WEEK I

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MARITIME LAW

Maritime law has evolved over centuries, shaped by the rise of maritime commerce,
international trade, and the increasing need for uniform legal systems to resolve disputes
between nations.

The earliest known documented maritime laws date back to the Rhodian Sea Laws around
900 B.C. These laws governed fair treatment for merchants and their vessels, particularly in
the Mediterranean. They covered issues such as profit distribution, captain’s liability, crew
regulations, and responsibility for damages to cargo or injuries to seamen. After the decline
of Greece, these laws were adopted by the Romans, especially through the Digest of
Justinian (533 A.D.), which incorporated the Rhodian laws for Mediterranean disputes.

In the 12th century, the Rules of Oleron governed maritime law in Northern Europe,
particularly concerning trade between England and France. These rules, along with the
Consulate of the Sea, a collection of maritime laws used in the Mediterranean, helped create
standard laws for traders from different countries. The Rules of Oleron and the Consulate of
sea established uniform legal frameworks that helped resolve disputes and maintain order in
busy maritime trade routes.

By the 15th century, Visby, a key Baltic Sea port, became an important hub for international
trade. The Rules of Visby (1505), inspired by earlier maritime codes, were used to regulate
trade practices. The Hanseatic League, a powerful confederation of Northern European
merchant cities, also played a role in shaping maritime law, particularly with the Lübeck
Code (1597), which helped standardize maritime practices in the region. However,
nationalism in the 17th century led to the decline of the League.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, European maritime powers, such as Spain, Portugal, and
Britain, began asserting control over international waters. In response, Hugo Grotius, a
Dutch scholar, published Mare Liberum (1608), advocating for the freedom of the seas,
challenging Britain’s exclusive control over waters like the English Channel. Grotius' work
laid the foundation for modern international maritime law, emphasizing that seas should
remain open for trade among all nations.

In England, maritime law was shaped by the Court of Admiralty, which initially handled
Royal Navy disputes. Under Edward I in the late 13th century, the court expanded to cover
commercial maritime disputes, replacing local merchant courts. The Cinque Ports, a group
of towns in southeastern England, played a crucial role in the development of maritme legal
system..

In the American colonies, Vice Admiralty Courts followed English Admiralty law,
handling maritime disputes under the symbol of the Silver Oar. These courts were part of the
English legal system, aligning with the Court of Admiralty in England. After gaining
independence, the U.S. Constitution (1789) established the Admiralty Clause, granting
federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over maritime cases.

In the late 19th and 20th centuries, there was a push to create international rules for shipping
and the use of the sea. The Maritime Law Association of the United States was established in
1899 to promote the development and understanding of maritime law and to improve the
legal framework for the shipping industry in the U.S. the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) was created in 1948 to make global rules for shipping safety and protecting the
environment. In 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was
introduced to improve cooperation between countries on managing the oceans.

WEEK 2

Discuss the concept of 'jurisdiction in rem' and 'jurisdiction in personam' under

Admiralty Law. How do these modes of jurisdiction differ in terms of maritime claims,
and what role do they play in the enforcement of maritime liens and sovereign
immunity? Illustrate your answer with case law examples from both British law and
South Asian jurisdictions

Ans) Jurisdiction in Rem and in Personam under Admiralty Law

Admiralty law deals with legal issues related to ships, navigation, and sea trade. A key part of
admiralty law is deciding which court has the right to handle a case. There are two main types
of court authority: "jurisdiction in rem" and "jurisdiction in personam."

 Jurisdiction in rem means the court has control over a specific ship or sea property.
The court focuses on the ship or property itself.
 Jurisdiction in personam means the court has control over a person or company
involved in the dispute. The court focuses on the people or businesses responsible.

Jurisdiction in Rem

Jurisdiction in rem refers to a court's authority to deal directly with a specific vessel or
maritime property, regardless of the nationality or location of its owner. This means that a
claim can be brought against the vessel itself, and the vessel may be seized or detained to
ensure the satisfaction of the claim, even if the owner is not within the jurisdiction of the
court.

In an in rem action, the subject of the lawsuit is the ship or other maritime property involved
in the dispute. This allows claimants to pursue legal actions and seek remedies for issues such
as damages from accidents, contractual breaches, or maritime liens (such as unpaid wages or
salvage claims), without needing to involve the shipowner directly. The key feature of this
jurisdiction is that the vessel’s physical presence in the jurisdiction is sufficient for the
court to exercise authority over it.

