Maritime Law Q and A (Part 5)

Q. (a) Differentiate between “Passage”, and “Innocent Passage” as stipulated under
Article 18 and 19 of UNCLOS 1982 to which India is party.
(b) State the duties and rights of protection of the Coastal State as prescribed in
Article 24 and 25 of the UNCLOS 1982.

(a)
Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.
Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.

Meaning of innocent passage

Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial
to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

• any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
• any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
• any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of
  the coastal State;
• any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
• the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
• the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
• the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency, or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal state;
• any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(b)
Duties of the coastal State

The coastal State shall not hamper the innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea except in accordance with this Convention. In particular, in the application of this Convention or of any laws or regulations adopted in conformity with this Convention, the coastal State shall not:

• impose requirements on foreign ships which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage; or
• discriminate in form or, in fact, against the ships of any state or against ships carrying cargoes to, from, or on behalf of any state.
• The coastal State shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation, of which it has knowledge, within its territorial sea.

Rights of protection of the coastal State

• The coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage, which is not innocent.
• In the case of ships proceeding to internal waters or a call at a port facility outside Internal waters, the coastal State also has the right to take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to which admission of those ships to internal
  waters or such a call is subject.
• The coastal State may, without discrimination in form or, in fact, among foreign ships suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea, the innocent passage of
  foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.

Q.(a) State the salient features of Construction – Structure, Stability and installation with respect of Chapter II -1 of SOLAS 1974 as amended.
(b) Enumerate the key elements of SOLAS Chapter V – Safety of Navigation which
assists in enhancing maritime safety.

(a)
Chapter II-1 – Construction – Subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations

• The subdivision of passenger ships into watertight compartments must be such that after assumed damage to the ship’s hull, the vessel will remain afloat and stable.
  
• Requirements for watertight integrity and bilge pumping arrangements for passenger ships are also laid down as well as stability requirements for both passenger and cargo ships.
• The degree of subdivision – measured by the maximum permissible distance between two adjacent bulkheads – varies with the ship’s length and the service in which it is engaged. The highest degree of subdivision applies to passenger ships.
• Requirements covering machinery and electrical installations are designed to ensure that services which are essential for the safety of the ship, passengers and crew are
  maintained under various emergency conditions.

(b)

• Chapter V identifies certain navigation safety services that should be provided by Contracting Governments and sets forth provisions of an operational nature
  applicable in general to all ships on all voyages. This is in contrast to the Convention as a whole, which only applies to certain classes of ship engaged on international
  voyages.
• The subjects covered include the maintenance of meteorological services for ships; the ice patrol service; routeing of ships; and the maintenance of search and rescue
  services.
• This chapter also includes a general obligation for masters to proceed to the assistance of those in distress and for Contracting Governments to ensure that all ships shall be sufficiently and efficiently manned from a safety point of view.
• The chapter makes mandatory the carriage of voyage data recorders (VDRs) and automatic ship identification systems (AIS).

Q. (a) State the key regulations of MARPOL 73/78 Annex I relating to prevention of
pollution by oil if complied with by cargo ships including tankers would lead to
the issuance of IOPP Certificate.
(b) Briefly explain the Tier regime of compensation under the CLC 1992/Fund
1992 and HNS 2010 protocol.

(a)
The continuous strive of prevention and reduction of the ship-generated pollution of the seas by oil is the core objective setting of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. Annex I applies to all oil tankers of 150 GT and above, and every other ship of 400 GT and above. Annex I gives requirements for survey and issuance of International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificates (IOPP) and regulations related to:

• Control of discharge of oil originating from machinery spaces
• Control of discharge of oil originating from cargo spaces
• Ballast tank arrangements and locations
• Double Hull requirements
• SOPEP/SMPEP

(b)
The Civil Liability Convention (CLC) IS THE first Tier of oil pollution compensation
mechanism. CLC only deals with how much an oil tanker owner will pay if his tanker is involved in a pollution incident. An oil pollution incident means when the oil has actually come out into the marine environment. This means, for example, if in a collision oil has come out only from one of the tankers, then the oil tanker owner from whose tanker the oil has
come into the marine environment, will have to pay. Also, CLC is a compensation
mechanism only and not a punishment or a fine. This means that after an oil pollution
incident, the oil tanker will only pay if there is a claim. If, however, there is no claim, then the oil tanker owner does not pay. CLC is applicable to persistent oils only [oils, which have characteristics of persisting (floating) on the surface of water – meaning different grades of
crude oil when carried as cargo, as well as bunker pollution from oil tankers only).

