laws or regulations or collective agreements being made at least equivalent to the Recommendation Appendix instruments. And under Paragraph 4 cognisance should be taken of any revisions of the instruments in the two Appendices when they come into force. (Endnote 288)

159. Recommendation No. 155 thus retains the provision for the State to satisfy itself in respect of collective agreements in relation to shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements (Endnote 289) despite the apprehension -- at least in the case of a draft Convention -- that (prescriptive) "jurisdiction (Endnote 290) concerning certain conditions of employment, such as wages, rests with independent organisations of employers and workers". (Endnote 291) The matter is resolved in the case of Convention No. 147 by pitching the obligation on the State first at the lower level of forming an opinion as to whether shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements are effectively covered by collective agreements or "decisions": (Endnote 292) it is only if such opinion is negative that a further obligation (to legislate) arises. If such opinion is affirmative, that shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements are effectively covered by collective agreements or "decisions", the role of the Committee in relation to Article 2(a)(iii) seems to be limited to ascertaining that such is the case. Recommendation No. 155, on the other hand, calls for positive action by States to satisfy themselves as to the provisions of collective agreements: the same apprehension may still be aroused where the competent authorities of the State do not in fact intervene in the fixing of such provisions by collective bargaining. It therefore seems to the Committee that in these circumstances it is most appropriate to conceive of the role of government as one of "promoting agreements" as to the matters in question -- the role also laid down in Convention No. 98, as included in the Appendix to Convention No. 147. (Endnote 293)

160. Some matters which may be regarded as falling under the heading of "shipboard conditions of employment and shipboard living arrangements" also fall under other heads (i.e. safety standards or social security): they have been examined above under Article 2(a)(i) and (ii), because in those cases the undertaking of the State to legislate is clear. This does not mean that either laws and regulations or the collective agreements and acts of courts referred to in Article 2(a)(iii) may not lay down higher standards than the minimum laid down by the Appendix Conventions. On the contrary, that is something which under Recommendation No. 155 is positively encouraged. (Endnote 294) In this context, the Committee particularly welcomes the positive indications given by three governments as to the ratification prospects of Conventions Nos. 163 and 164: two of those States have since ratified both Conventions. (Endnote 295)

(a) Shipboard conditions of employment

161. The term "shipboard conditions of employment" is not defined in the instruments: "conditions of employment" appeared in the first draft instrument (Endnote 296) and the word "shipboard" was added without explanation to the draft Convention submitted to the International Labour Conference. (Endnote 297) There are, however, indications in the preparatory work as to aspects of shipboard conditions of employment which were under consideration, although omitted from express mention in the final instruments. There is further contextual evidence in Convention No. 147 (Endnote 298) and the Recommendation No. 155 Appendix as to what may be regarded as shipboard conditions of employment for present purposes. This tends to confirm that addition of the word "shipboard" did not have the effect of limiting the notion to material aspects of employment physically on board ship, so that any limitative meaning it might have been intended to carry is not clear. In the absence of a more precise definition, it seems that another grey area is exposed where a margin of discretion is left to the State to decide what aspects of conditions of employment it will deal with under Article 2(a)(iii), the exercise of such discretion being subject -- through the article 22 procedures, where Convention No. 147 is ratified -- to consideration also by the ILO supervisory bodies. With this preface, it can be said that "shipboard conditions of employment" may, in the circumstances next indicated, include but is not restricted to the matters referred to in the following paragraphs. (Endnote 299)

162. The position under Convention No. 147 seems on this reasoning to be that a State may first consider these matters in the context of Article 2(a)(iii), then form the opinion that they are (or may be) covered by collective agreements or acts of the courts equally binding on the shipowners and seafarers concerned, and finally take no action on them. If it forms the opinion that any one of them is not so covered, it may none the less exercise its discretion to decide that it is not a matter which must be dealt with under the provisions as to "shipboard conditions of employment" in Article 2(a)(iii), and still take no action; alternatively it may exercise its discretion to assimilate it to "shipboard conditions of employment" and therefore enact laws or regulations on the subject in performance of its Article 2(a) undertaking. The role of the Committee, where a State has exercised its discretion to decide that "shipboard conditions of employment" in Article 2(a)(iii) covers any of these matters, is to consider the information provided in the reports of the government concerned (including any observations from employers' or workers' organisations) and, on the basis of any criteria provided by the government, to note and appreciate. In any event, Recommendation No. 155 calls specifically for provisions at least equivalent to Conventions Nos. 146 or 91: it would therefore be helpful for the Committee's appreciation of the national situation -- as well as to encourage the matter being kept under review -- if governments of countries not bound by either of those two Conventions included information on them in their article 22 reports on Convention No. 147. The same might be said, in fact, for all the matters referred to in the present section.