In the case of M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. (1993), the
Supreme Court of India allowed an in rem action against a foreign vessel involved in a
collision, even though the ship’s owner was not in India. The court ruled that the ship itself
could be held responsible for the damages because it was physically present in Indian waters.
This decision confirmed that Indian courts can exercise jurisdiction over foreign vessels in in
rem actions, regardless of the location of the shipowner. The case set an important precedent
for maritime law in India.

in The Bold Buccleugh (1851), the British court upheld the principle of in rem jurisdiction,
allowing a foreign vessel to be arrested for damages even if the ship’s owner was not within
the UK. The case involved a collision between The Bold Buccleugh and The Neptune, where
the owners of The Neptune sought compensation. The court ruled that British courts could
exercise jurisdiction over the vessel itself, regardless of the owner's location. This decision
reinforced the ability of courts to hold ships liable for maritime claims if the vessel is within
their jurisdiction, regardless of the owner’s whereabouts..

Thus, the concept of jurisdiction in rem is an essential tool in admiralty law, allowing
maritime claims to be pursued against a vessel, regardless of the owner’s location, by
focusing on the vessel as the subject of the claim.

Jurisdiction in Personam

In contrast, jurisdiction in personam refers to a court's authority over the individuals or

entities responsible for the maritime dispute, such as the shipowner, charterer, or operator. In
this case, the claim is directed not at the vessel itself but at the person or entity that is
believed to be legally liable for the issue at hand.

This type of jurisdiction is usually used in cases where there are contracts or agreements
between the parties, such as charter party agreements (contracts for renting a ship),
employment disputes, or breach of contract claims between a shipowner and another
party.In an in personam case, the court has the power to take action against a specific person
or company, even if the ship or property isn’t in the jurisdiction. The court can handle the
case in a place where the person being sued has strong connections, such as if they do
business in that area, own property, or have other significant ties there.

For example, if a shipowner and a charterer have a disagreement about a contract, the court
could decide the case in a place where either of them has connections, like an office, assets,
or a business, even if the ship involved is in a completely different location. This makes in
personam jurisdiction useful for resolving disputes between parties based on their
relationships and connections, rather than the location of the ship or property.

In the case of The Indian Grace (No. 2) (2000), the Supreme Court of India applied in
personam jurisdiction in a contractual dispute between shipowners and a charterer, even
though the ship was outside Indian waters. The Court emphasized that the shipowner's
business dealings in India were sufficient to establish jurisdiction over the dispute..

British case law, such as The M/V San Sebastian (1999), further exemplifies this point. In that
case, the British courts exercised in personam jurisdiction over a shipowner based on the
contractual ties between the parties involved, despite the vessel not being located in British
waters. This illustrates how in personam jurisdiction allows courts to adjudicate disputes
based on the legal connections between the parties, not necessarily the location of the vessel.

Maritime Claims and Liens

Maritime liens are legal claimss against a ship for debts, damages, or services provided.
These liens arise when someone supplies goods, services, or labor to a ship, or when the ship
is responsible for damage or other liabilities. A maritime lien gives the person or business
who provided the service a right to take action against the ship itself to recover the owed
amount, even if the shipowner is not directly involved in the case.

Maritime liens are closely related to in rem actions, as they allow a ship to be held
responsible for debts, damages, or services provided, rather than focusing on the shipowner.
When a maritime lien arises the party claiming debt or damage can initiate an in rem action.
This means they can bring a claim directly against the ship itself, even if the ship’s owner is
not present or identifiable in the jurisdiction.

In M.V. Sea Success I v. Owner of the Vessel (2004), the Bombay High Court dealt with a
maritime lien related to unpaid wages owed to seafarers. The Court held that the lien could be
enforced through an in rem action, allowing the arrest of the vessel to satisfy the debt, even if
the shipowner was not within Indian jurisdiction. This case illustrates how Indian courts
apply in rem jurisdiction to enforce maritime liens, particularly in the context of seafarers'
wages, which are a fundamental aspect of maritime claims.

Similarly, in The "Brillante Virtuoso" (2015), the High Court of England and Wales dealt
with a maritime lien for unpaid repair costs. The court ruled that the lien could be enforced
through an in rem action, allowing the ship to be arrested and sold to satisfy the debt, even
though the shipowner was not involved in the case. This case highlights how British courts
apply in rem jurisdiction to enforce maritime liens, particularly for services like repairs
provided to a ship.

