charter registration

8/15/2019 Charter Registration

1/25

Author: Gabriela ArgüelloTitle: Bareboat Charter Registration: A Practice in the Maritime World that is aimed to StayAffiliation: Lund University

María Gabriela Argüello Moncayo

Bareboat charter registration:

A practice in the maritime world that is aimed to stay

October 2011


2/25

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11.1. Delimitation and purpose ................................................................................... 1

2. Essential notions underlying ship registration ..................................................... 2

2.1. Nationality: concept and rationale ...................................................................... 2

2.2. Registration ........................................................................................................ 3

2.2.1. Categories of registries .................................................................................... 4

2.2.1.1. Closed registry......................................................................................... 4

2.2.1.2. Open registry ........................................................................................... 5

2.2.1.3. Second and international registries ......................................................... 6

2.3. Genuine link ....................................................................................................... 6

3. Bareboat charter registration: concept and origin .............................................. 8

3.1. Potential difficulties in the system of bareboat charter registration ...................... 9

3.1.1. Dual register, parallel register, or registry at all? ............................................ 9

3.1.2. Lack of uniformity of bareboat charter registration ...................................... 10

3.1.3. The United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships,

1986, in relation to bareboat charter registration..................................................... 11

3.1.4. The mortgagees’ position and the International Convention on Maritime

Liens and Mortgages, 1993 ..................................................................................... 12

3.2. Benefits of bareboat charter registration .............................................................. 14

4. National experiences of bareboat charter registration ...................................... 16

4.1. Ecuador ................................................................................................................ 16

4.2. The Philippines .................................................................................................... 18

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 20BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................... 21

TABLE OF CASES ...................................................................................................... 23


3/25

Author: Gabriela ArgüelloTitle: Bareboat Charter Registration: A Practice in the Maritime World that is aimed to StayAffiliation: Lund University

1

1. IntroductionSovereign States must regulate legal relationships, people and property that are under their

power and jurisdiction.1

In fact, some principles are used to establish State jurisdiction, suchas nationality.2 The word nationality evokes romanticism because it is frequently associated

with individuals, patriotism, sacred symbols, and strong sentiments of respect and love to a

nation, a particular culture, or society. However, in legal terms, nationality is a “political

status,”3 that represents a connection with a specific State that governs the nationals’ rights

and obligations.4 Furthermore, not only individuals, but also ships and aircrafts have

nationality.

Ship’s nationality is “generally apparent from the flag it flies.”5

This statement iscontained in article 5 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958, and article 91 of the

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. Furthermore, nationality is usually

granted through registration. In fact, registration is the “entry of a matter in the public

records.”6 So, a main question arises: can a vessel fly the flag of a different State while it is

registered in a previous State? Prima facie the answer is negative. Indeed, a vessel may only

have one nationality; otherwise, it would be assimilated as a stateless ship.7 Nevertheless, in

the maritime practice exists a fascinating system of registration for bareboat-chartered

vessels, in which a temporary use of the flag of a second State is allowed. 8 This system has

revolutionized the understanding of registration and its functions. Moreover, it is a powerful

instrument for aspiring maritime countries to increase their fleets, and it represents a strong

economic incentive for ship owners and charterers.

1.1. Delimitation and purposeThis essay principally discusses the regime of bareboat charter registration. The topic is

developed in three sections. The first section, very briefly, deals with essential concepts that

1 See Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 6th edition, Cambridge, 2008, Chapter 12: Jurisdiction, p. 645.2 See ibid for an explanation of other principles of State jurisdiction, such as the territoriality, universality, passive, and protective principle; and, treaties that provide for jurisdiction, pp. 647 – 683.3 P. North, J.J. Fawcett and G.C. Cheshire, Private International Law, 13th edition, Butterworths, London, 1999, p. 159.4 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, p. 660.5 Thor Falkanger, Hans Jacob Bull, and Lasse Brautaset, Scandinavian maritime law – The Norwegian perspective, 2nd edition, Universitetsforlaget, 2004, p. 48.6 Nigel Ready, Ship Registration,3rd edition, Lloyd’s of London Press, 1998, p. 6.7 See Edgar Gold, Aldo Chircop, and Hugh Kindred, Maritime Law, Toronto, Irwin Law, 2003, pp. 176 – 180. Note theauthors’ explanation about stateless ships as vessels “without protection that may be visited and boarded on the high seas by

the warships of any state.” See also, article 6 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958 and article 92 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.8 Nigel Ready, Ship Registration, pp. 39 - 48.


4/25

2

underlie ship registration, such as the rationale of nationality and its relationship with

registration, and the definition of genuine link. The second section presents the origin,

benefits, and potential pitfalls of bareboat charter registration. Finally, a third section is

dedicated to the analysis of the practice of bareboat charter registration in two developing

countries: Ecuador and the Phillipines.

The main purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that bareboat charter registration is a

beneficial commercial and legal practice that has been broadly embraced not only by open

registries, like Panama, but also by traditional maritime nations like the United Kingdom, and

aspiring maritime countries as Ecuador.

2. Essential notions underlying ship registration2.1. Nationality: concept and rationale

According to Professor Mukherjee, nationality is a substantive matter.9 Indeed, it is the link

between a ship and a particular State that establishes their reciprocal rights and obligations.

Therefore, nationality must not be confused with the bureaucratic or administrative process,

called registration, through which a State grants its nationality to a ship. In fact, in some

jurisdictions like Canada, owners of vessels not exceeding 15 gross tons have no obligation to

register them,10 but those vessels are Canadian. On the other hand, in Ecuador all ships, no

matter their size or tonnage, must be registered to be considered as Ecuadorians.11 In regard

to nationality, two main doubts arise: Why a ship has nationality and how is this link

determined?

Chattels and immovable property do not have nationality. So, what makes a ship

different? According to Professor Gold, nationality reflects “the territorial or quasi territorial

nature of ships.”12 In other words, the author adheres to the doctrine presented in The SS

Lotus case that defines a ship as a floating part of territory.13 However, this statement is not

accurate. Indeed, vessels have the right of freedom of navigation on the high seas, where no

claim of sovereignty can be proclaimed according to article 2 of the Geneva Convention on

the High Seas, 1958, and article 89 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,

9 Proshanto K. Mukherjee, Ship registration lecture, Lund University, 12 November 2010. 10 Edgar Gold, Aldo Chircop, and Hugh Kindred, Maritime Law, p. 179.11 See, article 123 of the Maritime Police Code, Suplemento del Registro Oficial No. 1202, 20 August, 1960, visited on 14 December 2010 at 18:36. Note that Registro Oficial is the Ecuadorian bulletin,which contains all the legislation and judicial decisions of the State. Only when a law, decree or regulation is published in

this bulletin, that legislation will enter into force.12 Edgar Gold, Aldo Chircop, and Hugh Kindred, Maritime Law, p. 177.