CLC requires the following:

(i) Strict Liability – This means that when there is a claim, then the tanker owner has
to pay without even waiting to find out who was at fault that resulted in the pollution incident. The oil tanker owner can later claim from the party at fault, but he has to pay now to settle the claims. Only in the following three cases will the oil tanker not have to pay anything:

• Act of God.
• Act of war or sabotage.
• When the relevant Government authorities have not acted responsibly in maintaining the navigational aids / depths of water within their area and
  this leads to a pollution incident.

(ii) Compulsory Insurance Cover – The oil tanker owner is required to maintain a
compulsory insurance cover to cover his part of payment in an oil pollution incident. He gets this insurance cover from his P & I Club (liability insurance).
After getting the required insurance cover, the oil tanker owner approaches the
Flag State, who issues the oil tanker, a CLC Certificate, which is always kept on
board. The meaning of CLC Certificate on board is that the money is standing by
with the P & I Club and will be paid by them to settle all claims after any oil
pollution incident.

The maximum amount to be paid by the oil tanker owner is as follows:

Up to 5000 GT = 4.51 million SDR.
5001 GT – 140,000 = (4.51 million SDR + 631 SDR/GT) SDR.

140,000 GT = 89.77 million SDR.

Two years after CLC, it was realised that there needs to be more money in case the oil pollution incident is so huge that the total claims amount to be greater than what the oil tanker owner pays under CLC. Member countries at IMO decided to involve the oil importers by asking them to make an annual contribution to a FUND so that additional money is always standing by and to be given to people who make a claim after an oil pollution incident. Therefore, the Fund Convention was created, and this is known as the
SECOND Tier of the oil pollution compensation mechanism. Fund Convention requires only the oil importers who import 150,000 MT or more of oil per annum to make an annual contribution to a Fund known as International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPC
Fund with headquarters in London). Therefore, any person / organisation that has imported 150,000 MT of oil in the previous year is called a ‘contributor’ and therefore, the ENTIRE amount of oil imported by him is used to calculate his contribution, and this is known as the
contributing oil (for example, if a person has imported 175,000 MT of oil in the previous year, then he qualifies as a contributor, and the entire amount of 175,000 MT will be used to
calculate his contribution to the IOPC Fund. His ‘contributing oil’ will be 175,000 MT.

Please do not make the mistake by thinking that only 25000 MT will be used for
calculation. 150,000 MT figure is used only to decide whether a person is a contributor or not). Also, the maximum amount available for EVERY INCIDENT PER YEAR is 203 million SDR, and this includes the payment by the oil tanker owner under the CLC (CLC + FUND = 203 million SDR).

In 2000, the Fund Convention was amended to include a Supplementary Fund, but it was kept OPTIONAL for countries to follow it, and this forms the THIRD Tier of the oil
pollution compensation mechanism [for example, INDIA is party to CLC and Fund (first and second tier) but NOT a part to the Supplementary Fund (the third tier)]. Therefore, if we include the Supplementary Fund also, the TOTAL amount available for EVERY INCIDENT PER YEAR IS 750 million SDR [CLC + FUND + Supplementary Fund = 750 million SDR (one would appreciate that this will ONLY be applicable in the few countries who are party to the Supplementary Fund also)].

OPRC – HNS1 PROTOCOL

The Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to pollution Incidents by
Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 2000 (OPRC-HNS Protocol) follows the principles of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990 (OPRC) and was formally adopted by States already Party to the OPRC Convention at a Diplomatic Conference held at IMO headquarters in London in March 2000. The Protocol entered into force on 14 June 2007.

