Second Flag States and Human Rights Report Published

Press Release

9 June 2019

London, UK. Human Rights at Sea, in partnership with the University of Bristol Law School Human Rights Implementation Centre, today issues the second independent public report: ‘An evaluation of Flag State Practice in Monitoring, Reporting and Enforcing Human Rights Obligations on Board Vessels’ as part of an ongoing study into the engagement, policies and remedies affected by flag States in relation to their duties to uphold human rights at sea.

The independent flag State research project was established to comment on the under-explored issue of flag State practice, and their international and national human rights obligations. In doing so, this project aims to reveal deficiencies in human rights protection to offer informed recommendations. Such insight, it is hoped, will better flag State assessments, and eventually flag State practice, in the future.

This year Panama, Denmark and Taiwan have been reviewed with the individual registries directly and repeatedly contacted, though unfortunately with little or no engagement with public enquiries.

The central question asked was: ‘How do flag States comply with their international human rights obligations ’ vis-à-vis persons on board vessels registered under their flag?’ with three supporting questions: 1).What registries do the flag States hold? 2). What are the human rights obligations of the flag states? and 3). How do flag States monitor human rights compliance on board vessels?

HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS

It was concluded that:

“In comparison to Denmark and Panama, Taiwan’s lack of ratification of the core UN, Maritime and Labour Conventions represents a remarkable gap in the protection of human rights at sea. However, neither Denmark or Panama are beyond reproach, as both have certain shortcomings or distinctive issues arising from their human rights coverage. For example, although Denmark should be commended for its excellent treaty ratification and rights compliance, it appears to devalue the interests of migrant seafarers by failing to ratify the ICMW and Work in Fishing Conventions. By Denmark ratifying these outstanding treaty commitments, it would be a welcome denouncement of far-right and anti-immigration populism spreading across Europe. Panama also has areas of concern, such as the loophole of Article 92 which seriously lessens the impact of any safeguards included within its Maritime Law. It is clear, therefore, that whilst Taiwan has a more noticeable human rights gap, Denmark and Panama do still have areas on which to improve.”

MONITORING & REPORTING

It was concluded that:

“There are varying mechanisms in place in each flag State to ensure monitoring and reporting of human rights issues. According to the Paris MoU, both Panama and Denmark are listed as ‘white-list’ states, the latter ranking much better than the former. By contrast, Taiwan is not a party to the Paris MoU; and yet, is also classified as ‘white list’. While the maritime authorities have the main responsibility of ensuring the effectiveness of the flag states’ monitoring and reporting systems, the report shows that these mechanisms are not always sufficiently implemented. For instance, the PMA will only carry out an inspection upon a complaint, and only if that complaint is backed by the majority of the staff. Meanwhile, with respect to Taiwan, there is a significant disconnect between its listed standard and the efficacy of its human rights and labour law protection mechanisms. This is especially so in the fishing sector, where differential labour standards for foreign-workers and split institutional competence limits regulatory effectiveness. As it stands, Denmark seems to provide the most effective process for the protection of seafarers’ rights, which justifies their ranking on the Paris MoU. That said, the DMAIB may decide not to carry out investigations of a length below 15 meters regarding fishing vessels, and only 15 investigations of the accidents are published. Consequently, more work is needed in all three flag states to better improve their conditions.”

FLAG STATE ENGAGEMENT

It was concluded that:

“Unfortunately, no response to these questions was provided by the selected points of contact. Given the limited scope of outreach to just three flag States, at this time few conclusions can be drawn from Stage 2. However, it is seemingly consistent with limited publicly available information and effort by the flag States to proactively provide clear and informative guidance related to human right obligations and monitoring.”

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Flag states must ratify the core UN human rights treaties, IMO and ILO Conventions which provide for safety, human and labour standards. That said, it is not enough to merely ratify the treaties. A flag State needs to put in place bespoke mechanisms for the implementation of their human rights obligations.

2. Flag States need to improve the clarity of their websites, publish investigations, and ensure better access to information. Flag States should regularly update their contact details to allow more swift complaints to be made and to create a user-friendly complaint mechanism. Where no complaint mechanism is available, it is of utmost urgency to establish a point of contact for vulnerable workers at sea.

3. Achieving a white list status on the Paris and Tokyo MoUs should not be considered the ‘end game’ for flag States. In this way, the MoUs’ compartmentalisation should be challenged. Instead, human rights and labour standards should be part of the inspections and considered as part of the listings.

4. The respective Maritime Authorities, such as the PMA and DMA, should explicitly mention human rights obligations as purposes of their organisations. The Maritime Authorities should become actively involved in the enforcement of maritime-related treaties. Suggested improvements involve the authorities conducting an Annual Report on Human Rights at Sea which presents empirical studies on human rights violations and requiring a specific standard for the effectiveness of communications.

Human Rights at Sea commented: “This second comprehensive report on flag States and the role that they should and indeed need to take in terms of protecting human rights at sea, highlights inadequacies which need to be rectified. Further, the lack of direct engagement to fair and reasonable enquiry, demonstrates further failures of accessibility and transparency. There were similar such findings in the 2018 Report.”

Second Flag States and Human Rights Report 2019

An evaluation of Flag State Practice in Monitoring, Reporting and Enforcing Human Rights Obligations on Board Vessels. Year 2 Report of an ongoing study into the engagement, policies and remedies affected by flag States in relation to their duties to uphold human rights at sea. The University of Bristol Human Rights Implementation Centre and the University of Bristol Human Rights Law Clinic in Partnership with Human Rights At Sea.

 

HRAS & Bristol University Flag States and Human Rights Report 2018

A Study on Flag State Practice in Monitoring, Reporting, and Enforcing Human Rights Obligations on Board Vessels 2018 – Year 1. The first Flag State and Human Rights project report from the University of Bristol Human Rights Implementation Centre and the University of Bristol Human Rights Law Clinic in Partnership with Human Rights At Sea.

Ends.

 

FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint
Scroll to top