International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 - Coursework Example

Maritime law Maritime law governs the operations of water vessels both in inland water bodies and in the international water bodies. The guidelines provided by the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGs) provides the rules that are applicable in the movement paths and the navigation routes, which prevents the vessels operating in the route from colliding1. Under the general rules of the Maritime law, a ship or the vessel owner is responsible for providing a sea worthy vessel. In this sense, the ship or the vessel owner is required to exercise due diligence, through ensuring that the vessel or the ship the owner is releasing to the sea is well manned, equipped and supplied, to ensure that the ship or the vessel remains seaworthy for the whole duration that it is meant to be in the sea2. This is the absolute duty that the ship or the vessel owner owes to the seamen who are involved in the voyage, for the protection of any risk that might face their lives emanating from the unworthiness or lack proper maintenance of the ship. Thus, if any event of collision or accident occurs in the sea, due to the un-seaworthiness of the ship or the vessel, then the owner of the ship or the vessel is liable for the damage, and the appropriate liabilities shall befall the owner3. This includes the liabilities of all the damages incurred on the cargo, the seamen or the other ships or vessels that could have collided with the unseaworthy ship or the vessel, during the course of their voyage. Among the cardinal duty of the ship or vessel owner is to provide a seaworthy ship or vessel. The doctrine of seaworthiness is the cardinal principle of the Maritime law, considering that the issue of seaworthiness of a ship or a vessel directly affects the liabilities of various stakeholders in the Maritime Law, who may include the liability of the carrier, the marine insurance and the environment4. The concept of seaworthiness of a ship or a vessel is provided under the law, as the presence of all pipes, pumps, heater coils and all the other components of the ship or the vessel, which are in good working order. Thus, the law is further interpreted to mean that the fundamental responsibility of the ship or the vessel owner, which he owes to the seamen; both operating the ship he owns or the seamen operating other ships or vessels on the water body, is to ensure that the ship or the vessels are fit to undergo the hazards of the sea, or any other incidental risk that may occur along the voyage, which the ship or the vessel might be exposed in the course of the voyage, without necessarily having such risks being contributed in any way, by the un-seaworthiness of the ship or the vessel6. This being the case, the owner of the ship bears all the liability in case of an accident, collision, damage or injury occurring to the vessels, the ship or the seamen, which emanates from any aspect of the ship being unworthy for the sea voyage. However, as s reprieve to the owner of the ship or the vessel to be involved in a voyage, the concept of seaworthiness of the ship or the vessel was lessened only to include the worthiness of that ship or vessel, at the start of the voyage2. Therefore, while there are many instances that may arise where a vessel could be identified as being unseaworthy, the only liability that the owner of the ship or the vessel can bear, is that of the ship or the vessel being unseaworthy at the start of the voyage, while the other aspects of un-seaworthiness, which might occur in the course of the voyage, are deemed incidental and thus the liability is assessed differently3. According to the provisions of the Maritime law, there are several conditions that may constitute the un-seaworthiness of the ship or the vessel in voyage. First, a stowage which may affect in any way the safety of the ship or the vessel is considered unseaworthy, and thus constitutes the un-seaworthiness condition of the ship or the vesse7. Secondly, any deficient systems ashore or on board the ship or the vessel constitute the condition of un-seaworthiness of the ship or the vessel8. In addition, where the ship or the vessel has not undergone the repair and maintenance as provided by the laws under different jurisdiction, then, the ship or the vessel is considered to be unseaworthy. The case of the cargo vessel Vs the container ship the ARGO, can be traced in the Seaworthiness clause of the Maritime Law. The incidence has it that the cargo vessel INVICTUS had a starboard radar set that was malfunctioning. The condition was not realized en route from Beijing to New York, but had been discovered earlier. The owner of the cargo vessel INVICTUS had been informed regarding this anomaly, but had consistently postponed its repair, observing that the repair would be done when the cargo vessel INVICTUS next goes in to dry-dock. Thus, the issue under the case is the un- Seaworthiness of the cargo vessel INVICTUS. The legal facts relevant to this case are; first, the cargo vessel INVICTUS was unseaworthy during its collision with the container ship the ARGO. Second, the vessel was unworthy during its commencement of the journey, and the owner of the vessel had been informed regarding the state of the vessel unworthiness. Thirdly, the collision between the cargo vessel INVICTUS and the container ship the ARGO occurred due to the malfunctioning of the starboard radar set of the cargo vessel INVICTUS, which did not allow the operator of the vessel to gauge accurately the distance of the container ship the ARGO which it collided with4. The Maritime Law, under the concept of collision, provides that if the collision between vessels or ships is incidental or the cause is in doubt, then, the cost of the damage is borne by the vessels or the ships that suffered the damage9. On the other hand, if the collision and the damage suffered are caused by the fault of one vessel, then the vessel bears the liability, through its owner10. Therefore, in this case, the collision and the consequent damage to container ship the ARGO has been caused by the unworthiness of the cargo vessel, and thus the owner is liable for the damage. Bibliography Canfield, George L., George W. Dalzell, and Jasper Yeates Brinton. The Law of the Sea: A Manual of the Principles of Admiralty Law for Students, Mariners, and Ship Operators. Littleton, Colo: F.B. Rothman, 1983. pp22-67. Force, Robert, A. N. Yiannopoulos, and Martin Davies. Admiralty and Maritime Law. Washington, D.C.: Beard Books, 2006. pp13-85. Gault, Simon, and Gault-Hazelwood-Tettenborn. Marsden on Collisions at Sea. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003. pp41-96. Gold, Edgar, Aldo E. Chircop, and Hugh M. Kindred. Maritime Law. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2003. Hagberg, Lennart. Maritime Law. Deventer: Kluwer, 1976. pp10-53. Hill, Christopher Julius Starforth. Maritime Law. London [u.a.]: LLP, 2003. pp17-38. Maukabady, Samir. Collision at Sea: A Guide to the Legal Consequences. Amsterdam [u.a.]: North-Holland Publ. Co, 1978. pp23-80. Malia, Gerald A. Maritime Law: The Need for a Comprehensive Maritime Code. Port Washington, N.Y.: Associated Faculty Press, 1983.pp51-72. Maraist, Frank L., Thomas C. Galligan, and Catherine M. Maraist. Maritime Law. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West, 2003. pp33-47. Marsden, Reginald G. A Treatise on the Law of Collisions at Sea: With an Appendix Containing Extracts from the Merchant Shipping Acts, the International Regulations (of 1863 and 1880) for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and Local Rules for the Same Purpose in Force in the Thames, the Mersey, and Elsewhere. Clark, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange, 2004. pp71-94. Read More