Second Flag States and Human Rights Report Published – Human Rights At Sea


Second Flag States and Human Rights Report Published

10th June 2019

Press Release

9 June 2019

London, UK. Human Rights at Sea, in partnership with the University of Bristol Law School Human Rights Implementation Centre, today issues the second independent public report: ‘An evaluation of Flag State Practice in Monitoring, Reporting and Enforcing Human Rights Obligations on Board Vessels’ as part of an ongoing study into the engagement, policies and remedies affected by flag States in relation to their duties to uphold human rights at sea.

The independent flag State research project was established to comment on the under-explored issue of flag State practice, and their international and national human rights obligations. In doing so, this project aims to reveal deficiencies in human rights protection to offer informed recommendations. Such insight, it is hoped, will better flag State assessments, and eventually flag State practice, in the future.

This year Panama, Denmark and Taiwan have been reviewed with the individual registries directly and repeatedly contacted, though unfortunately with little or no engagement with public enquiries.

The central question asked was: ‘How do flag States comply with their international human rights obligations ’ vis-à-vis persons on board vessels registered under their flag?’ with three supporting questions: 1).What registries do the flag States hold? 2). What are the human rights obligations of the flag states? and 3). How do flag States monitor human rights compliance on board vessels?


It was concluded that:

“In comparison to Denmark and Panama, Taiwan’s lack of ratification of the core UN, Maritime and Labour Conventions represents a remarkable gap in the protection of human rights at sea. However, neither Denmark or Panama are beyond reproach, as both have certain shortcomings or distinctive issues arising from their human rights coverage. For example, although Denmark should be commended for its excellent treaty ratification and rights compliance, it appears to devalue the interests of migrant seafarers by failing to ratify the ICMW and Work in Fishing Conventions. By Denmark ratifying these outstanding treaty commitments, it would be a welcome denouncement of far-right and anti-immigration populism spreading across Europe. Panama also has areas of concern, such as the loophole of Article 92 which seriously lessens the impact of any safeguards included within its Maritime Law. It is clear, therefore, that whilst Taiwan has a more noticeable human rights gap, Denmark and Panama do still have areas on which to improve.”


It was concluded that:

“There are varying mechanisms in place in each flag State to ensure monitoring and reporting of human rights issues. According to the Paris MoU, both Panama and Denmark are listed as ‘white-list’ states, the latter ranking much better than the former. By contrast, Taiwan is not a party to the Paris MoU; and yet, is also classified as ‘white list’. While the maritime authorities have the main responsibility of ensuring the effectiveness of the flag states’ monitoring and reporting systems, the report shows that these mechanisms are not always sufficiently implemented. For instance, the PMA will only carry out an inspection upon a complaint, and only if that complaint is backed by the majority of the staff. Meanwhile, with respect to Taiwan, there is a significant disconnect between its listed standard and the efficacy of its human rights and labour law protection mechanisms. This is especially so in the fishing sector, where differential labour standards for foreign-workers and split institutional competence limits regulatory effectiveness. As it stands, Denmark seems to provide the most effective process for the protection of seafarers’ rights, which justifies their ranking on the Paris MoU. That said, the DMAIB may decide not to carry out investigations of a length below 15 meters regarding fishing vessels, and only 15 investigations of the accidents are published. Consequently, more work is needed in all three flag states to better improve their conditions.”


It was concluded that:

“Unfortunately, no response to these questions was provided by the selected points of contact. Given the limited scope of outreach to just three flag States, at this time few conclusions can be drawn from Stage 2. However, it is seemingly consistent with limited publicly available information and effort by the flag States to proactively provide clear and informative guidance related to human right obligations and monitoring.”


1. Flag states must ratify the core UN human rights treaties, IMO and ILO Conventions which provide for safety, human and labour standards. That said, it is not enough to merely ratify the treaties. A flag State needs to put in place bespoke mechanisms for the implementation of their human rights obligations.

