Legal and Institutional Challenges in Implementing Maritime Safety Regulations in Developing States
1. Module Context and Assessment Overview
International maritime safety rests on a framework of conventions negotiated under the International Maritime Organization (IMO), including SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, and the ISM Code. These instruments apply universally to flag states that have ratified them, but the capacity to implement and enforce them is distributed very unevenly across the global fleet. Developed maritime nations generally maintain functioning maritime administrations, trained surveyors, and established Port State Control (PSC) regimes. Many developing states do not, and the gap between treaty ratification and genuine operational compliance in these countries has been a persistent problem in global maritime governance for decades.
Reasons for this implementation deficit are simultaneously legal and institutional. On the legal side, questions arise about the adequacy of domestic legislation, the relationship between international convention obligations and national legal systems, and the scope of flag state versus coastal state jurisdiction. On the institutional side, the challenges involve underfunded maritime administrations, shortages of qualified marine surveyors, limited engagement with PSC MOU regimes, and dependency on foreign classification societies without adequate oversight. Together, these dimensions create a structural problem that neither rule-making alone nor capacity-building alone can resolve.
This assessment requires you to engage with that problem analytically. You are not being asked to describe the conventions or list the challenges. You are being asked to critically examine the interaction between legal obligations and institutional realities, and to develop a well-argued position on where the most consequential barriers lie and how they might be addressed.
2. Learning Outcomes Assessed
Completing this assessment demonstrates your ability to:
- Critically analyse the legal obligations imposed on flag states under key IMO conventions and assess the adequacy of those obligations in the context of developing state capacity.
- Evaluate the institutional barriers that prevent effective maritime safety regulation in developing maritime nations, drawing on documented cases and academic literature.
- Apply relevant principles of public international law, including treaty obligation, good faith implementation, and sovereign responsibility, to the maritime safety governance context.
- Construct a coherent and well-evidenced legal and policy argument about the reform of international maritime safety governance.
- Produce a research essay that meets academic standards for legal and policy analysis at postgraduate or advanced undergraduate level.
3. Assessment Task
Write a 2,000–2,500-word individual research essay responding to the following question:
“The principal barrier to effective maritime safety regulation in developing states is not legal inadequacy but institutional incapacity. Flag state obligations under international maritime conventions are sufficiently clear; what is lacking is the administrative and financial infrastructure to fulfil them.”
Critically evaluate this statement. In your answer, examine the legal frameworks governing flag state obligations, identify the key institutional challenges that developing states face in implementing maritime safety regulations, and assess whether legal reform, institutional capacity-building, or a combination of both offers the most credible path forward.
Your essay must address all three of the following analytical dimensions:
Dimension 1 – The Legal Framework: Obligations, Gaps, and Ambiguities
Examine the principal legal obligations imposed on flag states under SOLAS, MARPOL, and STCW, as well as the ISM Code. Critically assess whether the conventions provide sufficient legal clarity for developing state implementation, or whether ambiguities in drafting, broad discretionary language, or the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms at the international level contribute independently to the implementation deficit. Consider the role of Articles 91–94 of UNCLOS in anchoring flag state responsibility.
Dimension 2 – Institutional Barriers: Evidence and Analysis
Identify and critically evaluate the principal institutional challenges that developing maritime administrations face in implementing safety regulations. These may include inadequate surveyor capacity, dependency on open registries or flag of convenience arrangements, limited PSC participation or observer status in MOU regimes, under-resourced coast guards, and weak domestic maritime legislation. Use documented country-specific evidence or UNCTAD, World Bank, or IMO data to support your analysis. Avoid generalised assertions; your argument must be grounded in verifiable institutional realities.
Dimension 3 – Reform Pathways: Legal Change, Capacity-Building, or Both?
Having established your analysis of the legal and institutional dimensions, construct an argued position on the most effective reform pathway. Consider the IMO’s Integrated Technical Cooperation Programme (ITCP), the role of regional PSC MOU regimes in building enforcement capacity in developing regions (e.g., Abuja MOU for West Africa, Indian Ocean MOU), and whether amendments to existing conventions or new legally binding instruments would add meaningful value. Your position must be supported by evidence and must engage with at least one counterargument.