(i) Annual leave

163. The first draft instrument (Endnote 300) included Convention No. 91 and what was then another draft Convention on annual leave (later Convention No. 146) in its Appendix: though this was endorsed by the PTM Conference, (Endnote 301) later, when separate drafts for a Convention and a Recommendation were prepared, Convention No. 91 and the future Convention No. 146 were included where they have remained in the Appendix to the Recommendation, (Endnote 302) after reservations on the subject were expressed by some shipowners (Endnote 303) and governments (Endnote 304) and on the grounds that they had not received a sufficient degree of acceptance. (Endnote 305)

164. Apart from obligations flowing from any determination by a State which has ratified Convention No. 147 that annual leave with pay is a matter of shipboard conditions of employment governed by Article 2(a)(iii), States should, in virtue of the inclusion of Conventions Nos. 91 and 146 in the Recommendation No. 155 Appendix, take appropriate steps with a view to laws and regulations or as appropriate collective agreements containing provisions at least equivalent to them. Convention No. 146, in its terms, is to be made effective by laws or regulations except in so far as collective agreements, court decisions or other appropriate means operate (Article 1). It calls for annual leave with pay of at least 30 days (Article 3) not counting public and customary holidays, temporary shore leave or -- according to national conditions -- periods of incapacity or compensatory leave (Article 6); for service of less than one year leave should be pro-rated (Article 4); service off articles and absences for training or illness should count as periods of service (Article 5); normal remuneration should generally be paid in advance (Article 7); leave should normally be uninterrupted (Article 8); cash compensation in lieu should not normally be allowed (Article 9); the place for leave is normally the place of engagement (Article 10); and leave should not be subject to relinquishment (Article 11). The older Convention (No. 91 -- formally revised by Convention No. 146) has been considered to fall short of more modern national provisions and to be insufficiently flexible: (Endnote 306) it it provides for annual leave of at least 18 days per year of service for officers -- 12 for other crew members -- the method of calculation and pro-rating also being somewhat less favourable (Article 3); it includes provisions roughly corresponding to Articles 7, 10 and 11 of Convention No. 146 (Articles 5, 4, 2 and 11). Since Convention No. 146 came into force in 1979, Convention No. 91 is no longer open to ratification. Convention No. 146 has been ratified by ten countries including eight bound by Convention No. 147. Convention No. 91 has been ratified by a further 15 countries including three bound by Convention No. 147.

165. In practice, since annual leave is not expressly mentioned in Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147, the Committee has not examined the question in the article 22 context; but several countries have referred to it in article 19 reports. Many of them have legislation relating to at least some aspects of the annual leave of seafarers (sometimes merely laying down the right to annual leave, or the right to proportionate leave for less than one year's service). (Endnote 307) In others, the legislation lays down the minimum annual leave allowable for seafarers. (Endnote 308) Several countries, in addition to those bound by either Convention No. 91 or Convention No. 146, refer to the measures taken in relation to one or both of those Conventions: in some of these, such measures are laid down in particular by collective agreements. (Endnote 309) Several governments have stated that the actual annual leave applied is superior to that provided in the Conventions. (Endnote 310)

(ii) Hours of work

166. Wages and hours of work remain two of the subjects on which it has been most difficult to reach a consensus in terms of international labour standards, up to and beyond the preparation of Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155. (Endnote 311) A measure of agreement was reached in 1976 as to the need for legislation on hours of work qua safety standards only. It is none the less clear from the discussion of both subjects in the preparatory stage that hours in the wider sense may be regarded as a matter of shipboard conditions of employment for present purposes. (Endnote 312)

167. Although Convention No. 109 and Recommendation No. 109 were not retained in either the Convention No. 147 Appendix or the Recommendation No. 155 Appendix, and no obligation attaches to them, reference is made to them here because they supply examples of ways in which certain shipboard conditions of employment may operate. The main hours of work issues raised by Convention No. 109 and Recommendation No. 109 -- in addition to the safety question -- involve rest days and the compensation of overtime, whether by equivalent time off or in cash (normally at time and a quarter). Some governments have provided information in their article 22 and particularly article 19 reports on aspects of hours of work going beyond what is essential for safety. Several have referred to legislation governing weekly rest (Endnote 313) (which may be applicable while in port, compensation for rest days worked while at sea being provided in some cases).

(iii) Wages

168. Consideration of wages went together with hours of work in the preparatory work for Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155, given their association in Convention No. 109 and Recommendation No. 109. (Endnote 314) The main preoccupation as regards the inclusion of reference to wages in the new instruments was perhaps the principle of non-interference by governments in many countries in the fixing of wage levels by agreement (especially collective agreement). (Endnote 315)

169. Although Convention No. 109 and Recommendation No. 109 were not retained in either the Convention No. 147 Appendix or the Recommendation No. 155 Appendix, and no obligation attaches to them, reference is made to them here as examples of ways in which certain shipboard conditions of employment may operate. Convention No. 109 and Recommendation No. 109 fixed a minimum wage rate in pounds sterling and US dollars and provided for a system of supervision, sanctions and recovery of unpaid wages. The level of that minimum wage and the method of fixing it have since been, and continue to be, reviewed in some depth. (Endnote 316)