Q. Differentiate between Standards and the recommended practices under FAL
Convention, 1965 with respect to the following –
(a) Arrival, stay and Departure of ship
(b) Arrival, stay and Departure of cargo

(a)

Arrival, stay and departure of the ship

It contains the provisions concerning the formalities required of ship-owners by the public authorities on the arrival, stay and departure of the ship and shall not be read so as to preclude a requirement for the presentation for inspection by the appropriate authorities of certificates
and other papers carried documents made available by the ship pertaining to its registry, Standard

Public authorities shall not require for their retention, on arrival or departure of ships to which the Convention applies, any documents other than those covered by the present section. The documents in question are:

• General Declaration – Cargo Declaration – Ship’s Stores Declaration – Crew’s Effects Declaration – Crew List – Passenger List – Dangerous Goods Manifest – The document
  required under the Universal Postal Convention for mail – Maritime Declaration of Health – Security-related information as required under SOLAS regulation XI-2/9.2.2 – Advance Electronic Cargo Information for customs risk assessment purposes – Advanced Notification Form For Waste Delivery to Port Reception Facilities, when communicated to the Organization.

Recommended practice

• Public authorities should shall develop procedures for the lodgement of to use prearrival and pre-departure information in order to facilitate the processing of such information required by public authorities for the expedited subsequent release/clearance or cargo and persons release/clearance of cargo and clearance of persons.
• National legislation should specify the conditions for the lodgement of pre-arrival and pre-departure information. With regard to the point in time of transmission of the prearrival information, it should not normally be set substantially before the moment the ship has left the country of departure.
• Public authorities should, for the submission of Advance Electronic Cargo information for customs risk assessment purposes, take into account the time limits specified.
• Public authorities should not require the lodgement of a separate General Declaration, Cargo Declaration, Crew List and Passenger List and Dangerous Goods Manifest if the data elements contained in these documents are included in the pre-arrival or predeparture information or in the ship’s manifest.

Standard

Public authorities shall develop systems for the electronic transmission of data for the lodgement of pre-arrival and pre-departure information. The General Declaration shall be the basic document on arrival and departure providing data required by public authorities relating
to the ship.

Recommended Practice

• The same form of General Declaration should be accepted for both the arrival and the departure of the ship. In the General Declaration, public authorities should not require more than the following data:
• name, type and IMO number of ship; call sign; flag State of ship; voyage
  number; particulars regarding registry; particulars regarding tonnage; name of master; name and contact details of ship’s agent; brief description of the cargo; number of crew; number of passengers; brief particulars of voyage; date and
  time of arrival, or date of departure; port of arrival or departure; estimated draught on arrival and departure; position of the ship in the port; the ship’s requirements in terms of waste and residue reception facilities; last port of call/next port of call.

Arrival, stay and departure of the cargo

Standard

The Cargo Declaration shall be the basic document on arrival and departure providing data required by public authorities relating to the cargo. However, particulars of any dangerous cargo may also be required to be furnished separately.

Recommended Practice

In the Cargo Declaration, public authorities should not require more than the following data:

(a) on arrival

• name and IMO number of ship • flag State of ship • name of master • call sign • voyage number • port of loading • port where report is made • freight34 container identification, where appropriate; marks and numbers; number and kind of packages; quantity and description of the goods or, if available, the HS Code* • transport document numbers for
  cargo to be discharged at the port in question • ports at which cargo remaining on board will be discharged • original ports of shipment in respect of goods shipped under multimodal transport documents or through bills of lading.

(b) on departure

• name and IMO number of ship • flag State of ship • name of master • call sign35 • voyage number • port of discharge

Standard

In respect of cargo remaining on board, public authorities shall require only brief details of the minimum essential items of information to be furnished. Public authorities shall accept that the Cargo Declaration is either dated or signed by the master, the ship-owner issuing the
transport document, the ship’s agent or some other person duly authorized by the master.

Public authorities shall accept in place of the Cargo Declaration a copy of the ship’s manifest provided it contains at least the information required.

Recommended Practice

As an alternative public authorities may accept a copy of the transport document signed or authenticated accordingly, or certified as a true copy, if the nature and quantity of cargo make this practicable.

Q. State the criteria for reward of Salvage services as specified in Article 13 of the Salvage convention 1989 & Explain Special Compensation P&I Club’s (SCOPIC) clause.