Sovereign Immunity

. Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that protects a sovereign state or its vessels from
being sued in the courts of another country without its consent. The principle of sovereign
immunity is founded on the idea that one country should not interfere with the internal
matters of another country, including its vessels engaged in official functions. In the context
of maritime law, this doctrine ensures that foreign government-owned vessels are immune
from legal actions, particularly in rem actions, which target the vessel itself for damages or
debts.

The U.S. Supreme Court case Ex parte in the matter of the United States (257 U.S. 419,
1922) provides a significant example of sovereign immunity in maritime law. In this case, the
Court addressed whether government-owned vessels, engaged in public and military service,
could be subjected to in rem lawsuits for collisions. The Court held that these vessels were
protected by sovereign immunity under the Shipping Act of 1916 and the Suits in
Admiralty Act of 1920. These statutes affirmed that public vessels employed for government
purposes could not be sued for maritime torts unless they were operating as merchant vessels
for commercial purposes.

In conclusion, admiralty law plays a crucial role in addressing legal disputes related to ships,
navigation, and maritime commerce. Jurisdiction in rem and in personam are two key aspects
of this legal framework, with in rem actions focusing on the vessel or maritime property
itself, while in personam actions target individuals or entities responsible for the dispute.
Maritime liens, which allow claims for unpaid debts or damages, are closely tied to in rem
actions, enabling the ship itself to be held liable. Sovereign immunity further complicates
jurisdiction, protecting government vessels from legal action unless they engage in
commercial activities. Key cases, such as M.V. Elisabeth and Ex parte in the matter of the
United States, have shaped the application of these principles in both Indian and British
courts. Ultimately, these legal concepts ensure that maritime disputes are fairly resolved,
balancing the rights of parties involved with the specific circumstances of each case.

WEEK 4

How have international organizations such as UNCTAD, UNCITRAL, INMARSAT, and CMI
contributed to the development and harmonization of maritime law, and what are the key
challenges they face in ensuring global consistency in maritime legal frameworks?

International organizations have played a vital role in shaping and developing maritime law,
facilitating global trade while addressing the complex legal and operational issues of
international shipping. Key organizations such as the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (UNCTAD), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
(UNCITRAL), the International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT), and the
International Maritime Committee (CMI) have been instrumental in the evolution of maritime
legal frameworks. These organizations create conventions, guidelines, and treaties that aim to
harmonize maritime regulations globally, ensuring uniformity and consistency in maritime
law.

UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) has played a significant
role in the development of maritime law, especially in terms of promoting fair and efficient
international trade and addressing evolving issues in global shipping. Though UNCTAD is
not a treaty-making body, it has been instrumental in facilitating and supporting the creation
of international agreements that directly impact maritime law.

One of the most notable contributions of UNCTAD to maritime law is its involvement in the
development of the Hamburg Rules (1978), an international convention aimed at improving
the conditions governing the international carriage of goods by sea. The Hamburg Rules were
a response to the limitations of the previous Hague Rules and Hague-Visby Rules, which
were criticized for being too favorable to shipowners and not offering sufficient protection to
cargo owners. The Hamburg Rules provided a more balanced framework by introducing
provisions for clearer liability of shipowners and increasing compensation rights for cargo
owners. This shift was vital in modernizing international shipping law and promoting equity
in global trade.

Another key contribution of UNCTAD was its role in the development of the Rotterdam
Rules (2008).These are a set of international legal standards governing the carriage of goods
by multimodal transport. They modernized shipping law, enhance carrier liability, introduce
electronic documentation, and provide better protection for cargo owners in global trade.
UNCTAD played a major role in negotiating these rules, which aimed to address the modern
realities of containerization and multimodal transport. The Rotterdam Rules intended to
modernize shipping laws by technological advances and facilitate more integrated global
trade systems.

Moreover, UNCTAD's continuous work in promoting shipping safety, containerization,

and logistics efficiency through studies, conferences, and recommendations has further
shaped maritime law. It has helped establish guidelines that influence global standards for
maritime security, safety, and environmental sustainability.

Case Example: M/S "Solebay" v. S.S. "Sea Galaxy" (1999) In the case of M/S "Solebay"
v. S.S. "Sea Galaxy," the Hamburg Rules were referenced in determining the liability of
shipowners under a bill of lading. The court considered the provisions of the Hamburg Rules
that set out the shipowner's responsibility for cargo damage and the specific terms of the
carrier's liability. This case illustrated the influence of UNCTAD’s legal instruments in
modern shipping disputes.

2. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has made
significant contributions to the development of maritime law by creating frameworks that
enhance legal certainty, efficiency, and fairness in international trade, including shipping and
related activities. UNCITRAL's work primarily focuses on harmonizing and modernizing
laws governing international trade to facilitate smoother global commerce.

One of UNCITRAL's major achievements in maritime law is the development of the

Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by
Sea (the Rotterdam Rules, 2008). This convention aims to create a unified legal framework
for the carriage of goods by sea and multimodal transport, offering a more balanced approach
than previous treaties like the Hague-Visby Rules. It seeks to address challenges arising
from modern containerization, electronic documents, and the need for greater legal certainty
in global trade.

Furthermore, UNCITRAL has contributed to improving dispute resolution in maritime

commerce through the development of model laws, such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration, which is often used in maritime disputes involving
shipping contracts, freight agreements, and other international trade issues.

Case Example: The "Delphin" Case (1993) In the case of Delphin v. MT Warrant, the issue
of carrier liability was determined using principles found in the Hamburg Rules as adopted
by UNCITRAL. The dispute involved the non-delivery of cargo and the responsibilities of
the carrier under the Hamburg Rules. The court's decision reinforced UNCITRAL's approach
of promoting uniformity in international shipping agreements by focusing on clear and
predictable guidelines for carriers and shippers.

3. International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT)

INMARSAT plays a critical role in enhancing maritime safety and communication, which are
vital for the modern shipping industry. The organization's satellite communication services
enable vessels to communicate with shore facilities, governments, and emergency services,
thus ensuring the safety of life at sea and supporting the enforcement of international safety
standards. This role is essential under the International Convention for the Safety of Life
at Sea (SOLAS), which sets mandatory safety standards in the shipping industry.

INMARSAT’s satellite communication technology has led to the improvement of maritime

regulations concerning safety, particularly under SOLAS and other international conventions
that require ships to maintain constant communication in case of distress. INMARSAT’s
contributions help ensure that ships comply with international obligations related to safety
and communication, thereby reducing the risk of maritime accidents.

Case Example: The "Hellenic Seaways" Case (2010) The Hellenic Seaways case involved
the failure of a shipping vessel’s communication system, which led to delays in providing
distress signals during an emergency. The court reviewed the case in light of SOLAS
requirements and determined that the failure to maintain effective communication through
satellite technology, as provided by INMARSAT, violated the international safety standards.
This case underscores the importance of maritime communication systems in ensuring
compliance with international maritime safety regulations.

4. International Maritime Committee (CMI)

The CMI is an influential organization that promotes the unification of maritime law. Its most
notable contribution is the Hague-Visby Rules, which are widely adopted as the primary
legal framework for the carriage of goods by sea. The CMI's work extends to drafting
conventions, organizing international meetings, and supporting legal harmonization in
maritime law.

The CMI has also contributed to the development of the Hamburg Rules and worked on
several conventions that deal with liability, transport, and carriage issues. The CMI’s
consistent efforts in promoting uniformity in maritime law have influenced both national and
international legal systems, ensuring that the rules governing maritime transport are updated
and relevant.

Case Example: The Hague-Visby Rules in "The M/V Rhapsody" Case (2003) In the case
of M/V Rhapsody v. The Cargo Owners (2003), the court referred to the Hague-Visby Rules
when determining the carrier's liability for damage to cargo during transit. The decision was
influenced by the CMI's work in promoting uniform legal standards in maritime transport,
highlighting the global significance of the Hague-Visby framework and its ongoing impact on
maritime legal proceedings.

Conclusion

International organizations such as UNCTAD, UNCITRAL, INMARSAT, and the CMI have
profoundly shaped the development of maritime law by promoting international cooperation
and creating frameworks that harmonize shipping practices globally. Through treaties,
conventions, and guidelines, these organizations address the complex legal, economic, and
safety issues facing the maritime industry. By examining case law such as M/S "Solebay" and
The "Delphin" Case, it is evident that these organizations’ contributions are not only
theoretical but are actively applied in resolving disputes and guiding international legal
practices in maritime law. However, challenges persist in maintaining consistency across
diverse legal systems and ensuring that evolving technologies, such as satellite
communication, continue to meet the changing needs of the industry. Nonetheless, the role of
these organizations remains crucial in fostering a robust and unified legal framework for
global maritime trade

The Comité Maritime International (CMI) was established in 1897, but its origins date back
to the early 1880s when a group of Belgian legal and commercial figures sought to codify
maritime law. These efforts resulted in two diplomatic conferences, one in 1885 and another
in 1888, both hosted by the Belgian government. Though these conferences failed to achieve
the ambitious goal of a comprehensive maritime law codification, they laid the groundwork
for the formation of a specialized organization dedicated to the unification of maritime law.

