Running head: Bronfenbrenner Analysis
Bronfenbrenner Analysis
[Author’s Name]
[Institution’s Name]
Bronfenbrenner Analysis
Registering a ship in a State different to the owner's own is a practice which goes back several centuries and, for a long time, maritime transport has been making use of that system in order to overcome certain restrictions. The 20th century marked the beginning of a new era in which the United States played a predominant role as regards the creation, development and consolidation of a system from which it would obtain enormous advantages, both in periods of peace and of war, helped at first by the birth of the Panamanian register and then on the Liberian one. In this context it is important to distinguish between the systems which offer the necessary guarantees and those which do not. It is a mistake to label closed registers intrinsically safe and abiding by international regulations, and DWI as unsafe and dangerous. In fact, there are DWI with excellent safety records and closed registers with very poor ones. While, many DWI have failed to produce adequate regulatory regimes that ensure the safe operation of ships, as they do not have the adequate technical expertise necessary to ensure proper control of the safety of the ships flying their flags, and lack the required legal framework to implement the international conventions.
Conflict resolving procedures between two different set of legal framework of two nations operations do not follow a standard script or linear path. International conflict resolving procedures between two different set of legal framework is a complex and controversial affair. This complexity is caused partly by the nature of the maritime law implication and partly by the nature of the actor. The actor in our case consists of a group or collective of diversified worldwide industries. (Sturmey S. 1989) To them, every international maritime law implication poses a multiple set of problems rolled into one. The first, external, problem is what to do about the maritime law implication, what is objectively required to address the maritime law implication. This problem relates to the type of policy instruments that are required and available and the perceived urgency of the problem. The second, internal, problem is the problem of self-ship management of the diversified worldwide industries involved: how do we organise ourselves to be effective? And how can we mobilise enough political will and distribute risks and tasks? (Montero FJ. 1991) International conflict resolving procedures between two different set of legal framework of two nations is dominated by the logic of intergovernmental cooperation.
In case of Mrs. Lowells, although professional negligence is often said to be functional for shipping companies, most recommendations relating to organizational professional negligence still fall within the realm of professional negligence resolution, reduction, or minimization. Action recommendations from the current organizational professional negligence literature show a disturbing lag with the functional set of background assumptions that are endorsed. Insofar as it could be determined, the literature on professional negligence is deficient (with minor exceptions) in three major areas.
1. There is no clear set of rules to suggest when professional negligence ought to be maintained at a certain level, when reduced, when ignored, and when enhanced.
2. There is no clear set of guidelines to suggest how professional negligence can be reduced, ignored, or enhanced to increase individual, group, or organizational effectiveness.
3. There is no clear set of rules to indicate how conflict involving different situations can be managed effectively.
The so-called 'paradox of conflict prevention' sums up this problem. The earlier an intervention takes place, the higher are the chances of success and the less costly the intervention is likely to be but the more difficult it is to rally enough political will to do it. Differences of opinion concerning the urgency of the problem, risk and threat perceptions and the national interests at stake make it extremely difficult to arrive quickly at a common position on instrumentation, etc. There is usually a divergence in the willingness among diversified worldwide industries to mobilise and apply adequate resources. The result is that the point at which enough political will is mobilised to manage a maritime law implication usually comes after the point at which it can be controlled. The consequence is that any collective of diversified worldwide industries, because of the way their self-organization currently works, is most likely to react in a conflict resolving between two set of legal framework mode. It is clear that by increasing ownership transparency, safety and security would improve. It is necessary that the “genuine link” concept, mentioned in article 91 of the Convention on the Law of Sea, be effective. As the 1986 UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships has not come into force, efforts should be made to review the Convention in order to make the conditions of entry into force more widely acceptable or, if this proves impracticable, consideration should be given to the development of an entirely new international treaty addressing the conditions of registration of ships. (F.J. Montero, 1991) It would then be possible to ensure that all Flag States have a competent and adequate maritime administration and that a “genuine link” exists between register and ship. It would also make it very difficult for substandard Flag States to continue in business. Flag States should have a consolidated maritime administration keeping safety programs which ensure that the applicable international conventions are implemented, having qualified personnel to ensure that ships do not exceed the maximum age and are properly maintained; ensuring that recognized organizations authorized to act on their behalf comply with the applicable provisions of the pertinent international conventions and are continuously assessed; ascertaining that seafarers qualifications as well as endorsed foreign certificates comply with the minimum requirements of the 78/95 STCW Convention; and ensuring that Diversified Worldwide Industries and ships under its flag apply the established procedures in the Safety Management Code.
References
F.J. Montero, Centro internacional de servicios marítimos en Panamá. IEEM Newsletter 9 (1991), pp. 43–47.
Montero FJ. Panama as a Maritime Center. Proceedings from the I World Maritime Conference, Panama, vol. 1, 1991. p. 37–40.
Sturmey S. Open registers controversy. Proceedings from Which Register, Which Flag…now? Conference, vol. 2. New York: Lloyds of London Press; 1989. p. 125–7. |