The law of salvage is a concept in maritime law which states that a person who recovers another person’s ship or cargo after peril or loss at sea is entitled to a reward in proportion with the value of the property so saved. The concept has its origins in maritime history, with the basis that a person would be putting himself and his own vessel at risk to recover another and thus should be appropriately rewarded. A related consideration was widespread piracy; a vessel in peril could very well be left for pirates if the owner did not generously reward a potential and an honest salver.

So, the first incentive is mentioned in Article 13 of the Salvage Convention, which lists the criteria to be weighed in the balance in assessing a salvage award. It provides:

The reward shall be fixed with a view to encouraging salvage operations, taking into account the following criteria without regard to the order in which they are presented below:

• the salved value of the vessel and other property;
• he skill and efforts of the salvers in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment;
• the measure of success obtained by the salver;
• the nature and degree of the danger;
• the skill and efforts of the salvers in salving the vessel, other property and life;
• the time used and expenses and losses incurred by the salvers;
• the risk of liability and other risks run by the salvers or their equipment;
• the promptness of the services rendered;
• the availability and use of vessels or other equipment intended for salvage operations;
• the state of readiness and efficiency of the salver’s equipment and the value thereof.

Secondly, the payment of a reward fixed according to paragraph 1 shall be made by all of the vessel and other property interests in proportion to their respective salved values and, the rewards, exclusive of any interest and recoverable legal costs that may be payable thereon, shall not exceed the salved value of the vessel and other property.

There are three points to particularly note from Article 13. The second criteria, “the skill and effort of the salvers in preventing or minimising damage to the environment” was specifically
introduced by the 1989 Convention to encourage salvers to go to the assistance of ships that threatened damage to the environment. However, it should be noted that the salver has to prove that he actually prevented damage to the environment. A ‘threat’ without proof, but for the services that damage to the environment would have occurred, is insufficient. Proof of damage to the environment is not easy because any reward received is restricted by the value of the property salved. In cases where there is a threat of damage to the environment, values are often low and the expense of salvage high. In most of the cases, salvers only received the bare minimum. Any award under Article 13 is paid by ship and cargo pro rata to value, so
they bear any award enhanced by reason of the second criteria – the skill and effort of the salver in preventing damage to the environment. The insurers of ship and cargo customarily pay such awards, notwithstanding that they do not insure an owner’s liability for damage to the
environment.

The Second incentive – Special Compensation introduced in Article 14 to the Salvage Convention. It provides as follows:

“If the salver has carried out salvage operations in respect of a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to the environment and has failed to earn a reward under Article 13 at least equivalent to the special compensation assessable in accordance with this article, he shall be entitled to special compensation from the owner of that vessel equivalent to his
expenses as herein defined.”

There were a number of issues in giving the special compensation, as per Article 14, for saving the environment. To name a few issues:

• Firstly, it will be noted that for this paragraph the salver does not have to succeed in protecting the environment, he simply has to be involved in a salvage operation in which the casualty threatens damage to the environment.
• Secondly, it will be seen that the salver has to carry out “salvage operations in respect of a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to the environment”. What
  do we mean by “threatened”?
• Thirdly, unlike Article 13 salvage award (which is paid by the ship and cargo and their property insurers), special compensation (as per Article 14) is payable by the ship-owner alone who is insured for this risk and indemnified by his P&I insurer. So, the solution was reached by introducing SCOPIC (Special Compensation P&I Club) Clause.

SCOPIC sets out the contractual position between the salvers and the ship-owner, but do not set out the position of the P&I clubs and the ship’s underwriters (the Hull and Machinery insurers) who, while insurers of the ship-owners, are not parties, and therefore not bound, to
the contract. The SCOPIC clause is a voluntary addition to the LOF contract which can be used by agreement between the parties at the time they contract. In practice, it is nearly always used by professional salvers particularly when there is a threat of danger to the
environment and low values. It has effectively replaced Article 14 in all LOF cases.

In considering the clause, it is important to remember that it was designed to have the same intent as Article 14 – to encourage salvers to go to the assistance of ships that threaten damage to the environment – and to follow it as closely as possible but remove the problems that were giving rise to so much difficulty. In describing SCOPIC it is therefore useful as we go along, to look at the problems that arose from Article 14 and see how the SCOPIC Clause
set out to resolve them.