In 1897, the CMI was formally established, with key figures like Louis Franck, Charles
LeJeune, and Auguste Beernaert instrumental in its creation. These individuals, alongside
Belgian government officials, shipowners, and maritime professionals, sought to continue the
work abandoned by the International Law Association (ILA) after the 1888 conference. The
CMI became the first international organization solely focused on maritime law and its
related commercial practices.

A significant milestone was the CMI’s involvement in drafting conventions that addressed
core maritime issues, such as the Collision Convention of 1910 and the Salvage
Convention. These conventions, along with others like the Hague Rules of 1924, which
standardized rules for bills of lading, contributed to the harmonization of maritime laws
across nations.

Over time, the CMI expanded its remit beyond private law to include public law matters,
particularly with the 1992 revision of its constitution. The CMI has since worked closely with
organizations like IMO, UNCTAD, and UNCITRAL, contributing to key conventions such as
the Rotterdam Rules of 2008.

Today, the CMI continues to play a vital role in shaping global maritime law, with its work
spanning issues like piracy, seafarers' rights, and the legal status of offshore mobile crafts. Its
historical evolution reflects its enduring influence in the global maritime legal landscape.

WEEK 6
International Conventions relating to Maritime Law

How does the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) define the
rights and responsibilities of states regarding the use of the world’s oceans, and how does
it balance the interests of coastal states and landlocked states?

Ans) The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982
and entering into force in 1994, is a comprehensive international treaty that regulates all
aspects of maritime law. It defines the rights and responsibilities of states with respect to the
use of the world's oceans, balancing the interests of coastal and landlocked states in ensuring
sustainable use and cooperation. The Convention is structured to address critical issues such
as sovereignty, navigation, marine resources, environmental protection, and dispute
resolution. Here, we examine the key provisions under UNCLOS concerning both coastal and
landlocked states, with case law examples to illustrate how these principles have been
applied.

1. Rights and Responsibilities of Coastal States

Under UNCLOS, coastal states enjoy several rights regarding the seas adjacent to their
territories. These rights are not absolute and come with responsibilities to ensure equitable
use and protection of marine resources.

a) Territorial Sea
Article 2 of UNCLOS grants coastal states full sovereignty over their territorial sea, which
extends up to 12 nautical miles from their baseline. This sovereignty is subject to the right of
innocent passage, allowing foreign ships to pass through the territorial sea without hindrance,
as long as they do not threaten the peace, security, or order of the coastal state.

Case Example:
In the Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania) (1949), the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) clarified the principle of innocent passage, ruling that the passage of ships
through a state's territorial waters must not harm the peace or security of the state. The case
underscored the balance between a coastal state's rights and the rights of other states to transit
through territorial waters.

b) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

Coastal states also have sovereign rights over their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which
can extend up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline. In the EEZ, coastal states have the
exclusive right to exploit and conserve natural resources, both living (fisheries) and non-
living (oil, gas). However, UNCLOS mandates that coastal states must respect the rights of
other states in matters such as freedom of navigation and overflight.

Case Example:
In the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (1951), the ICJ examined the extent of territorial
waters and rights to fisheries. The Court upheld Norway’s rights to establish its straight
baselines, which included its economic activities within the EEZ, balancing it against
international principles of freedom of fishing.
c) Continental Shelf
Under Article 77, coastal states also have sovereign rights to explore and exploit the
continental shelf, which refers to the seabed and subsoil extending beyond the 200 nautical
miles of the EEZ, provided that the natural prolongation of their land territory is scientifically
demonstrated. States must submit scientific evidence to the Commission on the Limits of
the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to claim extended rights beyond 200 nautical miles.

2. Rights and Responsibilities of Landlocked States

Landlocked states, which have no direct access to the sea, are granted certain rights under
UNCLOS to ensure they are not excluded from international maritime activities.

a) Right of Access to the Sea

Article 125 of UNCLOS guarantees that landlocked states have the right of access to and
from the sea for the purpose of international trade, which includes the right to use the ports
of neighboring coastal states. These coastal states must ensure unimpeded access, which is an
essential aspect of international trade for landlocked states.

