Should EU states be collectively represented in the IMO?
The EU's Maritime Policy Green Paper - 5
The Green Paper on the EU's maritime policy poses the following questions - How can the EU best bring its weight to bear in international maritime fora? and Should the European Community become a member of more multilateral maritime organisations?
These queries, the far reaching implications of which are discussed hereunder, must necessarily be interpreted as being a direct reference to the sensitive issue of European Commission and European Union status within the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the latter being the main international organisation in the maritime sphere.
It has been spelt out several times that the global nature of shipping benefits from the adoption of a global regulatory framework and the IMO is the undisputed leader in the development and adoption of standards for the international shipping community.
The IMO is the one international single forum to which and before which independent sovereign states can put forward their views on issues being discussed thus ensuring that the individual interest of all these diverse states are considered with the aim of ensuring a modus vivendi between continued growth of these independent sovereign states and the common good of the international community as a whole.
On its part, the European Commission has since 1974 enjoyed permanent observer status within the IMO, which status conveys upon it the right to take part in discussions and of submitting documents, however falls short of granting it the right to vote or to negotiate directly or to speak on behalf of the 25 member states.
In 2002 the European Commission issued a recommendation to the Council to authorise the Commission to open and conduct negotiations with the IMO on the conditions and arrangements for accession by the European Union to the IMO as the one representative voice, representing and taking the place of the 25 member states who up until now enjoy a separate and distinct voice at IMO. Such proposal was blocked by the Council of Ministers while a further attempt made by the Commission in 2005 suffered a similar fate.
A recent spate of lobbying by the EU Transport Commission is proposing anew a re-evaluation of the status of the EU within international maritime regulatory fora, and that full membership of IMO should be pursued in accordance with the Commission recommendation of 2002.
The industry has from its end unanimously expressed disagreement with this proposal. The submissions made by the European Community Association of Ship Brokers and Agents (ECASBA), the European Community Shipowners' Association (ECSA), the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the International Shipping Federation (ISF), the Union of Greek Shipowners together with the Malta International Shipping Council as part of the on-going Green Paper consultation process have not merely expressed serious doubt about the benefits of this proposal but have highlighted the dangers of so doing.
Proposals for full EU membership of IMO would entail the eradication of the voting power rights of individual member states within IMO and their being replaced by the EU speaking at the IMO as one unified body.
It is an undeniable fact that each maritime or non-maritime member state within the EU has its own interests which may very well be different to the national interests of another. Assuming a replacement of all these individual voices by one EU vote, how can the national interests of the individual member states be guaranteed?
The centralisation of decision making could remove powers of individual member states and result in the politicisation of IMO debates. The views of those member states having a particular issue at heart may be easily over-ruled and this without having the precious opportunity of speaking of such interests directly at the international fora.
IMO member states are granted the opportunity of exercising considerable influence within IMO by utilising the individual expertise of their maritime administrations in the regulatory discussions held. National experts from independent member states are free to debate details of new international rules and to express at times diverse views directly. It is this expertise that raises the quality of discussions within IMO and contributes to reaching consensual positions rendering individual interventions effective in a manner that would be significantly diluted should the EU intervene in the name of the whole.
In addition to the above, the value of having international fora such as the IMO is precisely that of granting to the individual member states the opportunity of voicing their individual concerns and the opportunity of reaching decisions consensually following various technical and legal debates.
This right granted to individual member states stems from the acknowledgement that in certain circumstances there is the potential of a diversity of views on various issues, which differences derive from the cultural, geographical and economic nuances of particular states. IMO membership currently represents one of the few precious opportunities that Malta has to stand up and be counted and of actively pursuing its interests as a leading maritime nation.
When considering that among EU member states one finds the traditional maritime nations, the serious implications of the introduction of a measure that may potentially weaken the influence that such states enjoy within international fora becomes evident. Any procedure that deprives Malta of a voice within the maritime sphere is to be therefore strongly opposed.
The Green Paper has provided the opportunity of reiterating the doubts on the benefits of the EU pursuing full membership of the IMO, which doubts are common to the industry and to member states. Non-European IMO member states have also expressed concern that this would result in future IMO measures being the subject of "block voting" rather than consensus. Thus such a proposal may not only potentially deprive Malta of an important opportunity to voice it views and to actively influence the development of the international regulatory framework, but carries the ultimate serious consequence of defeating the very purpose and logic behind the IMO.