170. Article 22 and particularly article 19 reports and the legislation referred to in them have revealed a broad approach to the regulation of seafarers' wages in many countries: although there is in relatively few cases information as to the fixing of basic wage levels by legislation, (Endnote 317) in many there are provisions as to overtime rates, (Endnote 318) or payments in cases of salvage. (Endnote 319) One country provides that seafarers may be paid a fixed wage and/or a share in profits; (Endnote 320) the same country lays down that a seafarer should have an increased wage if his work corresponds to a higher-level job. In many countries there is legislation for the protection of wages, (Endnote 321) regulating, for example, the manner, timing and currency of its payment, and matters such as advances, suspension, deductions, recovery and dispute settlement. (Endnote 322) In one country wages are governed by binding awards. (Endnote 323)

(iv) Identity documents

171. This subject has been recommended by the Joint Maritime Commission for consideration in relation to Convention No. 147 (Endnote 324) and may thus be regarded as germane to conditions of employment in terms of Article 2(a)(iii). The Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958 (No. 108), was apparently not considered at the time when Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155 were being prepared. The Convention provides (Article 2) for the compulsory issuing of a document to seafarers containing given particulars (Article 4); carrying the document should confer certain rights of admission to the territory for which the Convention is in force (Articles 5 and 6).

172. Convention No. 108 has been ratified by 47 countries, including 12 which have ratified Convention No. 147, although few have referred to it in their article 19 reports. Convention No. 108 does not seem to pose major difficulties for the countries bound by it.

(b) Shipboard living arrangements

173. "Shipboard living arrangements" is similarly undefined in Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155, although perhaps easier to identify in ILO instruments. The term first appears in the PTM Conference Committee report (Endnote 325) and is preserved in the final version of Article 2(a)(iii) of the Convention.

(i) Crew accommodation

174. In addition to fulfilling the safety requirements, (Endnote 326) States which ratify Convention No. 147 have to have laws or regulations on shipboard living arrangements for crew accommodation in so far as those arrangements are not covered by collective agreements or laid down by competent courts in a manner equally binding and to satisfy themselves that those laws and regulations are substantially equivalent to Convention No. 92 in so far as they are not otherwise bound to give effect to that Convention. It may seem that legislation is none the less necessary for some non-safety elements of that Convention: (Endnote 327) indeed, Convention No. 92 itself when ratified has to be applied by legislation (Article 3). The provisions not referred to above (Endnote 328) include details of the construction, equipment, decoration and furnishing of all aspects of crew accommodation; there should also be recreation space (Article 12).

175. In its examination of the report of one country bound by Convention No. 147 but not Convention No. 92, the Committee has asked whether there are any provisions relating to bringing regulations to the notice of those concerned (Article 3(2)(a)), submission of plans for approval (Article 4), and inspection on re-registration or alteration (Article 5) -- which seem to be important aspects of Convention No. 92; and other aspects such as materials used (Article 6), lighting (Article 9), berths (Article 10), messing (Article 11), leisure accommodation (Article 12), sanitary facilities (Article 13), hospitals (Article 14), and maintenance and weekly inspection (Article 17). (Endnote 329) Whilst not all of these may be necessary to establish substantial equivalence (for example, messing details in Article 11 may well be dispensable), it is not yet possible in that case to be clear whether substantial equivalence to Convention No. 92 as a whole has been shown. In another case, the Committee refrained from raising a number of points for clarification under Articles 6, 8 (heating), 10, 12, 13, 15 (offices) and 17: that country has since ratified Convention No. 92 and those matters have been raised under that head. (Endnote 330)

176. Convention No. 133 was added by the PTM Conference to the Appendix of the draft instrument (Endnote 331) and, although at first placed in the draft Convention Appendix, (Endnote 332) it appears finally in the Recommendation No. 155 Appendix. This seems logical, given its orientation to the improvement of crew accommodation in modern ships. It requires legislation laying down higher standards of sleeping accommodation (Article 5), mess rooms (Article 6), recreation (Article 7), sanitation (Articles 8 and 9), headroom (Article 10) and lighting (Article 11). (Endnote 333) Convention No. 133 is supplementary to and incorporates the substantive provisions (Parts II and III) of Convention No. 92 (Article 3) and has not formally revised it. Convention No. 133 has been ratified by 17 countries, including ten which have ratified Convention No. 147, and will come into force after one more ratification by a country with more than one million tons of shipping (Article 15).