Case Example:
In the Landlocked States Case (Bolivia v. Chile, 2018), the ICJ dealt with Bolivia's claim to
sovereign access to the sea. The Court reaffirmed that while landlocked states are entitled to
access the sea, they are not automatically entitled to sovereignty over a portion of a
neighboring state’s territory. The case emphasized the principle of cooperation in providing
access but upheld that no legal obligation exists for territorial transfer.

b) Fisheries and Resource Sharing

Landlocked states, while unable to exploit maritime resources directly, have a right to
participate in the conservation and management of transboundary fish stocks under
UNCLOS. This is especially relevant in regions where resources cross national boundaries,
and international cooperation is necessary for sustainable management.

c) Protection of the Marine Environment

Landlocked states also have responsibilities under UNCLOS to protect and preserve the
marine environment. They are required to cooperate with coastal states and other nations in
preventing marine pollution and conserving marine biodiversity, even if they do not have
direct access to the seas.

3. Balancing Interests of Coastal and Landlocked States

UNCLOS strikes a careful balance between the rights of coastal states, which have
sovereignty over their territorial seas and EEZs, and landlocked states, which are granted
access to the sea for trade and resource sharing.

a) Equitable Access and Cooperation

UNCLOS emphasizes that states, whether coastal or landlocked, must cooperate in the
equitable use of the sea’s resources. Coastal states must grant landlocked states transit rights
through their territory or neighboring ports for trade. At the same time, landlocked states
must respect the rights of coastal states, such as the right to regulate activities in their
maritime zones.
b) Freedom of Navigation
A core principle of UNCLOS is the freedom of navigation (Article 87), which ensures that
ships of all nations, regardless of whether they are landlocked or coastal, have the right to
navigate the high seas. This principle is vital for landlocked states to engage in international
trade, as it allows them to use the high seas for transporting goods.

Case Example:
In the North Sea Continental Shelf Case (1969), the ICJ addressed the issue of equitable
sharing of the continental shelf's resources. While the decision primarily focused on
delimitation, it reflected the balance of interests between coastal and landlocked states in
managing transboundary resources.

Conclusion

In conclusion, UNCLOS defines a clear framework that balances the rights and
responsibilities of coastal and landlocked states, facilitating international cooperation and
ensuring sustainable use of marine resources. Coastal states enjoy sovereignty over their
territorial seas and EEZs, with the obligation to protect marine environments and cooperate
internationally. Landlocked states are guaranteed access to the sea for trade and resource
sharing, while both categories of states are bound to cooperate in the conservation of marine
resources. UNCLOS has provided a foundation for resolving maritime disputes through
peaceful means, as evidenced by several key cases before the ICJ.

Q) What are the key provisions of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution
Damage (CLC), and how do they help ensure compensation for victims of marine oil spill?

ANS) The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC),
adopted in 1969 and amended by the 1992 Protocol, is a key international treaty designed to
ensure that victims of marine oil pollution caused by oil tankers receive compensation. The
Convention places strict liability on the shipowner, ensuring quick and effective
compensation for damages resulting from oil spills.

Key Provisions:

1. Strict Liability of Shipowner: Under Article 3 of the CLC, the shipowner is strictly
liable for oil pollution damage caused by the discharge of oil from their vessel. This
means that the shipowner is responsible for compensation regardless of fault, though
defenses are available (e.g., damage caused by war, natural disasters, or third-party
actions).
2. Limit of Liability: Article 4 establishes a liability limit based on the size of the ship.
The amount varies depending on the gross tonnage of the vessel, ensuring that the
compensation is proportional to the potential scale of damage.
3. Insurance Requirement: Article 7 mandates that shipowners must maintain
insurance or financial security to cover their liability, ensuring that funds are available
for compensation in case of an oil spill.
4. Compensation Fund: The 1992 Protocol introduced a Supplementary Fund (the
International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, or IOPC Fund), which provides
additional compensation if the shipowner's liability is insufficient to cover the full
extent of the damage.
Case Law:

In M/V "Prestige" Case (2008), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)
ruled that Spain’s claim against the shipowner for pollution damage was valid under the
CLC, reinforcing the responsibility of shipowners for oil spill damages. This case highlighted
the importance of the CLC in ensuring that affected states and communities receive
compensation for the environmental damage caused by marine oil spills.

In conclusion, the CLC ensures prompt and sufficient compensation for oil pollution victims
by making shipowners strictly liable and requiring insurance, with the supplementary fund
acting as a safety net for higher compensation needs.