• Dr Vassallo is an associate within the Marine Litigation Department at Fenech and Fenech Advocates.
These queries, the far reaching implications of which are discussed hereunder, must necessarily be interpreted as being a direct reference to the sensitive issue of European Commission and European Union status within the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the latter being the main international organisation in the maritime sphere.
It has been spelt out several times that the global nature of shipping benefits from the adoption of a global regulatory framework and the IMO is the undisputed leader in the development and adoption of standards for the international shipping community.
The IMO is the one international single forum to which and before which independent sovereign states can put forward their views on issues being discussed thus ensuring that the individual interest of all these diverse states are considered with the aim of ensuring a modus vivendi between continued growth of these independent sovereign states and the common good of the international community as a whole.
On its part, the European Commission has since 1974 enjoyed permanent observer status within the IMO, which status conveys upon it the right to take part in discussions and of submitting documents, however falls short of granting it the right to vote or to negotiate directly or to speak on behalf of the 25 member states.
In 2002 the European Commission issued a recommendation to the Council to authorise the Commission to open and conduct negotiations with the IMO on the conditions and arrangements for accession by the European Union to the IMO as the one representative voice, representing and taking the place of the 25 member states who up until now enjoy a separate and distinct voice at IMO. Such proposal was blocked by the Council of Ministers while a further attempt made by the Commission in 2005 suffered a similar fate.
A recent spate of lobbying by the EU Transport Commission is proposing anew a re-evaluation of the status of the EU within international maritime regulatory fora, and that full membership of IMO should be pursued in accordance with the Commission recommendation of 2002.
The industry has from its end unanimously expressed disagreement with this proposal. The submissions made by the European Community Association of Ship Brokers and Agents (ECASBA), the European Community Shipowners' Association (ECSA), the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the International Shipping Federation (ISF), the Union of Greek Shipowners together with the Malta International Shipping Council as part of the on-going Green Paper consultation process have not merely expressed serious doubt about the benefits of this proposal but have highlighted the dangers of so doing.
Proposals for full EU membership of IMO would entail the eradication of the voting power rights of individual member states within IMO and their being replaced by the EU speaking at the IMO as one unified body.
It is an undeniable fact that each maritime or non-maritime member state within the EU has its own interests which may very well be different to the national interests of another. Assuming a replacement of all these individual voices by one EU vote, how can the national interests of the individual member states be guaranteed?
The centralisation of decision making could remove powers of individual member states and result in the politicisation of IMO debates. The views of those member states having a particular issue at heart may be easily over-ruled and this without having the precious opportunity of speaking of such interests directly at the international fora.
IMO member states are granted the opportunity of exercising considerable influence within IMO by utilising the individual expertise of their maritime administrations in the regulatory discussions held. National experts from independent member states are free to debate details of new international rules and to express at times diverse views directly. It is this expertise that raises the quality of discussions within IMO and contributes to reaching consensual positions rendering individual interventions effective in a manner that would be significantly diluted should the EU intervene in the name of the whole.
In addition to the above, the value of having international fora such as the IMO is precisely that of granting to the individual member states the opportunity of voicing their individual concerns and the opportunity of reaching decisions consensually following various technical and legal debates.
This right granted to individual member states stems from the acknowledgement that in certain circumstances there is the potential of a diversity of views on various issues, which differences derive from the cultural, geographical and economic nuances of particular states. IMO membership currently represents one of the few precious opportunities that Malta has to stand up and be counted and of actively pursuing its interests as a leading maritime nation.
When considering that among EU member states one finds the traditional maritime nations, the serious implications of the introduction of a measure that may potentially weaken the influence that such states enjoy within international fora becomes evident. Any procedure that deprives Malta of a voice within the maritime sphere is to be therefore strongly opposed.
The Green Paper has provided the opportunity of reiterating the doubts on the benefits of the EU pursuing full membership of the IMO, which doubts are common to the industry and to member states. Non-European IMO member states have also expressed concern that this would result in future IMO measures being the subject of "block voting" rather than consensus. Thus such a proposal may not only potentially deprive Malta of an important opportunity to voice it views and to actively influence the development of the international regulatory framework, but carries the ultimate serious consequence of defeating the very purpose and logic behind the IMO.
• Dr Vassallo is an associate within the Marine Litigation Department at Fenech and Fenech Advocates.