177. Several governments have referred to Convention No. 133 in their article 19 reports on Recommendation No. 155. Some seem to have legislation applying the Convention at least in part. (Endnote 334) Another indicates it has amended its regulations to bring them more into line with the Convention. (Endnote 335) The Government of one State with a tonnage of over one million has indicated that work was under way towards the ratification of Convention No. 133. (Endnote 336)

(ii) Food and catering

178. In addition to the safety aspect, (Endnote 337) countries bound by Convention No. 147 have to have laws or regulations on food and catering in so far as it is a matter of shipboard living arrangements not covered by collective agreements or laid down by competent courts in a manner equally binding and to satisfy themselves that those laws and regulations are substantially equivalent to Article 5 of Convention No. 68 in so far as they are not otherwise bound to give effect to that Convention. Article 5 requires legislation concerning food supply and catering arrangements designed to secure the health and well-being of the crew: food and water should be suitable in respect of quantity, nutritive value, quality and variety, and the arrangement and equipment of the catering department should enable proper meals to be served.

179. The rest of Convention No. 68 -- it is included in its entirety in the Recommendation No. 155 Appendix -- calls for the promotion of proper food and catering standards, for instance by research, training, information and advice (Articles 1, 2(d), 11 and 12); inspection by the competent authority, including after complaints, and penalties (Articles 4, 6, 8 and 9) and by the responsible officer at sea (Article 7); certification of catering department staff (Article 2(c)); (Endnote 338) and the publication of an annual report (Article 10). (Endnote 339)

180. For two countries bound by Convention No. 147 but not by Convention No. 68, the Committee has raised the question of the arrangement and equipment of the catering department, where no information has been given. (Endnote 340) It has also raised the question of different scales of provisions for seafarers who are "ordinarily resident" in different countries, and whether the scales can in all cases be considered suitable in terms of Article 5. (Endnote 341) Some governments have provided additional information in article 19 reports, relating in particular to procedures for complaints (Endnote 342) and for compensation to be paid to the seafarer, when provisions as to quality or quantity are inadequate. (Endnote 343)

VII. Other matters referred to in the Conventions appended to Convention No. 147

181. It has already appeared (Endnote 344) that the relationship between the first part of Article 2(a) and the second (beginning "and to satisfy itself ...") is not one of complete congruency, in that there are matters dealt with in the first part which are not reflected in the second (read together with the Appendix). Conversely, there are matters dealt with in Appendix Conventions which cannot in all logic be assimilated to subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of Article 2(a). These relate first to the procedure by which the employment relationship is established and terminated and in which certain conditions of employment are specified (Convention No. 22); and secondly to the ambient legal and constitutional requirements for the fixing of conditions of employment by the collective agreements referred to in subparagraph (iii), together with the specific safeguards and the general policy environment which are essential to such collective agreements -- these all being matters of fundamental human rights for seafaring workers (Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 respectively). (Endnote 345) In respect of these matters, then, Article 2(a) formulates the State's undertaking to satisfy itself that its laws and regulations are substantially equivalent to Conventions Nos. 22, 87 and 98, in so far as it is not otherwise bound to give effect to those Conventions (and, perhaps, as regards any of those matters which may be duly covered by collective agreements or laid down in a manner equally binding on the shipowners and seafarers concerned, in so far as those matters are not in fact so covered).

(a) Articles of agreement

182. The provisions of Convention No. 22 do not actually contain standards for shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements, but they do lay down the manner in which some such provisions are to be specified. (Endnote 346) In the first draft instrument leading to the Convention, (Endnote 347) only Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 were listed in the Appendix: the whole Convention appeared in the version submitted to the International Labour Conference (Endnote 348) and this was not changed again. Convention No. 22 moreover includes some essential provisions which call specifically for laws rather than other methods of application. To that extent it seems necessary to read the Article 2(a) obligations in respect of Convention No. 22 as themselves requiring laws or regulations. Convention No. 22 is limited in scope to persons entered on the ship's articles (Article 2(b)). Article 3 of the Convention lays down for the protection of shipowners and seafarers the conditions under which articles should be signed, involving adequate supervision by the competent authority; Article 4 says that ordinary rules of jurisdiction should apply; Article 5 requires seafarers to be given a separate document recording particulars of their employment on the vessel in question; Article 6 lays down the particulars to be recorded in the articles; Article 8 requires national law to provide for means by which a seafarer can obtain information on board as to conditions of employment; the method of giving notice is to be governed by national law (Article 9), and the conditions in which termination may take place are described (Article 6(3), paragraph 10, and Articles 10 to 14); Article 15 says national law should provide for measures to ensure compliance with the Convention. (Endnote 349)

183. The particulars to be included in the articles of agreement under Article 6(3) relate to several matters dealt with more specifically elsewhere in Convention No. 147 and its Appendix: the age of the seafarer; (Endnote 350) the scale of provisions; (Endnote 351) the place and date of the agreement; (Endnote 352) the number of crew; (Endnote 353) and the capacity in which the seafarer is employed. (Endnote 354) They must also include the amount of wages (Endnote 355) and leave (Endnote 356) and any other particulars required by national law.

