Maritime Law in the Asia-Pacific Region

• Author: Bevan Marten
• Position: School of Law, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Guest editor for the 'Maritime Law in the Asia-Pacific Region' section of this issue of the Australia and New Zealand Maritime Law Journal
• Pages: 64-66

(2016) 30 ANZ Mar LJ

64

CONFERENCE PAPERS

MARITIME LAW IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Dr Be va n Marte n*

The following collection of articles arose from a workshop held at Victoria University of Wellington’s School of

Law on 25-26 February 2016, hosted by the New Zealand Centre of International Economic Law. The aim of this

gathering was to discuss maritime law issues confronting the Asia-Pacific region,1 specific ally those co ncerning

maritime transport. This topic has received less attention than it deserves. First, because maritime law discussions

tend to be dominated either by ef forts at the international level, connected with the International Maritime

Organization (IMO) and other global bodies, or by European and North American interests in particular. Second,

because the maritime issues for which the region is most notorious tend to be those connected with disputed

maritime boundaries, such as the South China Sea.

While global efforts towards uniformity are valuable, and territorial disputes will continue to loom large in the

near future, the Asia-Pacific region’s shipping sector nonetheless faces a unique set of opportunities and

challenges that should be the focus of more interaction and research. It is home to 12 of the world’s top 35 flag

states, and 9 of the top 35 ship-owning states.2 Countries within this region such as Korea and China are major

ship-builders; Singapore and Shanghai boast enormous ports; Australia and Indonesia have expansive coastlines;

while the Pacific Islands struggle with poor maritime infrastructure and infrequent shipping services. Increased

maritime traffic across the region has heighte ned environmental concerns, whereas initiatives such as China’s

“One Belt, One Road” policy prompt deeper reflection on the nature of shipping connections between this region

and the rest of the world.

Taking these matters into account, it might nonetheless be argued that the Asia -Pacific region is too diverse and

divided for any successful efforts at regional cooperation in the maritime sphere. However, I believe the

experience of this workshop suggests that we need to think harder, and more optimistically, in this regard. Henrik

Ringbom’s piece on the lessons this r egion may b e able to draw fro m the European Union’s efforts at regional

cooperation highlights that much can be achieved without the need for “an EU-type powerful, constitutional,

institutional or financial framework to be put in place”.3 A local example of where more might be achieved

concerns Hong Ko ng’s ef forts to curb air pollutions from ships visiting its port. As one of the four p orts in the

world “with the largest absolute emission levels” (the other three being Singapore, Tianjin, and Port Klang), 4

Hong Kong has good reason to focus on emissions for environmental and health reasons. Therefor e, after a

disappointing level of success with a programme to have vessels voluntarily switch to lo w-sulphur fuels,5 in July

2015 Hong Kong brought into force a unilateral emissions regime for vessels at berth. 6 However, the importance

of shipping to Hong Kong’s economy means that if vessel operators face higher costs when trading there, the port

may lose business to competitor s in the Pearl River Delta such as Shenzhen and Guangzhou, while perpetuating

air pollution within the same geographic area. It has been proposed that this situation is ripe for a level of regional

cooperation, for example by having the area designated an Emissions Control Area by the IMO under Annex VI

of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Sh ips (MARPOL).7 While any such

* School of Law, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Guest editor for the “Maritime Law in the Asia-Pacific Region” section

of this issue of the Australia and New Zealand Maritime Law Journal.

1 For the purposes of the workshop and these articles, the region was defined as excluding the Eastern Pacific rim, and the countries in the

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation.

2 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Review of Maritime Transport 2015 (2015) 36 and 42.

3 Henrik Ringbom, ‘The European Union and International Maritime Law – Lessons for the Asia-Pacific Region?’ (2016) 30 Australia and

New Zealand Maritime Law Journal 67, 76; see also David L VanderZwaag and Hai Dang Vu, ‘Regional Cooperation in the South China

Sea and the Arctic: Lessons to be Learned?’ in Aldo Chircop et al (eds), The Regulation of International Shipping: International and

Comparative Perspectives (2012).

4 International Transport Forum, Shipping Emissions in Ports (2014), at 19.

5 Civic Exchange, Fair Winds Charter and Ship Emissions Control (2015) <http://www.civic-exchange.org/en/themes/Fair-Winds-Charter-

and-Ship-Emissions-Control> (initial voluntary scheme); Hong Kong Marine Department Notice No 132 of 2012; Hong Kong Marine

Department Notice No 91 of 2015 (incentive plan introduced, reducing port fees); Hong Kong Wants Ship Emissions Standard Now (19

March 2015) The Maritime Executive ng-kong-wants-ship-emission-standards-now>; Ernest

Kao, Berthing ships must use fuel with low sulphur under new Hong Kong law (2 July 2015) South China Morning Post

thing-ships-must-use-fuel-low-sulphur-under-new>.

6 Air Pollution Control (Ocean Going Vessels) (Fuel at Berth) Regulation 2015 (Hong Kong).

7 International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL),

1973/1978, 1340 UNTS 62; Protocol of 1997 to Amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as

Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto (MARPOL Annex VI), 1997, reg 14.3.3; see Simon Ng, Veronica Booth and Freda Fung,