The SCOPIC Clause is lengthy and complex and not easy to digest. One of the best ways to understand it is to look at its “Basic Elements” (below):

1. SCOPIC is designed to be an add on to LOF and will only be included as part of that contract if specifically agreed in writing between the salver and ship owner (Master). If SCOPIC is not incorporated into the contract then Article 14 (if relevant) will apply.
2. When incorporated into the contract, SCOPIC replaces Article 14 of the Salvage Convention which thereafter will no longer be applicable. However, SCOPIC is incorporated into the contract but not specifically invoked (used or brought into play) or is later
   terminated, the salver will have neither the protection of Article 14 or of SCOPIC.
3. Even when SCOPIC is incorporated into the contract, its remuneration provisions will not begin to bite until the Clause is specifically invoked (used) in writing by the salver. Further, the calculation of SCOPIC remuneration will not begin until that point.

One of the main problems with Article 14 was its trigger mechanism, “a threat of damage to the environment”. What was a threat? Did it have to be an actual threat or was it sufficient for it to be a reasonably perceived threat? What were coastal waters or waters adjacent thereto? How serious the threat to the environment had to be? The designers of SCOPIC wanted to avoid all these problems. So what other trigger mechanism could be used? It was
concluded that the simplest and most unchallengeable trigger mechanism was to give the salver the sole and unfettered power, whatever the circumstances and at any time of his choosing, to specifically invoke (bring into play) the SCOPIC clause in writing. There is no longer any need to prove there is a threat of damage to the environment. It is important to
remember, unlike Special Compensation under Article 14 (of Salvage Convention), which incorporates all the work of the salver from the very beginning of the case, that the assessment of SCOPIC remuneration does not begin until it is invoked (brought into play) in
writing. Any work done before that point is not taken into account in its assessment. Thus, while the salver has the option to invoke (use) the clause at any time, it is in his interests to make the decision as soon as possible (the decision whether there is a threat to the environment in the salvage operation and to what extent his work will increase in the whole
salvage operation).

Once SCOPIC has been invoked the ship-owner must provide security in the sum of USD 3 million. This provision was made for the salvers protection and on their insistence, for without it there is no effective means of enforcing payment. While Article 21 of the Salvage
Convention provides that security should be provided for a salver’s claim, it is not due until the end of the salvage operations and, in the case of security for Special Compensation or SCOPIC remuneration, there is no maritime or statutory lien and, therefore, no way of enforcing its provision. Further, as mentioned earlier, before the days of SCOPIC, there was
a marked reluctance to provide it. In a number of cases ship-owners, guided by their P&I club, refused to provide security, fought a claim for Special Compensation under Article 14 of the Salvage Convention to appeal and then “negotiated” on the final appeal award (typical smart move by ship owners to have the salvage services and reduce the reward to the salver!!). To avoid this happening, the SCOPIC Clause specifically provides that security in
the sum of $3 million is to be provided within two days of the Clause being invoked (brought into play). It goes on to make provision for the amount to be adjusted, up or down, at the termination of the services, but substantial security is required “up front”. As further protection to the salver (that if security of USD 3 million) is not provided, the salvage
contractor has the option to withdraw from SCOPIC. This would result in the reinstatement and limited protection afforded by Article 14 which, in most cases, would not be a lot of help to the salver (he protects the environment during the salvage operation, but does not get
rewarded completely!). However, if security is not provided then at least the salver would know where he was and could pull out of the whole LOF contract on the grounds of the owner’s breach.

Once SCOPIC has been invoked, SCOPIC remuneration will be assessed in accordance with the cost for men-hours, tugs and equipment reasonably engaged or used in the operation, plus a bonus of 25%.

