Isps Code
ISPS Code
In November 2001, following the 9/11 terrorist attack against the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City of the USA, which was launched by Al-Qaeda terrorist group, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has agreed to develop and add a new measure to the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention that addresses the security concerns in the maritime field. Therefore, in December 2002, a new rule in the form of amendment was added to SOLAS. SOLAS has previously had a chapter (Chapter XI) related to special measures for enhancing maritime safety. In December 2002, a new chapter was added to SOLAS as Chapter XI-2 that address the enhancement of security issues in maritime field, and the previous chapter related to safety was renamed to Chapter XI-1. The new amendments, which is called International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPC) code was added as an supplementary to this new chapter (Mazaheri 2008). The code was come to force on July 2004.
The code contains two parts as A and B. The IMO set the former part (A) as compulsory to implement, while it sets the latter part (B) as optional and just as a guideline when implementing security provisions in part A. However, some nations like the USA and the EU courtiers have considered and implemented part B of the code as compulsory for their own flag ships, which consequently makes it also compulsory to apply for the other ships that visit the ports of the mentioned flag states (Mazaheri 2008). This factor together with the different interpretation of code guidelines and also some other concerns about the code in different nations have created quite serious and long controversy discussion among the IMO members.
The most important matters that have created/may create the controversy among the nations are:
1. The initial costs of implementing the code, which from a port perspective was higher for small ports in compare with the larger ports (UNCTAD 2007; Mazaheri and Ekwall 2009).
In November 2001, following the 9/11 terrorist attack against the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City of the USA, which was launched by Al-Qaeda terrorist group, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has agreed to develop and add a new measure to the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention that addresses the security concerns in the maritime field. Therefore, in December 2002, a new rule in the form of amendment was added to SOLAS. SOLAS has previously had a chapter (Chapter XI) related to special measures for enhancing maritime safety. In December 2002, a new chapter was added to SOLAS as Chapter XI-2 that address the enhancement of security issues in maritime field, and the previous chapter related to safety was renamed to Chapter XI-1. The new amendments, which is called International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPC) code was added as an supplementary to this new chapter (Mazaheri 2008). The code was come to force on July 2004.
The code contains two parts as A and B. The IMO set the former part (A) as compulsory to implement, while it sets the latter part (B) as optional and just as a guideline when implementing security provisions in part A. However, some nations like the USA and the EU courtiers have considered and implemented part B of the code as compulsory for their own flag ships, which consequently makes it also compulsory to apply for the other ships that visit the ports of the mentioned flag states (Mazaheri 2008). This factor together with the different interpretation of code guidelines and also some other concerns about the code in different nations have created quite serious and long controversy discussion among the IMO members.
The most important matters that have created/may create the controversy among the nations are:
1. The initial costs of implementing the code, which from a port perspective was higher for small ports in compare with the larger ports (UNCTAD 2007; Mazaheri and Ekwall 2009).
References: Goulielmos, A. M. and A. A. Anastasakos (2005). "Worldwide security measures for shipping, seafarers and ports- An impact assessment of ISPS code." Disaster Prevention and Management 14: 462-478. Griffett, T. (2005). The impact of ISPS Compliance on Ship owners. Australian Ship owners Association. Melbourne, Australia. IMO (2002). ISPS Code. IMO. IMO. (2004). "FAQ on ISPS code and maritime security." Retrieved 2012.11.20, from http://www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_id=897#piracy. IMSA. (2012). "Piracy remains a persistent threat with real victims." Retrieved 2012.11.20, from http://www.imsaltd.com/piracy-remains-a-persistent-threat-with-real-victims/. Mazaheri, A. (2008). How the ISPS code affects port and port activities. School of Engineering. Borås, University of Borås. M.Sc.: 79. Mazaheri, A. and D. Ekwall (2009). "Impacts of the ISPS code on port activities: a case study on Swedish ports." World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research 2(4): 326-342. Mcnaught, F. (2005). "Effectiveness of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code in addressing the maritime security threat." Geddes Papers. Stevenson, D. B. (2005). The Impact of ISPS Code on Seafarers. International Conference Security of ships, ports and coasts. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. UKDC. (2004). "ISPS code-Legal Implications for Charterparties." Retrieved 2007/07/07, from http://www.ukdefence.com/ukdc_publications/soundings/2004_i4_soundings.php. UNCTAD (2002). Review of Mritime Transport, United Nations Conference on Trade And Development. UNCTAD (2007). ISPS Code implementation, costs and related financing, United Nations Conference on Trade And Development. Wengelin, M. (2006). "The Swedish Port Security Network – An Illusion or a Fact?" Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 3: Article 8.