13 See The SS Lotus (France/Turkey), 1927, PCIJ, Series A, No. 10.

http://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.php


5/25

3

1982.14 In consequence, nationality is a ground of jurisdiction over the ship, as a unit ,

because on the high seas “they are property where no local jurisdiction exists.”15 For this

reason, article 6 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958, and article 92 of the

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, provide that flag States have

exclusive control and jurisdiction over their vessels on the high seas.

Complementary, the conditions to grant nationality must be established exclusively by

each State for it is a “domestic affair .”16 This approach is precise, and it was explained in

Lauritzen v Larsen. In this case, the United States’ Supreme Court stated: “[e]ach State under

international law may determine for itself the conditions on which it will be grant its

nationality to a merchant ship, thereby accepting responsibility for it and acquiring authority

over it.”17 In fact, conditions for nationality are a matter of sovereignty and domestic

jurisdiction, which cannot be impinged according to article 2 (7) of the United Nations

Charter. Furthermore, article 5 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958, and article

91 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, prescribe that every “State

shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships.”

Once a ship has been granted with a nationality, it must fly the flag of that particular

State. Also, as mentioned before, a vessel must have only one nationality. Hence, the flag is a

“visual evidence and a symbol of a ship’s nationality”,18 but is not a synonym of it. Finally,

as Professor Colombos explains, “[t]he possession of nationality is the basis for the

intervention and protection by a State”19 because a flag State acquires the responsibility to

exercise control and jurisdiction20 over the ships that are entitled to fly its flag, and the ships

are protected by that particular State under international law.

2.2. Registration

Registration is a procedure,21 an administrative function “by which nationality and collateral

rights and duties are conferred to a ship.”22 Although registration is different from nationality,

14 See article 2 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958. , visited on 16 December 2010 at15:45. See also articles 89 of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, 1982,, visited on 16 December 2010 at 15:49.15 John Colombos, The International Law of the Sea, 6th revised edition, Longman Green & Co. Ltd, 1967, p. 285. Note thaton the high seas, a concurrent jurisdiction may arise, when the coastal States intervene in cases of oil pollution on the highseas. Further, the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag States is relative due the doctrine of hot pursuit, trade of slaves, amongothers. See Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, pp. 614-618.16 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, pp. 647 – 649.17 Lauritzen v Larsen (1953), 345, United States Supreme Court, 571.18 Nigel Ready, Ship Registration, p. 6.19 John Colombos, The International Law of the Sea, p.289. Note the author’s explanation about different scenarios of

concurrent jurisdictions and the position of the vessels in territorial waters and ports, pp. 306-331.20 Supra footnote 14. See the duties of the Flag State in article 94 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

21 Supra footnote 9.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdf


6/25

4

the former is the most important test for the latter.23 Furthermore, registration provides

evidence of the owner’s title. However, it is important to bear in mind that evidence is not

equivalent of proof. Additionally, the priority between proprietary rights, like mortgages or

hypothèques, is given through registration.24 Hence, registration deals with private and public

law functions25 that were summarized in the Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner:

“The Cour t emphasized two points relating to registration. First, it is the interest of the nationsof the world that it should be clearly known and recognized who shall be entitled to the

privileges of a British ship, and, secondly, the object is to determine … what should be proper evidence of title to maritime property.”26

Thus, registration has implications not only for the flag State, but also for the owners, the

mortgagees, and the public.

2.2.1. Categories of registries

2.2.1.1. Closed registry Registration of ships can be traced back to the Roman Empire. 27 Later in history, registration

became compulsory because the maritime powers, such as France or the United Kingdom

wanted to preserve the commercial benefits of their trade routes in favor of their nationals.28

For instance, under the Navigations Acts of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, a ship

built in the United Kingdom, and owned by British citizens was considered British, and its

registration was obligatory.29 This kind of restricted registry cannot coexist with the demands

of the contemporary shipping industry that is international in nature. In fact, a ship’s engine

or hull may be built in different countries, and the ship itself may be assembled in a diverse

location. In addition, companies or its subsidiaries generally own ships, and the beneficial

owners, usually do not share the same nationality, are not easily identifiable or amenable to a

certain jurisdiction.

At the present, registries are not generally compulsory anymore. In fact, they are

privileges or entitlements30 because a person or an entity must fulfill certain conditions to be

22 Z. Oya Özçayir, Liability for oil pollution and collisions, Lloyds of London Press, Honk Kong, 1998, p. 7.23 Ibid , p. 6. Note that “[i]n international texts and treaties the terms ‘registration’ and ‘nationality’ are often apposed. Thus,in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the ships of a State are referred … by expressions ‘vessel of itsregistry’ ‘vessel flying its flag’ or ‘vessels having the nationality’.” 24 Christopher Hill, Maritime Law, 6th edition, Lloyd’s of London Press, Hong Kong, 2003 , pp. 28-31.25 See ibid, p.27. In the United Kingdom, vessels registered under the ‘small ship register’ do not benefit of the private lawfunctions of registration. In other words, mortgages cannot be registered. See also infra p. 10 for a detailed explanation of the functions of registration.26 Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner (1860) 29, Law Journal Reports, Ch, 827.27 Z. Oya Özçayir, Liability for oil pollution and collisions, p.5.28 Nigel Ready, Ship Registration, p. 10.29 Ibid. 30 Christopher Hill, Maritime Law, pp. 9-10.


7/25


8/25


9/25

7

Actually, article 5 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958, provides that

“[t]here must exist a genuine link between the State and the ship; in particular, the State must

effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters

over ships flying its flag.” This provision is also contained in articles 91 (1) and 94 (1) of the

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. Therefore, genuine link is the

effective jurisdiction of a State over its vessels, and beneficial ownership is not the link

provided by these legal provisions. This view can be summarized as follows:

“Some countries, for example the United States, maintain that … ‘genuine link’ really only

amounts to a duty to exercise jurisdiction over the ship in a efficacious matter, and it is not a precondition for the grant, or the acceptance by other states of the grant of nationality.”