2. Flag States need to improve the clarity of their websites, publish investigations, and ensure better access to information. Flag States should regularly update their contact details to allow more swift complaints to be made and to create a user-friendly complaint mechanism. Where no complaint mechanism is available, it is of utmost urgency to establish a point of contact for vulnerable workers at sea.

3. Achieving a white list status on the Paris and Tokyo MoUs should not be considered the ‘end game’ for flag States. In this way, the MoUs’ compartmentalisation should be challenged. Instead, human rights and labour standards should be part of the inspections and considered as part of the listings.

4. The respective Maritime Authorities, such as the PMA and DMA, should explicitly mention human rights obligations as purposes of their organisations. The Maritime Authorities should become actively involved in the enforcement of maritime-related treaties. Suggested improvements involve the authorities conducting an Annual Report on Human Rights at Sea which presents empirical studies on human rights violations and requiring a specific standard for the effectiveness of communications.

Human Rights at Sea commented: “This second comprehensive report on flag States and the role that they should and indeed need to take in terms of protecting human rights at sea, highlights inadequacies which need to be rectified. Further, the lack of direct engagement to fair and reasonable enquiry, demonstrates further failures of accessibility and transparency. There were similar such findings in the 2018 Report.”

An evaluation of Flag State Practice in Monitoring, Reporting and Enforcing Human Rights Obligations on Board Vessels. Year 2 Report of an ongoing study into the engagement, policies and remedies affected by flag States in relation to their duties to uphold human rights at sea. The University of Bristol Human Rights Implementation Centre and the University of Bristol Human Rights Law Clinic in Partnership with Human Rights At Sea.

Leave a Reply

SSCP   CAS-002   9L0-066   350-050   642-999   220-801   74-678   642-732   400-051   ICGB   c2010-652   70-413   101-400   220-902   350-080   210-260   70-246   1Z0-144   3002   AWS-SYSOPS   70-347   PEGACPBA71V1   220-901   70-534   LX0-104   070-461   HP0-S42   1Z0-061   000-105   70-486   70-177   N10-006   500-260   640-692   70-980   CISM   VCP550   70-532   200-101   000-080   PR000041   2V0-621   70-411   352-001   70-480   70-461   ICBB   000-089   70-410   350-029   1Z0-060   2V0-620   210-065   70-463   70-483   CRISC   MB6-703   1z0-808   220-802   ITILFND   1Z0-804   LX0-103   MB2-704   210-060   101   200-310   640-911   200-120   EX300   300-209   1Z0-803   350-001   400-201   9L0-012   70-488   JN0-102   640-916   70-270   100-101   MB5-705   JK0-022   350-060   300-320   1z0-434   350-018   400-101   350-030   000-106   ADM-201   300-135   300-208   EX200   PMP   NSE4   1Z0-051   c2010-657   C_TFIN52_66   300-115   70-417   9A0-385   70-243   300-075   70-487   NS0-157   MB2-707   70-533   CAP   OG0-093   M70-101   300-070   102-400   JN0-360   SY0-401   000-017   300-206   CCA-500   70-412   2V0-621D   70-178   810-403   70-462   OG0-091   1V0-601   200-355   000-104   700-501   70-346   CISSP   300-101   1Y0-201   200-125  , 200-125  , 100-105  , 100-105  , CISM   NS0-157   350-018  , NS0-157   ICBB  , N10-006 test  , 350-050   70-534   70-178   220-802   102-400   000-106   70-411  , 400-101   100-101  , NS0-157   1Z0-803   200-125  , 210-060   400-201   350-050   C_TFIN52_66  , JN0-102  , 200-355   JN0-360   70-411   350-018  , 70-412   350-030   640-916   000-105   100-105  , 70-270  , 70-462   300-070  , 300-070   642-999   101-400   PR000041   200-101  , 350-030   300-070  , 70-270  , 400-051   200-120   70-178   9L0-012   70-487   LX0-103   100-105  ,