4. Format and Structural Requirements
This is a research essay, not a technical report. It should read as a continuous, structured academic argument with clear paragraph logic, not as a list of headings and bullet points. The following structural elements are required:
- Title Page – Essay title, student ID (not name), module code, word count, submission date.
- Introduction (200–250 words) – Frame the essay question, define key terms (flag state, developing state, institutional capacity), and state your thesis clearly.
- Main Body (approximately 1,500–1,800 words) – Develop your argument across the three analytical dimensions. Subheadings may be used sparingly if they aid readability, but the essay must read as a coherent analytical progression, not three disconnected sections.
- Conclusion (200–250 words) – Draw together the threads of your argument, restate your thesis in light of the evidence, and identify one significant implication for maritime governance practice or policy.
- Reference List – Harvard format; minimum 8 sources, including at least four peer-reviewed academic sources (journal articles or edited book chapters) and at least two authoritative primary or institutional sources (IMO instruments, UNCTAD reports, PSC MOU annual reports, or MARAD/AMSA policy documents). All sources published from 2015 onward unless a foundational text requires earlier citation.
Formatting Standards
- Font: Arial or Times New Roman, 12pt, 1.5 or double line spacing.
- Margins: 2.54 cm (1 inch) all sides.
- Page numbers in the footer, right-aligned from page 2 onward.
- In-text citations in Harvard author-date format throughout.
- Word count must be stated on the title page. Submissions more than 10% above the upper limit will be penalised in accordance with the institutional assessment policy.
5. Source and Evidence Requirements
The essay must be grounded in legal and academic sources. Over-reliance on maritime trade press, general shipping websites, or non-peer-reviewed blog content will limit the mark ceiling to the Pass band regardless of the quality of the argument.
Acceptable and expected source categories include:
- Peer-reviewed journals: International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Ocean Development and International Law, Maritime Policy and Management, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, Journal of International Maritime Law.
- IMO instruments and circulars: SOLAS Convention (as amended), MARPOL Annex I–VI, STCW Convention and Code, ISM Code (MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.8), UNCLOS Articles 91–94 and 217–220.
- Institutional reports: UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transport (annual editions), Paris MOU and Abuja MOU Annual Reports, World Bank Port Reform Toolkit, IMO ITCP Annual Progress Reports.
- Academic texts: Molenaar and Elferink (eds.), Mejia, Van Hooydonk, Churchill and Lowe, Özçayır.
6. Marking Rubric and Assessment Criteria
This assessment is marked out of 100 points, weighted at 35% of the module grade.
| Assessment Criterion | Weight | Distinction (75–100%) | Merit (60–74%) | Pass (45–59%) | Fail (0–44%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Legal Analysis: Flag State Obligations and Framework Evaluation | 30% | Precise and critical engagement with SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, ISM Code, and UNCLOS Articles 91–94. Legal gaps, discretionary provisions, and enforcement weaknesses are identified and evaluated with textual accuracy. Analysis is original, not descriptive. | Key legal instruments addressed with good accuracy. Some critical evaluation of gaps or ambiguities. UNCLOS anchor provisions referenced. Mostly analytical with limited descriptive stretches. | Major conventions mentioned but treated descriptively. Limited engagement with legal gaps or drafting weaknesses. UNCLOS cited but not analysed in depth. | Legal framework largely absent, incorrect, or mischaracterised. Conventions cited without engagement with their specific provisions. No meaningful legal analysis. |
| 2. Institutional Analysis: Evidence-Based Identification of Barriers | 30% | Institutional barriers are identified with precision and supported by documented evidence from IMO data, UNCTAD reports, PSC MOU records, or country-specific case material. Analysis distinguishes between types of capacity deficit. Argument avoids sweeping generalisations about “developing states” as a monolithic category. | Key institutional barriers identified and mostly supported by evidence. Some generalisation. One or two specific country or regional examples used effectively. | Institutional barriers listed but evidence is thin or generic. Reliance on description rather than analysis. Limited use of institutional data sources. | Institutional dimension largely absent or asserted without evidence. No engagement with primary data or institutional reports. |