184. Fifteen of the States which have ratified Convention No. 147 have also ratified Convention No. 22. None of the reports of the others which the Committee has examined has given rise to the question whether legislation is necessary for application. In one (Endnote 357) it has not yet been possible to say that substantial equivalence has been attained, and a direct request is outstanding as to new legislation proposed to implement Articles 5, 6 and 14. In another (Endnote 358) there has appeared to be substantial equivalence except possibly on one essential issue -- that of termination -- although there too it may appear that provisions prohibiting abuse ("abus de droit") by the shipowner and allowing indemnities might go to mitigate certain shortcomings in national provisions as compared with Convention No. 22: in any event the Government has indicated a review of the legislation and the Committee has asked for information on progress made in such review and on the practical application of the present provisions. In another case (Endnote 359) the Committee has made direct requests as to the application of Articles 5(2) and 14 (entries in a separate document as to the quality of work, wages and termination, particularly in the case of foreign seafarers). The final case (Endnote 360) is instructive: the Committee has not raised some questions of detail such as mention in the articles of the place of birth and scale of provisions (Article 6(3), paragraphs 1 and 8) -- the first being regarded by the Government as of diminished importance, the second gap being filled by ensuring substantial equivalence to Article 5 of Convention No. 68; the Committee has also not raised Article 10(c) in the face of the Government's argument that the preservation of the employment relation in national legislation gives the seafarer a better safeguard than the Convention's provision that the agreement should be considered terminated in cases of the loss or total unseaworthiness of the vessel; the Government considers that its provisions can be said to do more than satisfy the requirement of substantial equivalence, and this seems to the Committee to be correct.

185. Article 19 reports from other countries show that there is often legislation requiring written articles of agreement, usually including at least some of the particulars specified by Convention No. 22. (Endnote 361)

186. For purposes of Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147, it seems clear that at the least a large dose of law or regulations will be necessary in respect of Convention No. 22, although perhaps some minor points could be established by the alternative methods. The essential features of Convention No. 22 on which substantial equivalence would then have to be established must include the provision of a document containing all the main particulars listed in Article 6(3). Adequate protection of the seafarer on termination (Articles 10 to 14) would also be essential.

(b) Freedom of association

187. Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 -- like Convention No. 22 -- do not contain shipboard (or any other) conditions of employment and living arrangements so much as describe the manner in which some such provisions may be determined; they thus refer for example to preconditions for the proper articulation of those conditions in articles of agreement. The view was put forward at the preparatory stage that, as Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 express principles applicable to all workers and employers and are very general in scope, they were not appropriate for inclusion with the other specifically marine-oriented instruments. (Endnote 362) Certainly their implementation might be difficult for some countries (Endnote 363) (although they are among the most widely ratified of all ILO Conventions). (Endnote 364) Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 were nevertheless included in the Appendix to the first draft instrument (Endnote 365) and by general consensus in the Convention No. 147 Appendix. (Endnote 366)

188. The essence of Convention No. 87 is freedom vis-à-vis the public authorities for workers and employers to exercise the right to organise. That freedom is predicated on four basic guarantees: first, that all workers and employers have the right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation (Article 2); second, that those organisations have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes (Article 3); third, that the organisations are not liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority (Article 4); and, fourth, that the organisations have the right to establish and join federations and confederations and affiliate with international organisations of workers and employers (Article 5), such federations and confederations having the same rights as their constituent organisations (Article 6). (Endnote 367) For purposes of Convention No. 147, substantial equivalence to Convention No. 87 involves at the minimum the observance and implementation in full of these four guarantees in respect of seafarers on ships registered in the national territory.

189. Convention No. 98 in essence provides, first, that workers should be protected in their employment against acts of anti-union discrimination (Article 1); and, second, that workers' and employers' organisations should be protected against mutual acts of interference (Article 2). Equally, it requires measures to promote voluntary collective bargaining (Article 4). (Endnote 368) For purposes of Convention No. 147, substantial equivalence to Convention No. 98 therefore involves at least the full guarantee of those two forms of protection and the full implementation of such measures in respect of seafarers on ships registered in the national territory.

190. All except three countries (Endnote 369) bound by Convention No. 147 are also bound by Convention No. 87; the declaration of application to one territory (Endnote 370) includes modifications in respect of Articles 3, 5 and 6. All except two countries (Endnote 371) bound by Convention No. 147 are also bound by Convention No. 98. The Committee has therefore in effect rarely had to consider the application of these Conventions in the Convention No. 147 framework. (Endnote 372) For one of the States not bound by Convention No. 87, (Endnote 373) the Committee has in particular raised the right for non-national seafarers to exercise union functions, and the right of seafarers' unions to affiliate to international organisations. For another, (Endnote 374) it has asked for any relevant provisions.

191. It may be held that the very reference to collective agreements in Article 2(a)(iii) supposes a process of collective bargaining in conformity with the principles laid down in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The Committee would also note that all member States of the ILO are bound by the Constitution to observe the principles of freedom of association (Endnote 375) and in particular are subject to the complaints procedure of the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association. Three questions now arise, on the basis that both Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 call for legislative action, and that Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 requires a State to satisfy itself that the provisions of its legislation are substantially equivalent to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 in so far as it is not otherwise bound to give effect to them.

