STCW ’95: implementation issues: What is the pass mark?

By 1 August 1998 Regulation I/7 of the 1995 amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (1978) requires a comprehensive submission of information to the International Maritime Organization supporting an Administration’s claim that it complies fully with, or is in the process of implementing, STCW ’95 via policy and legislative processes. Once the complete information is received by the International Maritime Organization, the Secretary-General must submit a report to this effect to the Maritime Safety Committee. Three questions emerging from this controversial provision in STCW ’95 are:• if ever, is the information from an Administration complete? x02022; s the time frame allocated for confirmation by the IMO Secretariat? x02022; es IMO assess whether the claim by an Administration is valid? bsolute nature of the phraseology within Regulation I/7, in the author’s view, handcuffs the certification verification process by ‘competent persons’. Equally unfortunately for Administrations, STCW is mute on establishing time frames for the processing of their submissions within IMO. Conceivably, a submission by a proponent aspiring for ‘white listing’ may be delayed sufficiently long for the Secretary-General’s report to miss the MSC regular meetings. What would be the impact of such a delay? s of greater importance though are two key issues linked to the third question. These issues lie at the heart of the amendments to STCW. Firstly, there is not an appeal or challenge mechanism to IMO’s decision; whether it is favourable or not. It is difficult to gauge at this time either the international shipping community’s reaction to an unfavourable report by IMO or an Administration’s position/policy to recognize a chastised Party’s submission. Secondly, the notion of ‘black- listing’ an Administration for sub-standard marine certification and training may not be sustainable under international jurisprudence. Advocates for IMO’s new role as a ‘watchdog’ of global marine certification and standardization organ for the United Nations would, no doubt, take a contra-position. rticle attempts to illuminate the complexity of issues nested within Regulation I/7 of STCW ’95. Emerging controversy could strain international relations to such an extent that the high aspirations of the Convention’s drafters for marine certification transparency may not be realized.