| 3. Reform Pathway Argument: Thesis Quality and Counterargument Engagement | 25% | A clear, well-reasoned thesis is sustained throughout. The reform pathway is argued, not merely described. At least one credible counterargument is engaged with fairly and rebutted. The conclusion adds genuine analytical value rather than restating the introduction. | A thesis is present and mostly sustained. Reform options are discussed with some comparative evaluation. Counterargument is acknowledged but not fully developed. | Reform options mentioned but not argued. No clear thesis sustained across the essay. Counterargument absent or perfunctory. Conclusion largely restates the introduction. | No discernible thesis. Reform discussion is superficial or absent. No evidence of analytical argumentation. Essay reads as a factual description of the topic. |
| 4. Research Quality and Use of Sources | 10% | Minimum eight sources used effectively, including four peer-reviewed academic sources and two primary/institutional sources. Sources are integrated into the argument, not appended as decoration. Harvard referencing is accurate throughout. | Minimum eight sources present. Four academic sources cited. Minor referencing errors. Sources mostly integrated rather than decorative. | Fewer than eight sources or fewer than four academic sources. Referencing errors are recurring. Some sources cited but not engaged with analytically. | Fewer than five sources. Heavy reliance on websites or trade press. Referencing substantially incorrect or largely absent. |
| 5. Academic Writing, Structure, and Clarity | 5% | Essay reads as a coherent, progressive academic argument. Paragraph logic is clear. Sentences are precise and appropriately formal. Word count is within the stated range. | Essay is generally well-structured and readable. Minor lapses in coherence or precision. Word count within range. | Structure is adequate but argument does not flow logically throughout. Some sections read as disconnected. Writing is mostly clear but inconsistent. | Poor structure. Essay reads as a collection of points rather than an argument. Writing is unclear, informal, or substantially below academic standard. |
Grade Boundaries
| Mark Range | UK Grade | Australian Grade | US Equivalent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 75–100% | First Class / Distinction | High Distinction | A (4.0) |
| 60–74% | Upper Second / Merit | Distinction / Credit | B+ – A- (3.3–3.7) |
| 45–59% | Lower Second / Pass | Credit / Pass | C – B (2.0–3.0) |
| 40–44% | Third / Compensatable Fail | Marginal Fail | D (1.0) |
| 0–39% | Fail | Fail | F (0.0) |
7. Guidance for Students
Framing the Argument
The essay question is deliberately provocative. It presents one position — that the problem is institutional rather than legal — and invites you to test it critically. Your task is not to agree or disagree reflexively but to evaluate the claim with evidence and develop your own defensible thesis. Strong answers typically find that the legal and institutional dimensions are mutually reinforcing and that the dichotomy in the question, while analytically useful as a starting frame, does not hold up under scrutiny. However, a well-argued case for either position will score in the Distinction band if it is properly evidenced.
The Meaning of “Developing States” in This Context
Avoid treating developing maritime nations as a uniform category. West African states operating under the Abuja MOU face different challenges from small island developing states (SIDS) in the Pacific or rapidly industrialising flag states in South and Southeast Asia. Specificity strengthens legal and institutional arguments. Reference the UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transport for data on fleet distribution, flag state registry patterns, and PSC detention rates by region.
Legal Precision
When you refer to convention obligations, cite the specific article or regulation, not just the convention name. “SOLAS requires…” is insufficient. “SOLAS Chapter IX, Regulation 3 imposes a duty on the Administration to…” is the level of precision expected in legal analysis at this level.
What Distinguishes Merit from Distinction
Merit-level essays correctly identify the legal framework and the institutional barriers. Distinction-level essays critically examine whether the conventions were designed with developing state capacity in mind, identify the specific provisions that create compliance difficulties for under-resourced administrations, and construct an original argument about the systemic roots of the implementation gap rather than cataloguing its symptoms.
Sample Content: Indicative Introductory and Analytical Paragraphs (for Guidance Only — Not for Submission)
Flag state jurisdiction over vessels flying a nation’s flag carries with it a set of international legal obligations that are among the most clearly codified in public international law. Articles 91 to 94 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establish the genuine link requirement and impose on flag states the duty to exercise effective control over their vessels in administrative, technical, and social matters. The IMO conventions give substantive content to that duty. SOLAS, MARPOL, and the STCW Convention together create a comprehensive regulatory architecture, but the architecture was designed primarily by and for maritime states with established administrative systems, trained survey workforces, and institutional infrastructure that many developing flag states simply do not possess.