192. In the first place, it seems that, where the declaration of application of Convention No. 87 to a non-metropolitan territory includes modifications which limit or exclude the operation of some of its essential features referred to in paragraph 188 above, that country cannot be regarded in the terms of Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 as "otherwise bound" to give effect to the relevant provisions of that Convention. It therefore becomes necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence on those issues. In the case in point, (Endnote 376) the modifications go to the root of the guarantees laid down in Articles 3, 5, and 6 of Convention No. 87. For that reason, it seems appropriate to raise the application of those Articles to shipboard employment in the framework of Convention No. 147.

193. In the second place, where Convention No. 87 is binding on a country also bound by Convention No. 147, but Convention No. 98 is not, it may be necessary to consider how far that country in the measures it takes to apply Convention No. 87 effectively implements the three essential aspects of Convention No. 98 referred to in paragraph 189 above in respect of work on board ships registered in its territory. In the case in point, (Endnote 377) it seems appropriate in relation to shipboard employment to verify conformity with Convention No. 98 in respect of those three aspects within the Convention No. 147 framework.

194. In the third place, where one or both of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 is or are binding on a country, a specific question relating to the operation of those Conventions on board ship may arise. (Endnote 378) The Committee has taken due note of the discussion of the case in point in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 1989 and the wish expressed by some members of that Committee for the issues raised to be examined in relation to Convention No. 147. In the terms of Convention No. 147, Article 2(a), however, such a course is in that case for the reasons given above (Endnote 379) superfluous: the full application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 -- with review by the ILO supervisory bodies -- to which such a country is committed must be a better insurance than the application only of provisions substantially equivalent to those Conventions.

195. The Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), was included in the Appendix to the first draft instrument considered by the PTM Conference (Endnote 380) and, although later placed in the draft Convention Appendix, (Endnote 381) it was finally included instead in the Recommendation Appendix. (Endnote 382) Convention No. 135 develops the anti-union discrimination aspect of Convention No. 98, providing for the effective protection of workers' representatives as such against prejudicial acts, including dismissal (Article 1); workers' representatives should also be given facilities for carrying out their functions (Article 2). Under Recommendation No. 155, Paragraph 3, steps should be taken with a view to laws and regulations containing provisions at least equivalent to Convention No. 135. Convention No. 135 has been ratified by 42 States.

196. From article 19 reports it appears that particular aspects of Conventions Nos. 87 or 98 are seen as constituting an obstacle to ratification of Convention No. 147 in one or two cases -- for example, where national requirements as to the minimum number of workers who may form an organisation (1,000) or a power of deregistration of a union by administrative decision run counter to the principles laid down by the ILO supervisory bodies; (Endnote 383) or where in the legislation employment can be made conditional on not belonging to a trade union. (Endnote 384) Some governments have referred to Convention No. 135, indicating that it seems to be well applied to seafarers; (Endnote 385) one states that, although there is no legislation on the subject, the unions are sufficiently strong to protect their members; (Endnote 386) another indicates that there is legislation making it unlawful to single out workers' representatives for prejudicial treatment, and some collective agreements give specific rights to the use of facilities on board for consultations between workers' representatives and union members; (Endnote 387) and in a fifth country, legislation provides for time to be spent on trade union activities on board, safety permitting. (Endnote 388) One country, whose first article 22 report on Convention No. 135 has not yet been examined by the Committee, states that an exception has been made in respect of seafarers. (Endnote 389)

197. The inclusion of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 in the Convention No. 147 Appendix has -- in addition to the specific effect of creating the obligation to confer on seafarers the guarantees and protections referred to in paragraphs 188 and 189 above -- the general effect of reaffirming that shipboard employment is not exempt from principles and national policies relating to freedom of association, the right to organise and collective bargaining. (Endnote 390) The fact that the Committee has rarely in practice had to give detailed consideration to these matters in the Convention No. 147 framework appears as testimony to their universal acceptability among the ILO membership. The extent to which countries which have not ratified Convention No. 147 indicate some reservations in this area might nevertheless imply that the situation should be followed closely in some cases in the framework of its supervision of the application of the respective Conventions.

VIII. Revision of standards

198. In connection with Convention No. 147 and Recommendation No. 155, the International Labour Conference in 1976 adopted a resolution calling for periodic consideration by the Joint Maritime Commission of whether the list of Conventions appended to Convention No. 147 continues to constitute an acceptable minimum or whether it needs to be revised. (Endnote 391) Paragraph 4 of Recommendation No. 155 states that it is pending such revision of the Convention No. 147 Appendix as may become necessary in the light of changes in the circumstances and needs of merchant shipping that cognisance should be taken of the revisions of individual Appendix Conventions. The question has indeed been considered on various occasions since then. (Endnote 392) It has also been particularly linked to the present general survey by the Joint Maritime Commission, which saw the article 19 exercise as a means of enabling the Commission more accurately to assess whether revision is necessary or desirable. (Endnote 393) The Governing Body, however, has now decided not to place the question on the agenda of the 78th Session of the Conference (1991). (Endnote 394)

199. This general survey refers separately to all maritime instruments classified by the Governing Body as "instruments to be promoted on a priority basis" (Endnote 395) as well as those adopted by the 74th Session of the Conference in 1987 and some others. In doing so, it refers to all the cases where instruments included in either the Convention No. 147 or the Recommendation No. 155 Appendix have been revised. As regards instruments not included in the Convention No. 147 Appendix, the Committee has given indications which might amongst other things be of assistance in the consideration of a possible revision of the Appendix.