SCOPIC was intended as a security of a minimum payment, and therefore, by applying a standard tariff rate it became fairly simple to calculate SCOPIC remuneration on a daily basis. The assessed SCOPIC remuneration is due from the ship-owner, in so far as it exceeds
the traditional salvage award made against salved property under Article 13 of the Salvage Convention. This is in line with Article 14 of the Salvage Convention, which provides that Special Compensation shall only be paid to the extent that its assessment exceeds the traditional Article 13 salvage award. The position is the same under SCOPIC. So for example, if the traditional salvage award is say $1 million and the assessed SCOPIC remuneration is $1.5 million, the salver will receive $1 million from the ship and cargo, pro
rata to value, and $0.5 million from the ship-owner (P & I Club) in respect of SCOPIC remuneration. It is important to note, like Special Compensation under Article 14, that SCOPIC remuneration is to be paid by the ship-owner, not ship and cargo pro rata to value as is the case for the traditional Article 13 salvage award. This means different insurers are involved. Hull and Machinery insurers for traditional Article 13 salvage awards and liability insurers (P&I Clubs) for SCOPIC remuneration.

Q. (a) Discuss responsibilities of ship and shipper under the provisions of Hague –
Visby Rules.
(b) State the various immunities enjoyed by the carrier under the provision of
Hague and Hague Visby Rules.

(a)
The “carriage of goods” relates to “…the period from the time when the goads are loaded on to the time they are discharged from the ship” (Art. I). Therefore, the responsibilities commence when the goods are loaded and end when they are discharged, i.e., this probably includes the actual loading and discharging operation.

It also allows a carrier to agree to responsibility and liability related to the goods before loading on and after discharging from the vessel. The carrier shall be bound before and at the
beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to:

• Make the ship seaworthy;
• Properly man, equip and supply the ship;
• Make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation.
  Subject to the provisions of Article IV, the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried.

(b)
For dangerous cargo, it reinforces the implied term at common law that the shipper will not ship dangerous goods without the consent of the carrier. The Rule provides that when such goods are shipped without the knowledge or consent of the carrier, not only is the carrier
entitled to neutralize them at the expense of the shipper, and without any obligation to compensate the cargo-owner, but the shipper is also liable for any loss or damage resulting from their shipment.

Q. Enumerate the provisions of UNCLOS, 1982 relating to exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state under Article 94 at High Seas.

Duties of the flag State

1. Every State shall effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag.
2. In particular every State shall:

(a) maintain a register of ships containing the names and particulars of ships flying its flag, except those which are excluded from generally accepted international regulations on account of their small size; and
(b) assume jurisdiction under its internal law over each ship flying its flag and its
master, officers and crew in respect of administrative, technical and social matters concerning the ship.

3. Every State shall take such measures for ships flying its flag as are necessary to ensure safety at sea with regard, inter alia, to:

(a) the construction, equipment and seaworthiness of ships;
(b) the manning of ships, labour conditions and the training of crews, taking into
account the applicable international instruments;
(c) the use of signals, the maintenance of communications and the prevention of
collisions.

4. Such measures shall include those necessary to ensure:

(a) that each ship, before registration and thereafter at appropriate intervals, is surveyed by a qualified surveyor of ships, and has on board such charts, nautical publications and navigational equipment and instruments as are appropriate for the safe navigation of the ship;
(b) that each ship is in the charge of a master and officers who possess appropriate qualifications, in particular in seamanship, navigation, communications and marine engineering, and that the crew is appropriate in qualification and numbers for the type, size, machinery and equipment of the ship;

5. A State which has clear grounds to believe that proper jurisdiction and control with respect to a ship have not been exercised may report the facts to the flag State. Upon receiving such a
   report, the flag State shall investigate the matter and, if appropriate, take any action necessary to remedy the situation.

Q.Purpose and contents of Vessel Response plan (VRP) as per Oil Pollution
Act of USA 1990.

(a)
The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) establishes, unilaterally, oil spill response plan requirements for tank ships, called vessel response plans (VRPs), of extreme importance and concern to international tanker owners. In brief, OPA 90 VRP requirements include:

• Consistency with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and area plans;
• Identification of a “qualified individual” to implement the plan and to coordinate with the federal on-scene coordinator (FOSC);
• Assurance, by contract or other approved means, of private re- sources to respond to a worst case spill (defined as loss of the entire cargo during adverse weather
  conditions);
• Training and drills; and
• Periodic updates.
• OPA 90 also requires carriage of removal equipment by tankers