The claim that legal inadequacy is not the primary problem deserves careful scrutiny rather than acceptance at face value. Several provisions within the principal IMO instruments do confer broad discretionary power on flag state administrations, and that discretion is not value-neutral. When SOLAS Chapter I, Regulation 6 permits a flag state to authorise recognised organisations, meaning classification societies, to act on its behalf, the provision assumes that the flag state retains oversight capacity over those organisations. In developing states where maritime administration budgets are measured in hundreds of thousands rather than tens of millions of dollars annually, that oversight assumption frequently fails in practice, creating a delegation of authority that functions more like an abdication of regulatory responsibility.
Institutional capacity deficits in developing maritime administrations are not simply a matter of budget size. The structure of the problem involves a reinforcing cycle in which under-resourced administrations attract open registry tonnage precisely because their low fee structures and light enforcement attract shipowners seeking to minimise compliance costs, which in turn generates revenue dependency that makes stricter enforcement economically counterintuitive for the state concerned. Mejia (2021) identifies this structural incentive problem as a central reason why flag of convenience registries in developing regions persistently record above-average PSC detention rates despite decades of IMO capacity-building support (Mejia, 2021, doi:10.1080/03088839.2021.1912231).
Regional Port State Control MOU regimes offer a partial institutional solution, and the Abuja MOU covering West and Central African coastal states represents one of the more significant recent attempts to build coordinated enforcement capacity in a developing maritime region. Annual inspection data from the Abuja MOU secretariat between 2018 and 2023 reveals, however, that both the inspection volume and the deficiency-to-detention ratio for member states remain substantially below the standards maintained by the Paris and Tokyo MOUs, pointing to persistent resource constraints that institutional frameworks alone have not been sufficient to resolve.
Legal reform is not irrelevant to this picture, but the more precise argument is that the conventions need adjustment not in their substantive safety standards but in the support architecture that surrounds those standards. Mandatory technical assistance obligations on developed member states, formalised within the convention framework rather than left to voluntary capacity-building programmes, would create a legal duty rather than a charitable gesture. Whether IMO member states would accept such an amendment is a political question, but the legal argument for it rests on solid foundations in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which has been applied in the environmental convention context and remains available for adaptation in the maritime safety governance domain.
The reform pathway that emerges from a careful examination of both dimensions is neither purely legal nor purely institutional but requires their deliberate integration. Amending convention texts to reduce ambiguous discretion without providing accompanying administrative support creates obligations that developing states ratify but cannot fulfil. Providing institutional support without addressing the legal incentive structures that enable flag of convenience abuse merely redirects the problem. A coherent reform strategy requires the IMO to treat legal standard-setting and capacity-building as a single policy intervention, not as parallel and separately funded workstreams.
References (Harvard Format)
Mejia, M.Q. (2021) ‘Flag state performance and the governance of open registries: an institutional analysis’, Maritime Policy and Management, 48(4), pp. 512–528. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1912231 [Accessed 18 January 2026].
Molenaar, E.J. (2019) ‘Port state jurisdiction: Towards comprehensive, mandatory and global coverage’, Ocean Development and International Law, 50(2–3), pp. 145–162. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1615978 [Accessed 20 January 2026].
UNCTAD (2024) Review of Maritime Transport 2024. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Available at: https://unctad.org/topic/transport-and-trade-logistics/review-of-maritime-transport [Accessed 22 January 2026].
Özçayır, Z.O. (2020) Port State Control. 4th edn. London: Lloyd’s of London Press. [Available via institutional library holdings — ISBN: 978-1843118398].
Van Hooydonk, E. (2022) ‘Genuine link, flag state control and the future of international shipping regulation’, Journal of International Maritime Law, 28(1), pp. 3–27. Available at: https://www.lawtext.com/publication/journal-of-international-maritime-law [Accessed 24 January 2026].
International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2022) Consolidated text of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, and its Protocol of 1988. London: IMO Publishing. Available at: https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/SOLAS.aspx [Accessed 15 January 2026].
Abuja MOU on Port State Control in West and Central Africa (2024) Annual Report 2023. Abuja: Abuja Memorandum of Understanding Secretariat. Available at: https://www.abujamou.org [Accessed 25 January 2026].