200. The Committee has noted in particular that four Conventions (Nos. 108, 145, 146 and perhaps 133) were recommended by the Joint Maritime Commission (Endnote 396) for addition to the Convention No. 147 Appendix. It is interesting to note that, while most of these relate to what may be considered shipboard conditions of employment and living arrangements (Article 2(a)(iii) of Convention No. 147), one (No. 145) relates rather to broader issues of national policy, (Endnote 397) and to the method of organising engagement. (Endnote 398)

201. The Committee would emphasise in this context that the standards laid down by Convention No. 147 are in any event minimum and not maximum ones. Convention No. 147 should ideally be read together with Recommendation No. 155, where the policy of dynamic improvement beyond the minimum has been sanctioned by the Conference. Given the contemporaneous adoption of resolution No. II by the 62nd Session of the Conference and the constant reconsideration of the revision of the Convention No. 147 Appendix in the ILO, it seems clear that the standards incorporated in that Appendix in 1976 ought not to be regarded as immutable and that their outward -- as well as their upward -- revision is a logical course.

202. One government (Endnote 399) has referred to the possible revision of the Convention No. 147 Appendix in its article 19 report. It considers that there should be no extension of the Convention Appendix to new aspects of seafarers' conditions, although these could be dealt with in a new Recommendation. In the Convention Appendix, it suggests including Convention No. 165 as an alternative to Nos. 55, 56, 130; and No. 166 as an alternative to No. 23. The government also suggests revision of the Recommendation No. 155 Appendix to include Conventions Nos. 163 and 164; to make it clear that Convention No. 70 should be applied only where Convention No. 165 is not binding, and similarly Recommendation No. 137 only where the STCW Convention is not ratified; and to replace the 1975 Document for Guidance by the 1985 version.