45 (Emphasis mine)

Further, in the IMCO case, the International Court of Justice was consulted about the

meaning of “largest ship-owning nations.”46

This definition was necessary to constitute theInter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization’s Committee. The Court stressed

that ship-owning nations refer to the States’ registered tonnage and not to the beneficial

owners of the ships. Although this decision does not define genuine link, it demonstrates that

ship registration, and therefore, ship nationality is not a synonym of beneficial ownership.

On the other hand, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNCTAD’s report of 1981 on open registries remarked that genuine link relates with the

identification and accountability of shipowners for this provides an economic link betweenthe vessel and the flag State.47 For this reason, the economic link was introduced in the

United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships, 1986, which establishes,

for ships registration, the participation of nationals as owners, or crew, or both.48 The failure

of entering into force of this Convention reflects that States are not willing to renounce their

sovereignty regarding to their exclusive jurisdiction to set the conditions for the grant of

nationality to ships. This exclusive jurisdiction was recognized in the M/V Saiga (No. 2)

case.49 Furthermore, ‘economic link’ is a vague term because a ship may have an economic

connection whether with the shipyard where it was built, or with the State that levies taxes on

the income derived from a ship operation. Overall, the lack of interest to bring the

45 Christopher Hill, Maritime Law, p. 612.46 IMCO case, (1960) ICJ Rep., p. 150.47 Z. Oya Özçayir, Liability for oil pollution and collisions, p. 52.48 See articles 7,8,9 and 10 of the United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships, 1986, , visited on 22 December 2010 at 18:17.49 M/V Saiga (No.2) case (St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) (1999), ITLOS Reports 10, 120 I.L.R. 143. Note the

Court statement about genuine link: “the need for a genuine link between a ship and its flag State is to secure more effectiv eimplementation of the duties of the flag State, and not to establish criteria by reference to which the validity of theregistration of ships in a flag State may be challenged by other States.”

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdf


10/25

8

Convention into ‘life’ reveals that the efforts to identify genuine link with ownership are

fruitless. Thus, genuine link is neither beneficial ownership nor a precondition for the validity

of registration.

3. Bareboat charter registration: concept and originOpen, close, international, and second registries show that ship registration evolves according

to political and economic interests of flag States and the tendencies in the shipping industry.

Indeed, bareboat charter registration is an innovation through which a “vessel registered in

one State is permitted to fly the flag of a second State for a determinate period.”50 To

understand the rationale of this registry one must bear in mind that bareboat charter is a lease.

In particular, Evans LJ, in The Giuseppe di Vittorio, explained that the charterer receives

from the owner the possession and control of the ship, so the charterer becomes the employer

of the crew and the master.51 For this reason, the charterer is treated like a temporary owner

or owner pro hac vice.52 By the possession and control of a ship, the bareboat charterer may

even register the vessel in another State while the pr imary registry is “cancelled or

suspended.”53 The extent of the suspension or cancellation of the first registry, the

consequences, and benefits of ‘flagging in’ or ‘flagging out’ are discussed below.

The modern practice of bareboat charter registration originated in Germany54 as an

attempt to increase its fleet. The law of the flag of 1951 allowed a vessel to fly the German’s

flag temporarily, if a German charterer operated and controlled that ship, and the charterer

complied with the labour regulations of Germany.55 Also, the primary registry should not be

opposed to the change of flag.56 Hence, this law enhanced the participation of national crew

in bareboat-chartered vessels and was an incentive to strength the State as a maritime power.

Furthermore, according to Dr. Kröger, the notion of bareboating in was complemented

with bareboating out. In the latter scenario, a German ownership was exempted to register its

vessel in Germany, if the ship was “operated from another country and that other country …

grants the vessel the right to fly its flag for the period during it is operated from abroad. ”57

The ‘flagging out’ practice is advantageous for the owner, the charterer, and the ‘flagging in’

50 Nigel Ready, Ship Registration, p. 39.51 The Giuseppe di Vittorio case (1998) 1, Lloyd’s Rep. 136. 52 International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, areport of the Symposium, 1987, p. 3.53 Supra footnote 50.54 Supra footnote 52, p.455 Ibid.56 Ibid.57 Ibid, p.5.


11/25

9

State. For instance, the owner can preserve some benefits, such as subsidies;58 the charterer

benefits of lower crew costs;59 and the ‘flagging in’ State may become a maritime State, like

the Philippines, by increasing its fleet and providing crew.

3.1. Potential difficulties in the system of bareboat charter registration

3.1.1. Dual register, parallel register, or registry at all?

The legal nature of bareboat charter registration is confusing and it is commonly referred as

dual or parallel registration. Those appellatives represent a misunderstanding between the

public and private law functions of registration and the lack of uniformity in the international

field about this system. Moreover, dual or parallel registration implies that a ship is registered

in two different States, and therefore, it is subject to different jurisdictions, and ultimately hasmore than one nationality. Dr. de Alba supports that the term ‘dual registration’ must not be

used because it would reflect that a vessel is “subject to the whole array of privileges and

obligations of both countries … and entitling the shipowner or the charterer … to fly the flag

of either country at will.”60 Thus, the objective of bareboat charter registration is not to

duplicate the registry of a vessel because it contravenes article 6 of the Geneva Convention

on the High Seas, 1958, and article 92 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the

Sea, 1982. These articles provide that a ship that flies more than one flag according to its

convenience will be considered as a stateless ship.

Additionally, Dr. Ehlermann considers that this system is not a matter of registration

because the original registry is maintained while a second State allows the vessel to fly

temporarily its flag.61 So, a distinction between registry and flag is necessary. However, this

proposal is misleading. First, registration is a procedure through which a ship’s nationality is

granted. Second, the flag is only a prima facie evidence of a ship’s nationality.62 Hence, a

ship is entitled to fly the flag of a State because a nationality has been granted to that vessel,

generally through registration.63 Consequently, bareboat charter registration is actually a ship

registration.

58 Ibid.59 Supra footnote 48.60 International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, p. 3.61 Ibid p. 4.62 Supra footnote 18.63 Note that nationality is not a synonym of registration because the latter may not be compulsory for certain vessels

regarding its type or size. For example, in Norway, State owned vessels and ships less than fifteen meters are exempt of obligatory registration. However, those vessels are Norwegian. Thor Falkanger, Hans Jacob Bull, and Lasse Brautaset.Scandinavian maritime law – The Norwegian perspective, p. 55.


