Charting the Course: Analyzing International Cabotage Local Regime in the Contemporary Maritime Context

Charting the Course: Analyzing International Cabotage Local Regime in the Contemporary Maritime Context

Dr. Kalada D.S Nonju and Dr Nelson Sobere Uwoh

Faculty of Law, University of Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8100257

Received: 14 October 2024; Accepted: 18 October 2024; Published: 21 November 2024

ABSTRACT

Cabotage laws, governing the transport of goods and passengers between, domestic ports are crucial empowerments of national maritime policies worldwide. This article delves into the intricate legal landscape of international cabotage regulation examining the challenges and complexities that shape these regimes into the modern era. The paper explores the historical evolution of cabotage laws, their alignment with international treaties such as UNCLOS, and the balance between national sovereignty and international trade obligation. It also delves into the implications of cabotage restrictions on competitive economic development and environmental sustainability in the maritime sector. Furthermore, the paper investigate, recent trends in cabotage liberalization efforts and the impact of technological advancement on cabotage enforcement and compliant. By shedding light on these issues, this paper aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the legal intricacies surrounding international cabotage regimes and their implication for the global maritime community.

INTRODUCTION

Analyzing Cabotage Local Regime in the Contemporary Maritime Context

Cabotage, derived from the French term “caboter,” refers to the transport of goods or passengers between two points within a country by a vessel registered in another nation. Historically, cabotage laws were introduced to protect and promote the development of a country’s domestic maritime industry, safeguarding it from foreign competition. In the contemporary maritime context, these laws remain a crucial aspect of a country’s national shipping policy, although their relevance and application have become a subject of debate in an increasingly globalized and liberalized world.

The cabotage regime typically imposes restrictions on foreign vessels’ ability to engage in domestic maritime trade, ensuring that only national vessels are permitted to transport goods and passengers between domestic ports. This protective measure is aimed at fostering local maritime industries, creating jobs, and maintaining national security, as a robust domestic fleet is often considered essential in times of national emergency or conflict.

In the modern era, however, the global nature of maritime trade and the international nature of shipping raise complex challenges for the traditional cabotage regimes. With the shipping industry characterized by large multinational corporations, foreign investment, and intricate logistics networks, rigid cabotage laws can be seen as both a protective force for national industries and a potential hindrance to economic efficiency and competitiveness.

This introduction sets the stage for a deeper exploration of how local cabotage regimes are evolving to balance national interests with the demands of an interconnected global economy. It also invites analysis of whether these laws are still fit for purpose in the 21st century, particularly in light of technological advances, changing geopolitical landscapes, and economic shifts in the global maritime industry. The study will look at specific case examples, regulatory frameworks, and the broader implications for international trade and domestic maritime sectors.

Definitions of Cabotage law

Cabotage refers to the transportation of goods or passengers between two points within the same country by a vessel or aircraft registered in another country. This practice is often regulated or restricted by national laws to protect domestic industries and enhance national security.

Importance of cabotage in International Maritime Law                           

1. Economic Protectionism: Many countries implement cabotage laws to protect their domestic shipping industries from foreign competition. This helps ensure the viability and growth of national maritime sectors by providing exclusive rights to local companies for domestic shipping routes[1].
2. National Security: By restricting cabotage to national carriers, countries can better control and monitor the movement of vessels within their territorial waters[2]. This enhances security by reducing the risk of espionage or illicit activities conducted by foreign vessels[3].
3. Job Creation and Retention: Cabotage laws often help create and maintain jobs within the country. By reserving domestic shipping for local companies, nations can support their maritime workforce, contributing to overall economic stability[4].
4. Infrastructure Investment: Domestic shipping companies are more likely to invest in local port infrastructure and services if they are guaranteed exclusive rights to cabotage operations. This can lead to improved facilities and better services, benefiting the overall economy[5] .
5. Regulatory Compliance and Safety Standards: By allowing only national carriers to perform cabotage, countries can enforce their own safety, labor, and environmental regulations more effectively. This ensures higher compliance with national and international standards, enhancing maritime safety and environmental protection[6] .