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

Endnote 42

Endnote 43

Endnote 44

Endnote 45

Endnote 46

Endnote 47

Endnote 48

Endnote 49

Endnote 50

Endnote 51

Endnote 52

Endnote 53

Endnote 54

Endnote 55

Endnote 56

Endnote 57

Endnote 58

Endnote 59

Endnote 60

Endnote 61

Endnote 62

Endnote 63

Endnote 64

Endnote 65

Endnote 66

Endnote 67

Endnote 68

Endnote 69

Endnote 70

Endnote 71

Endnote 72

Endnote 73

Endnote 74

Endnote 75

Endnote 76

Endnote 77

Endnote 78

Endnote 79

Endnote 80

Endnote 81

Endnote 82

Endnote 83

Endnote 84

Endnote 85

Endnote 86

Endnote 87

Endnote 88

Endnote 89

Endnote 90

Endnote 91

Endnote 92

Endnote 93

Endnote 94

Endnote 95

Endnote 96

Endnote 97

Endnote 98

Endnote 99

Endnote 100

Endnote 101

Endnote 102

Endnote 103

Endnote 104

Endnote 105

Endnote 106

Endnote 107

Endnote 108

Endnote 109

Endnote 110

Endnote 111

Endnote 112

Endnote 113

Endnote 114

Endnote 115

Endnote 116

Endnote 117

Endnote 118

Endnote 119

Endnote 120

Endnote 121

Endnote 122

Endnote 123

Endnote 124

Endnote 125

Endnote 126

Endnote 127

Endnote 128

Endnote 129

Endnote 130

Endnote 131

Endnote 132

Endnote 133

Endnote 134

Endnote 135

Endnote 136

Endnote 137

Endnote 138

Endnote 139

Endnote 140

Endnote 141

Endnote 142

Endnote 143

Endnote 144

Endnote 145

Endnote 146

Endnote 147

Endnote 148

Endnote 149

Endnote 150

Endnote 151

Endnote 152

Endnote 153

Endnote 154

Endnote 155

Endnote 156

Endnote 157

Endnote 158

Endnote 159

Endnote 160

Endnote 161

Endnote 162

Endnote 163

Endnote 164

Endnote 165

Endnote 166

Endnote 167

Endnote 168

Endnote 169

Endnote 170

Endnote 171

Endnote 172

Endnote 173

Endnote 174

Endnote 175

Endnote 176

Endnote 177

Endnote 178

Endnote 179

Endnote 180

Endnote 181

Endnote 182

Endnote 183

Endnote 184

Endnote 185

Endnote 186

Endnote 187

Endnote 188

Endnote 189

Endnote 190

Endnote 191

Endnote 192

Endnote 193

Endnote 194

Endnote 195

Endnote 196

Endnote 197

Endnote 198

Endnote 199

Endnote 200

Endnote 201

Endnote 202

Endnote 203

Endnote 204

Endnote 205

Endnote 206

Endnote 207

Endnote 208

Endnote 209

Endnote 210

Endnote 211

Endnote 212

Endnote 213

Endnote 214

Endnote 215

Endnote 216

Endnote 217

Endnote 218

Endnote 219

Endnote 220

Endnote 221

Endnote 222

Endnote 223

Endnote 224

Endnote 225

Endnote 226

Endnote 227

Endnote 228

Endnote 229

Endnote 230

Endnote 231

Endnote 232

Endnote 233

Endnote 234

Endnote 235

Endnote 236

Endnote 237

Endnote 238

Endnote 239

Endnote 240

Endnote 241

Endnote 242

Endnote 243

Endnote 244

Endnote 245

Endnote 246

Endnote 247

Endnote 248

Endnote 249

Endnote 260

Endnote 261

Endnote 262

Endnote 263

Endnote 264

Endnote 265

Endnote 266

Endnote 267

Endnote 268

Endnote 269

Endnote 270

Endnote 271

Endnote 272

Endnote 273

Endnote 274

Endnote 275

Endnote 276

Endnote 277

Endnote 278

Endnote 279

Endnote 280

Endnote 281

Endnote 282

Endnote 283

Endnote 284

Endnote 285

Endnote 286

Endnote 287

Endnote 288

Endnote 289

Endnote 290

Endnote 291

Endnote 292

Endnote 293

Endnote 294

Endnote 295

Endnote 296

Endnote 297

Endnote 298

Endnote 299

Endnote 300

Endnote 301

Endnote 302

Endnote 303

Endnote 304

Endnote 305

Endnote 306

Endnote 307

Endnote 308

Endnote 309

Endnote 310

Endnote 311

Endnote 312

Endnote 313

Endnote 314

Endnote 315

Endnote 316

Endnote 317

Endnote 318

Endnote 319

Endnote 320

Endnote 321

Endnote 322

Endnote 323

Endnote 324

Endnote 325

Endnote 326

Endnote 327

Endnote 328

Endnote 329

Endnote 330

Endnote 331

Endnote 332

Endnote 333

Endnote 334

Endnote 335

Endnote 336

Endnote 337

Endnote 338

Endnote 339

Endnote 340

Endnote 341

Endnote 342

Endnote 343

Endnote 344

Endnote 345

Endnote 346

Endnote 347

Endnote 348

Endnote 349

Endnote 350

Endnote 351

Endnote 352

Endnote 353

Endnote 354

Endnote 355

Endnote 356

Endnote 357

Endnote 358

Endnote 359

Endnote 360

Endnote 361

Endnote 362

Endnote 363

Endnote 364

Endnote 365

Endnote 366

Endnote 367

Endnote 368

Endnote 369

Endnote 370

Endnote 371

Endnote 372

Endnote 373

Endnote 374

Endnote 375

Endnote 376

Endnote 377

Endnote 378

Endnote 379

Endnote 380

Endnote 381

Endnote 382

Endnote 383

Endnote 384

Endnote 385

Endnote 386

Endnote 387

Endnote 388

Endnote 389

Endnote 390

Endnote 391

Endnote 392

Endnote 393

Endnote 394

Endnote 395

Endnote 396

Endnote 397

Endnote 398

Endnote 399

Cross references
Constitution: Article 19
Constitution: Article 22
Constitution: Article 35
Constitution: Article 37
Conventions: C007 Minimum Age (Sea) Convention, 1920
Conventions: C022 Seamen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926
Conventions: C023 Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926
Conventions: C053 Officers' Competency Certificates Convention, 1936
Conventions: C055 Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936
Conventions: C056 Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936
Conventions: C058 Minimum Age (Sea) Revised) Convention, 1936
Conventions: C068 Food and Catering (Ships' Crews) Convention, 1946
Conventions: C069 Certification of Ships' Cooks Convention, 1946
Conventions: C070 Social Security (Seafarers) Convention, 1946
Conventions: C073 Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946
Conventions: C074 Certification of Able Seamen Convention, 1946
Conventions: C087 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948
Conventions: C092 Accommodation of Crews Convention Revised), 1949
Conventions: C098 Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949
Conventions: C102 Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952
Conventions: C109 Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1958
Conventions: C118 Equality of Treatment (Social Security) Convention, 1962
Conventions: C121 Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964
Conventions: C128 Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors' Benefits Convention, 1967
Conventions: C130 Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Convention, 1969
Conventions: C133 Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1970
Conventions: C134 Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970
Conventions: C138 Minimum Age Convention, 1973
Conventions: C163 Seafarers' Welfare Convention, 1987
Conventions: C164 Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) 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:R109 Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Recommendation, 1958
Recommendations:R137 Vocational Training (Seafarers) Recommendation, 1970