12/25

10

In conclusion, this unique scheme of ship registration does not duplicate a vessel

registry because the functions of the ‘flagging in’ and ‘flagging out’ States are different. In

fact, Dr. Kröger clarifies that bareboat charter registration “only divides up the public law and

private law functions of the ship’s register.”64 The ‘flagging in’ State is involved with the

grant of nationality to a vessel, so this State must exercise the public law functions of

registration. Professor Ready describes the following public law functions of ship’s register :

a) exclusive control and jurisdiction over a vessel in administrative, social and technical

matters; b) naval protection; c) diplomatic protection; d) regulation of activities in territorial

waters, like cabotage; e) the right to fly the national flag; and f) application of rules of war

and neutrality to a ship.65 On the other hand, the law of the ‘flagging out’ State should govern

the validity of the proprietary rights and priorities between mortgages, hypothèques, and other

charges.66 If the ‘flagging out’ State maintains the private law functions of registration, it will

provide for instance, security to the mortgagees67 because they will not be subject to a foreign

law that could affect their rights.

Overall, the ‘flagging out’ State must cancel or suspend the public law functions of

registration while a vessel is registered in the ‘flagging in’ State, which will be responsible of

the ship. However, the general practice among the States is far away from being uniform as it

is discussed below.

3.1.2. Lack of uniformity of bareboat charter registration

Flag States, in exercise of their sovereignty, establish the conditions to grant nationality to a

ship. Thus, the practice of bareboat charter registration between States that permit ships

‘flagging in’ and/or ‘flagging out’ differs in each jurisdiction. Also, these differences reflect

that many jurisdictions do not distinguish among the public and private law functions of

registration. For example, in Australia, bareboat charter registration is considered a new

registration and the primary registry must be cancelled.68 Furthermore, in Ecuador, the

legislation is silent about the proper law that will govern the proprietary interests of a

bareboat-chartered vessel – hypothèques and mortgages – , and there is no provision regarding

64 International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, p. 6.See that according Dr, Kröger the division of the public and private law functions of registration “does not result, in themeaning of international public law, in a dual registration.” 65 Nigel Ready, Ship Registration, p. 7.66 Note that the applicable law of maritime liens is controversial because those ‘privileges’ can be understood as asubstantive matter or just as remedial or procedural. In the former case, the lex causae applies and in the latter scenario, the

lex fori is the applicable law. See Christopher Hill, Maritime Law, pp. 119-128.67 Nigel Ready, Ship Registration, pp. 45-48.68 Proshanto K. Mukherjee, Flagging options: Legal and Other Considerations, Mariner, Jan/Mar, 1993, p. 36.


13/25

11

the suspension or cancellation of the public law functions of the ‘flagging out’ State.69 In

addition, Professor Mukherjee explains that some ‘flagging in’ States re-record charges like

mortgages and hypothèques, and this practice could threaten these proprietary rights and may

be contradictory with the law of the ‘flagging out’ State.70 However, double recordation is

justified if it is only used for information purposes, so the public and the individuals

interested in a ship can be fully aware of its charges.

States like Cyprus and Panama differentiate the public and private law functions of

registration. In these cases, mortgages, charges, or encumbrances will be subject to the law of

the ‘flagging out’ State.71 Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the Merchant Shipping Act of

1995 establishes “that private law provisions for registered ships (which basically deals with

bills of sale and mortgages) do not apply to bareboat chartered-in ships.”72 All in all, bareboat

charter registration requires compatibility between the legislation73 of the ‘flagging in’ and

‘flagging out’ State in order to avoid conflicts.

3.1.3. The United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of

Ships, 1986, in relation to bareboat charter registration

Although it is improbable that the United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration

of Ships, 1986, will enter into force, its provisions concerning bareboat charter registration

are relevant to demonstrate that this system does not involve dual registration. Consequently,

the risk of a ship to be subject to several jurisdictions can be avoided. Article 2 of this

Convention differentiates between ‘f lag State’ and ‘State of registration’. In fact, flag State is

defined like the “State whose flag a ship flies and is entitled to fly” and the State of

registration is the “State in whose register of ships a ship has been entered.”74 The distinction

between flag State and State of registration resembles the misleading proposition of Dr.

Ehlermann who supported that bareboat charter is not a matter of ship registration rather than

a “question of flying a flag”.75 Nonetheless, it is important to bear in mind that two States can

exercise different functions about a vessel in order to facilitate bareboat charter registration.

69 See article 9 of the Law for the Strengthening and Development of Aquatic Transport and Related Activities, RegistroOficial No.204, 5 November 2003, visited on 26 December 2010 at 22:19.70 Supra footnote 67.71 International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, p. 7.72 Christopher Hill, Maritime Law, p 18.73 Proshanto K. Mukherjee, Flagging options: Legal and Other Considerations, p. 37.74 See supra footnote 48, article 2 of the United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships, 1986.75 International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, p. 3.

Cf. Mr. Maitland opinion about the distinction between flag State and State of registration: “in the case of bareboat charter registration a vessel may be ‘registered’ in more than one State, and that therefore ‘State of registration’ may mean either

such State. But it may fly only one flag.” p. 11.



14/25

12

Finally, it is more appropriate to use expressions, such as ‘flagging in’, ‘chartering in’,

‘flagging out’, or ‘chartering out’ to avoid possible confusions between registration,

nationality, flag, and documentation.

According to article 11 of the Convention, a ship shall be registered in the “name of

the owner or … the bareboat charterer ” (emphasis mine) because the latter is considered the

owner pro hac vice.76 Furthermore, paragraph 5 prescribes:

“[i]n the case of a ship bareboat chartered-in a State should assure itself that right to fly the flag of the former flag State is suspended . Such registration shall be effected on production of evidence,indicating suspension of previous registration as regards the nationality of the ship under the

former flag State and indicating particulars of any registered encumbrances.”77 (Emphasis mine)

This fundamental provision reinforces the idea that the ‘flagging out’ State withdraws

temporarily the nationality of a bareboat-chartered ship. Thus, the ship will only have one

nationality because the ‘flagging in’ State must be satisfied that the nationality, and therefore,

the right to fly the flag of the primary registry, are suspended. Moreover, article 12 (4)

prescribes that the ‘flagging in’ State should exercise jurisdiction and control over the

registered vessel. In other words, the ‘flagging out’ State cannot implement the public law

functions of registration.

The United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships, 1986, does

not establish the proper law that should govern the charges of a bareboat-chartered ship. Mr.

Maitland maintains that it is implicit from the Convention that “all those encumbrancesrecorded in the State of ‘original registration’ shall remain in full force and effect”.78

Nevertheless, the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993, which

will be examined below, eliminates the doubts that may arise about the protection of ship’s

charges.

3.1.4. The mortgagees’ position and the International Convention on

Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993

The success of bareboat charter registration rests on the effective protection of a ship’s

encumbrances in order to avoid flag changes that could be detrimental, for example, to the

mortgagees. In this sense, the International Chamber of Commerce remarked that mortgages

should be subject to the law of the original registry. Otherwise, not only their priority, but

76 See supra footnote 48, article 12 (3) of the United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships, 1986.77 Ibid , article 11 (5).78 International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, p.

11.


15/25

13

their validity could be impaired.79 For instance, in England, registration of mortgages is a

mechanism to establish priority between them, but the lack of registration does not invalidate

these charges.80 On the other hand, according to the regional legislation of the Andean

Community -Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru-, the registration of maritime hypothèques

determines the validity and the priority of these encumbrances.81 Thus, if a hypothèque is not

registered, it does not exist and cannot be enforced. These differences among States’

legislation require that the mortgages remain subject to the law of the ‘flagging out’ State.

For this reason, the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages,

1993,82 which entered into force on 5 September 2004, deals with the temporary change of

flag of a vessel. In fact, article 16 (a) provides that ‘State of registration’ is the ‘flagging out’

State. Further, paragraph (b) establishes that “[t]he law of the State of registration shall be

determinative for the purpose of recognition of registered mortgages, "hypothèques" and

charges.” Finally, paragraph (d) prescribes:

“[n]o State Party shall permit a vessel registered in that State to fly temporarily the flag of another State unless all registered mortgages, "hypothèques" or charges on that vessel have been

previously satisfied or the written consent of the holders of all such mortgages,"hypothèques" or charges has been obtained.”

This fundamental article clarifies that the private law functions of registration should be

exercised by the ‘flagging out’ State. Additionally, the mortgagees’ rights are protected

because, prior to the change of flag, ship’s encumbrances must be satisfied or the holders of these proprietary rights have to give their consent to the change of flag. Hence, this

Convention is a significant effort to reach uniformity about bareboat charter registration, and

to enhance it with an effective protection of ships’ encumbrances.

Furthermore, Professor Hill explains that encumbrances’ registration is a “notice to all

the world,”83 but in the case of bareboat charter registration a question arises: how third

parties have notice of a ships’ charges? Indeed, States that allow this system have taken

different approaches. For instance, St. Vincent and the Grenadines has a system of ‘dualnotice’84 because the ship’s encumbrances that are registered in the ‘flagging out’ State must

79 Ibid, p. 35.80 Christopher Hill, Maritime Law, p. 29.81 See article 3 of the Andean Community’s Decision No. 487: Maritime claims, Maritime Hypothèques, Privileges andArrest of Ships, Registro Oficial No. 259, 5 February 2001, visited on 29 December 2010 at17:07.82 See International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993, visited on 29 December 2010, at17:15.83 Supra footnote 78.84 International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, p.36.



16/25

14

be recorded also in St. Vincent and the Grenadines85 while the ship is flagging into this State.

However, this re-recordation must be used only for information purposes in order to avoid

conflicts about the proper law and priorities between ships’ charges. In this sense, the

International Chamber of Commerce recommends to avoid double recordation.86 In contrast,

Panama does not require any encumbrances’ re-recordation.87 The solution to the problem of

notice and enforceability of mortgages against third parties is that the ‘flagging in’ State has a

reference identifying the ship88 and the ‘flagging out’ State. This way, third parties may

examine the underlying registry. Indeed, article 16 (c) of the International Convention on

Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993, establishes cross-reference entries to identify in each

register, which States are involved in bareboat charter registration.

3.2. Benefits of bareboat charter registration

Bareboat charter registration has been often characterized as “flags of convenience through

the back door.”89 Benefits for the bareboat charterers include for example, lower crew costs

in the ‘flagging in’ State. In addition, this system allows the registration of foreign owned

vessels. However, Professor Ademuni-Odeke explains that although a vessel is foreign

owned, it is not “necessarily foreign controlled”.90 For example, the charterer of a ship

bareboated into the United Kingdom has to fulfill the same conditions of qualified owners of

British ships (e.g. being a British citizen).91 Additionally, crew costs are economic

advantages that are beneficial not only to the charterers, but also to the ‘flagging in’ States

that promote the employment of local seafarers. In this sense, traditional maritime States like

the United Kingdom adopted this registration system. In fact, Antigua and Barbuda,

Australia, the Bahamas, Cyprus, Ecuador,92 France, Germany, Italy, Liberia, Mexico,

Panama, Poland, the Philippines, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Spain, Sri Lanka and

85 Nigel Ready, Ship Registration, p. 47.86 International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, p.38.87 Nigel Ready, Ship Registration, p. 47.88 Note that “vessels bareboated into the Philippines must be registered there under a Philippine name. This often results inthe same ship having two names. If the vessel’s document … contains no reference to her original name or indeed to theState of primary registry … there is an obvious danger that third parties will not be able to obtain notice of encumbrancesrecorded in the State or registration. In this situation, the question must arise as to the enforceability of mortgages againstthird parties who have no notice, actual or constructive, of their existence.” Nigel Ready, Ship Registration, p. 45.89 Ademuni-Odeke, The National and International Legal Regimes of Bareboat Charter Registrations, Ocean Development& International Law, Vol. 28, No. 4 January 1997, pp. 329-368, visited on 30 December 2010 at 10:08, p. 331.90 Ibid, p. 335.91 Christopher Hill, Maritime Law, p. 18.92 Note that Ecuador only regulates vessels ‘flagging in’, but there is no legislation about Ecuadorian vessels ‘flagging out’.See supra footnote 69: Law for the Strengthening and Development of Aquatic Transport and Related Activities .


17/25

15

Vanuatu93 have adopted legislation regarding vessels ‘flagging’ in and/or ‘flagging out.’

Thus, bareboat charter registration is not a synonym of open registries.

The increasing popularity of bareboat charter registration is a reflection of its

advantages. First, bareboat charter registration facilitates ships’ finance. At present, ships are

big, sophisticated and expensive, so banking institutions are required to finance vessels’

investment and operation. In this case, the vessels will be subject to a bareboat charter

because it is not “the bank business to manage ships.”94 Moreover, the International Chamber

of Commerce recognizes that bareboat charter registration supports the internationalization of

shipping business because vessels’ ownership is multinational and based in joint ventures

between developed and developing countries.95 For instance, the system makes capital

available in developing nations while ship owners can decrease operational costs of ships.

Thus, bareboat charter registration is the response to the requirements of the shipping

industry to improve its competitiveness.

For ‘flagging in’ States, bareboat charter registration is an opportunity to enhance its

fleet or to become significant maritime nations. Indeed, it is a mechanism to increase the fleet

and the welfare of a State because it promotes employment and specialization of local

seafarers.96 Further , a ‘flagging in’ State will increase its income, for instance, by levying

taxes from the ship’s operation. Moreover, the technology, know how, and expertise involved

in the shipping industry requires an enormous amount of economic resources that many

aspiring maritime States, as Ecuador, do not have. However, bareboat charter registration

enables the transfer of capital, and manning skills97 of ships. Therefore, developing nations

can gain economic independence from developed maritime nations and their shipping

industries by developing its own fleet.

Finally, the charterer could benefit from lower crew costs, tax incentives, and new

markets while retaining, for example, subsidies of the ‘flagging out’ State.98 Overall, bareboat

charter registration provides commercial advantages for the parties involved and reveals that

93 Nigel Ready, Ship Registration, p. 40.94 See Ademuni-Odeke, Bareboat Charter (Ship) Registration, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1998, p.69. See also about bareboat charter that: “in practice, it always is for a long period of time and is registrable by the charterer or management company in its national register. It now is common practice for a vessel to be ordered and built purposely for bareboat charter registration as a condition for its ship finance.” Ademuni-Odeke, The National and International Legal Regimes of Bareboat Charter Registrations, p. 334.95 International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, pp.29-30.96 Ibid, pp.32-33.97 See Ademuni-Odeke, Bareboat Charter (Ship) Registration, pp.70-71.

98 Ibid, p. 71-72. See also International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, pp. 29-34. Note that although shipowners benefit from lower crew costs, the local seafarers of Philippines have “higher income levels compared to those of those locally-employed personnel.” p. 33.


18/25

16

the economic and international aspects of the shipping industry have caused the evolution of

ship registration.

4.

National experiences of bareboat charter registration4.1. Ecuador

Ship registration in Ecuador is outdated and the legislation is disperse and contradictory. The

conditions for the grant of nationality and registration procedure are contained in the

Maritime Police Code, Trade Code, Law and Regulations for the Strengthening and

Development of Aquatic Transport and Related Activities, and the Law of Facilitation of

Exports and Aquatic Transport. Indeed, ship registration is an entitlement. According to the

Trade Code, the persons qualified to own an Ecuadorian vessel must be nationals,

99

so in principle, Ecuador is a closed registry. Ecuadorian citizens and companies domiciled100 and

established under the Ecuadorian law are considered nationals. However, it is important to

bear in mind that the shareholders are not necessarily amenable to the Ecuadorian jurisdiction

because the beneficial owners do not need to be nationals or domiciled in Ecuador. Thus, in

the case of companies, aliens can beneficially own Ecuadorian vessels, although the principal

place of business has to be located in Ecuador.101

Further, article 9 of the Law for the Strengthening and Development of Aquatic

Transport and Related Activities, 2003, establishes bareboat charter registration. This

legislation provides that foreign individuals domiciled in Ecuador can also register a ship as

Ecuadorian.102 Nevertheless, it is unclear if aliens are entitled to register a vessel that is not

subject to a bareboat charter. Moreover, the preamble of the law clarifies that Ecuador desires

to strength its fleet and develop a competitive shipping industry because 90% of Ecuador’s

foreign commerce is transported by sea.103 For this reason, the Government implemented the

temporal registration of foreign owned vessels under the Ecuadorian flag, and this policy is

complemented with tax exemptions for bareboat charterers and Ecuadorian shipyards.

The Law and the Rules for the Strengthening and Development of Aquatic

Transport and Related Activities only regulates vessels ‘flagging in’ to Ecuador. Indeed, the

99 See article 736 of the Trade Code, Suplemento del Registro Oficial No. 1202, 20 August 1960, visited on 2 January 2011 at 22:16.100 Domicile is the residence, within a specific place in the Ecuadorian territory, accompanied with the positive or presumptive intention to continue in that place. See article 45 of the Civil Code, Registro Oficial Suplemento No. 46, 24 June2005, visited on 2 January 2011 at 22:40.101 See article 1 and 5 of the Law of Companies, Registro Oficial No. 312, 5 November 1999, visited on 2 January 2011 at 22:52.102 See supra footnote 69, article 2 of the Law for the Strengthening and Development of Aquatic Transport and RelatedActivities. 103 Ibid, preamble.

http://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.php


19/25

17

legislation is silent about the possibility of ships ‘flagging out’. A bareboat-chartered vessel

can fly the Ecuadorian flag for a period minimum of two years.104 In addition, the charterer

must hire at least 70% of Ecuadorian crew and, if possible, the vessel should be maintained

and repaired in Ecuadorian shipyards.105 The bareboat charter contract is incorporated in a

special register.106 Also, when a bareboat-chartered vessel is registered, it has the same

obligations and rights of an Ecuadorian vessel,107 so it can be engaged for example, in

cabotage.108 The bareboat charterer is exempt to pay the value added tax (VAT) regarding

certain importations and services.109 Finally, when the vessel is registered, the General

Bureau of the Merchant Marine and the Coast issues two documents: a) Patente that is the

evidence of its nationality, and b) Matrícula that demonstrates the port of registry.110

Although bareboat charter registration was introduced recently in 2003, it has not

been successful. First, the legislation does not provide anything about the proper law of

mortgages, hypothèques, and ships’ charges. Thus, this legal vacuum threatens the validity

and priorities of ships’ encumbrances. Second, the register does not identify the ‘flagging

out’ State, so the notice and enforceability of ships’ charges against third parties are

jeopardized. Third, the law does not establish the procedure for the suspension or cancelation

of primary register. Consequently, a risk of double registration is latent. Finally, Ecuador is

not a crew supplier country, so the condition of hiring 70% of Ecuadorian crew is not easily

to fulfill.

In conclusion, bareboat charter registration could be advantageous if Ecuador invests

in the specialization of local seafarers, and the acquisition of technology to develop its own

fleet. In addition, the legislation about mortgages and registration must be updated, and the

Government should immediately implement the International Convention on Maritime Liens

and Mortgages, 1993,111 to protect ships’ encumbrances and third parties.

104 See, article 11 of the Rules for the Strengthening and Development of Aquatic Transport and Related Activities , RegistroOficial No. 385, 26 July 2004, visited on 3 January 2011 at 12:15. 105 See supra footnote 69, article 9 and 10 of the Law for the Strengthening and Development of Aquatic Transport andRelated Activities. 106 Supra footnote 104, article 8 of the Rules for the Strengthening and Development of Aquatic Transport and RelatedActivities. 107 Ibid, article 10.108 Note that cabotage is an exclusive right of Ecuadorian vessels. See, article 16 of the Law of Facilitation of Exports andAquatic Transport, Registro Oficial No. 901, 25 March 1992, visited on 3 January 2011 at12:15.109 Supra footnote 69, article 6 of the Law for the Strengthening and Development of Aquatic Transport and RelatedActivities.110

Supra footnote 11, article 122 of the Maritime Police Code. 111 Note that Ecuador is party to the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993. However, theGovernment has not implemented it. The Convention was ratified and published in Registro Oficial No. 314, 15 April 2004, visited on 3 January 2011 at 14:18.

http://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.php


20/25

18

4.2. The Philippines

The program of bareboat charter registration implemented in the Philippines represents the

first step to achieve a strong and competitive national fleet. Particularly, the MaritimeIndustry Authority (MARINA) is in charge of executing the program that originated in 1975,

through the Presidential Decree No. 760. This Decree introduced the registration of foreign

owned vessels to ships that were leased to Philippine nationals, manned with Filipino crew,

and the vessels were engaged in domestic trade.112 For this purpose, nationals are Philippine

citizens or corporations established under the legislation of the Philippines.113 Regarding the

beneficial owners, Philippine citizens must own 60% of the capital stock, and nationals must

participate in the governing board.114 Notwithstanding the strict requirements that a

bareboated-chartered vessel has to fulfill to be registered temporarily in the Philippines, the

International Transport Workers’ Federation declared this register as a flag of convenience115

because of the crew costs. However, this is not feasible at all because Filipino crew receives

higher salaries in comparison with local standards.116

The Presidential Decrees No. 866 (1976), and 1711 (1980) amended and extended the

bareboat charter program, and allowed overseas trade for vessels ‘flagging in’ to the

Philippines.117 Thus, bareboat charterers have access to national and international markets.

Besides, bareboat charterers can benefit from tax exemptions, for example, when importing

“spare parts”118 that are required to repair the ship. Nevertheless, the bareboat-chartered

vessels are also subject to the same obligations of permanent Philippines’ ships.119

The Government encourages this program for its advantages for the State’s economy.

Indeed, this registration system has not only generated job opportunities, but has promoted

the specialization of local seafarers who are well trained and competitive. For this reason, the

Philippines is the biggest provider of seamen in the world.120 Moreover, it is favorable to

impose an age limit of fifteen years121 to the bareboat-chartered vessels because it ensures the

acquisition of a modern fleet, technology, and expertise of the shipping business. Further, this

112 Sonia B. Malaluan, An Analysis of the Bareboat Chartering Program of the Philippines, World Maritime University,Malmö – Sweden, 1998, pp. 9-10.113 Ibid.114 Ibid.115 Ibid, p. 57.116 Supra footnote 98.117 Sonia B. Malaluan, An Analysis of the Bareboat Chartering Program of the Philippines, p. 10.118 Ibid, p.11.119 International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, p.

18.120 Sonia B. Malaluan, An Analysis of the Bareboat Chartering Program of the Philippines, p. 1.121 Ibid, p. 12.


21/25

19

program stimulates the local development of the shipping industry for the nationals who do

not have the capital to buy ships. Finally, taxes and fees have increased the State’s revenue.122

On the other hand, the temporal condition of the program was a major drawback.

Indeed, the Presidential Decree No. 1771 extended the bareboat charter registration until

1999.123 A new extension was conceded until 2009, through the Executive Order No. 438 of

1997.124 These time limits did not provide security for the charterers because the program’s

life was always pending on the political will of the Government. However, in 2007, the

Executive Order No. 667125 extended indefinitely the bareboat charter program. According to

the preamble of the Executive Order No. 667, the program is necessary for the “existing

financing schemes … remain insufficient to encourage Filipino operators to acquire ships.”

This may be truth in the long run, but in the short run, the benefits mentioned above

demonstrate that the program has improved the welfare of the Philippines’ society.

The effective protection of mortgages is another problem of the bareboat charter

program. In fact, the ship has to be registered with a Philippine name.126 If a ship has two

names, third parties may not be aware of its encumbrances. Further, it is possible to re-

register the mortgages, but it is expensive,127 and it could cause conflicts of laws between the

legislation of the primary registry and the ‘flagging in’ State. Thus, a double recordation may

threaten the validity and priority of the ships’ charges if it is not used as reference. In this

sense, the Government must guarantee an effective protection system to the holders of

proprietary rights. For instance, in the register should be an annotation about the ‘flagging

out’ States, and the original names of the vessels.

Overall, the elimination of the program’s time limit allows the Government to plan an

effective long run shipping policy. Further, the State has to implement financial schemes to

modernize its own fleet. Finally, the legislation has to secure the legal interest of the

mortgages, so the bareboat charter registration in the Philippines becomes an applicable

example to be followed by other States.

122 Ibid, p. 48.123 Ibid, p. 10.124 See Section 1 of the Executive Order No. 438, 15 September 1997. “[t]he effectivity of any charter or lease contractentered into under the said Decree -760- is hereby extended, provided, however, it shall not go beyond the year 2009, unlessotherwise further extended by the President of the Republic of the Philippines.” Chan Robles, Virtual Law Library, , visited on 4 January 2011 at 18:01.125 See the Executive Order No. 667 of 11 October 2007, published in Official Gazette on 21 January 2008.126 International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues and Commercial benefits, p.19.127 Ibid.


22/25

20

Conclusion

Bareboat charter registration challenged the traditional concept that a vessel must be subject

only to one registry. In fact, this system demands the differentiation between public and

private functions of the register to avoid the risk of stateless’ ships that are amenable to the jurisdiction of more than one State. Furthermore, this system demonstrates that the maritime

industry is always evolving, and searching economic advantages to decrease its operational

costs, access to new markets, and investment schemes to finance ships. On the other hand, the

States have seen an opportunity to extend and/or maintain their fleets, acquire technology,

increase the national revenue by levying taxes from the ships’ operation, and invest in the

specialization of local seafarers. Consequently, this constant development requires to be

accompanied by a comprehensive legal regime.

Indeed, the harmonization, of the practice of bareboat charter registration among the

countries that have adopted the system of ‘flagging in’ and/or ‘flagging out’, is fundamental

to avoid frauds between the ship owner and the charterer against the holders of ships’

encumbrances and third parties. Thus, the protection of hypothèques, and mortgages is a key

element for the success of bareboat charter registration. For this reason, ships’ charges should

be subject to the law of the ‘flagging out’ State because the mortgagees, for example, must

not deal with a different legislation that may endanger the validity and enforceability of their

rights. Besides, it is not justifiable that the mortgagees should be subject to a jurisdiction that

they did not agree or even know. In this sense, the International Convention on Maritime

Liens and Mortgages, 1993, secures ships’ encumbrances when a vessel is temporarily

registered in a second State. Furthermore, the United Nations Convention on Conditions for

Registration of Ships, 1986, although it is not in force, it is a contribution towards the

harmonization of bareboat charter registration since this Convention clarifies that the public

law functions of registration must be exercised by the ‘flagging in’ State.

Regarding the national practices analyzed in this document, it is important to

understand that enacting legislation about bareboat charter registration is not enough and it is

not a ‘one size fits all’ panacea. Specifically, in the case of Ecuador, the law regarding ship

registration is disperse, contradictory, and does not provide any protection to ships’

encumbrances. Hence, the legislation must be immediately amended, and complemented with

a national shipping policy that encourages Ecuadorian citizens to bareboat-chartered vessels

as a viable alternative of ships’ acquisition. Further, the revenues of the system must be

invested in technology and capacitation. Otherwise, the law of bareboat charter registration


23/25

21

would be ineffective. Finally, the Philippines has a successful bareboat charter program that

needs to improve the notice of ships’ charges to third parties.

In synthesis, bareboat charter registration has to be promoted and not banned.

Actually, the States that allow this system should not be cataloged as flags of convenience

because of the intrinsic benefits offered, such as lower crew costs and/or tax exemptions. In

fact, a flag State should be judged by the effective jurisdiction exercised over its ships. In

addition, the system still involves risks, especially to the mortgagees, but the benefits are

even greater, in particular to the aspiring maritime nations that do not have the capital to

stimulate a competitive shipping industry. Overall, bareboat charter registration enhances the

international character of shipping and it reflects that ship registration evolves according to

the political and economic interests of States, and the trends of the shipping industry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Ademuni-Odeke, Bareboat Charter (Ship) Registration, Kluwer Law International, TheHague, 1998.

Colombos John, The International Law of the Sea, 6th revised edition, Longman Green & Co.Ltd, 1967.

Falkanger Thor, Bull Hans Jacob, and Brautaset Lasse, Scandinavian maritime law –

The Norwegian perspective, 2nd edition, Universitetsforlaget, 2004.

Gold Edgar, Chircop Aldo, and Kindred Hugh, Maritime Law, Toronto, Irwin Law, 2003.

Hill Christopher, Maritime Law, 6th edition, Lloyd’s of London Press, Hong Kong, 2003.

International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC), Bareboat Charter Registration: Legal Issues

and Commercial benefits, a report of the Symposium, 1987.

Nigel Ready, Ship Registration,3rd edition, Lloyd’s of London Press, 1998.

North P., Fawcett J.J. and Cheshire G.C., Private International Law, 13th edition,Butterworths, London, 1999.

Özçayir Z. Oya, Liability for oil pollution and collisions, Lloyds of London Press, Honk Kong, 1998.

Articles

Ademuni-Odeke, The National and International Legal Regimes of Bareboat Charter

Registrations, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 28, No. 4 January 1997.


24/25

22

Montero Llácer Francisco J.: Open registries: past, present and future, Marine PolicyJournal, Vol. 27, Issue 6, 2003.

Mukherjee Proshanto K., Flagging options: Legal and Other Considerations, Mariner,Jan/Mar, 1993.

Mukherjee Proshanto K., New Horizons for Flag States, Maritime Review, 2000.

Conventions

Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958, , visited on 16 December 2010 at 15:45.

United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships, 1986, , visited on 22 December

2010 at 18:17.

United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, 1982,, visited on 16December 2010 at 15:49.

International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993,

visited on 29 December 2010, at 17:15.

National Legislation

Ecuador

Civil Code, Registro Oficial Suplemento No. 46, 24 June 2005, visited on 2 January 2011 at 22:40.

Law for the Strengthening and Development of Aquatic Transport and Related Activities Registro Oficial No.204, 5 November 2003, visited on 26December 2010 at 22:19.

Law of Companies, Registro Oficial No. 312, 5 November 1999, visited on 2 January 2011 at 22:52.

Law of Facilitation of Exports and Aquatic Transport, Registro Oficial No. 901, 25 March1992, visited on 3 January 2011 at 12:15.

Maritime Police Code, Suplemento del Registro Oficial No. 1202, 20 August, 1960, visited on 14 December 2010 at 18:36.

Rules for the Strengthening and Development of Aquatic Transport and Related Activities , Registro Oficial No. 385, 26 July 2004, visited on 3 January

2011 at 12:15.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdfhttp://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdf


25/25

Trade Code, Suplemento del Registro Oficial No. 1202, 20 August 1960, visited on 2 January 2011 at 22:16.

Regional

Andean Community’s Decision No. 487: Maritime Claims, Maritime Hypothèques,Privileges and Arrest of Ships, Registro Oficial No. 259, 5 February 2001, visited on 29 December 2010 at 17:07.

The Philippines

Executive Order No. 438, 15 September 1997, Chan Robles, Virtual Law Library, , visited on 4January 2011 at 18:01.

Executive Order No. 667 of 11 October 2007, published in Official Gazette on 21 January

2008

Dissertations

Malaluan Sonia B., An Analysis of the Bareboat Chartering Program of the Philippines,World Maritime University, Malmö – Sweden, 1998.

Rogers Rhea, Ship Registration: A Critical Analysis, World Maritime University, Malmö – Sweden, 2010.

Other sources

Mukherjee Proshanto K., Ship registration lecture, Lund University, 12 November 2010.

TABLE OF CASES

IMCO case, (1960) ICJ Rep. p. 150.

Lauritzen v Larsen (1953), 345, United States Supreme Court, 571.

Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner (1860) 29, Law Journal Reports, Ch, 827.

M/V Saiga (No.2) case (St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) (1999), ITLOS Reports10, 120 I.L.R. 143.

Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) (1955), ICJ, Rep. 4.

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd (1897), Appeal Cases 22, (HL).

The Giuseppe di Vittorio case (1998) 1, Lloyd’s Rep. 136.

The SS Lotus (France/Turkey), (1927), PCIJ, Series A, No. 10.
http://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.phphttp://www.fielweb.com/login.php

charter registration

Documents