Current State of the International Cabotage Legal Regime

The international cabotage legal regime is characterized by a variety of national laws and regulations that govern the transportation of goods and passengers within a country’s territorial waters. While the specifics can vary widely from one country to another, several key trends and principles are common across many jurisdictions:

1. Restrictive Policies: Many countries maintain stringent cabotage laws that restrict domestic maritime trade to vessels flying their national flag. These laws are designed to protect domestic shipping industries and preserve national security interests[7].
2. Economic and Security Considerations: Countries implement cabotage laws to safeguard their economic interests and ensure national security. By limiting domestic shipping to national carriers, countries can better monitor and control maritime activities within their borders[8].
3. International Agreements and Exemptions: Some international agreements, such as regional trade agreements or specific bilateral treaties, include provisions that relax cabotage restrictions under certain conditions. These agreements are intended to promote trade and economic cooperation among member states[9].
4. Enforcement and Compliance: Enforcement of cabotage laws varies, with some countries imposing strict penalties for violations, while others may have more lenient approaches. Compliance with these laws is crucial for maintaining fair competition and protecting domestic maritime interests[10].
5. Trends towards liberalization: In recent years, there has been a trend towards liberalizing cabotage laws in some regions to promote economic efficiency and reduce shipping costs. However, such liberalization efforts are often met with resistance from domestic industries and labor unions concerned about job losses and industry decline[11].

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CABOTAGE LAW

Early Foundations

Medieval and Mercantilist Eras: The concept of cabotage can be traced back to medieval Europe, where maritime laws were established to protect domestic shipping industries from foreign competition. The British Navigation Acts of the 17th century are among the earliest formalized examples. These acts required that goods imported to England or its colonies be carried on English ships, thereby fostering the growth of the English maritime industry and securing national control over trade routes[12] .

19th Century Developments

Rise of Nationalism and Protectionism: The 19th century saw a surge in nationalistic policies, with many countries enacting cabotage laws to protect their burgeoning shipping industries. The United States, for example, passed the Merchant Marine Act of 1920[13] , which restricted domestic shipping to U.S.-flagged vessels and aimed to promote a strong national merchant marine capable of supporting defense needs[14].

20th Century Evolution

Post-War Expansion and Globalization: After World War II, many nations reinforced their cabotage laws to rebuild their economies and shipping industries. During this period, cabotage laws became more codified and comprehensive, reflecting the strategic importance of maintaining national control over domestic maritime transport. The rise of globalization in the latter half of the 20th century, however, began to challenge these restrictive policies, as international trade expanded and the need for efficient global supply chains grew[15].

Recent Trends and Liberalization Efforts

21st Century and the Push for Liberalization: In the 21st century, there has been a noticeable trend towards liberalizing cabotage laws in some regions to enhance economic efficiency and reduce shipping costs. For example, the European Union has progressively opened its internal maritime market to promote competition and reduce shipping costs among member states[16] . Similarly, some countries in Asia [17] and Latin America [18] have started to relax their cabotage restrictions to attract foreign investment and stimulate economic growth[19].

Judicial Interpretations and Challenges: Judicial interpretations of cabotage laws have also played a significant role in their development. Courts in various countries have addressed issues related to the scope and enforcement of these laws, often balancing national security and economic interests against the principles of free trade. In the United States, for example, several landmark cases have shaped the interpretation and application of the Jones Act, reflecting ongoing tensions between protectionist policies and the pressures of globalization[20].

Ancient Maritime Practices                       

Ancient Greece and Rome: In ancient Greece and Rome, maritime trade was regulated by local laws and customs, which often included provisions to favor local merchants and ships. While not formalized as modern cabotage laws, these early practices set a precedent for restricting maritime trade to domestic operators[21].

Medieval Maritime Laws                      

Medieval European Maritime Codes: During the medieval period, various European maritime codes and statutes were developed to regulate shipping and trade within specific regions. These codes often included restrictions designed to protect local shipping interests from foreign competition. For example, the Laws of Oleron (12th century) were a set of maritime regulations that applied to ships operating in the Mediterranean and were influential in shaping maritime law in medieval Europe[22].

The British Navigation Acts

British Navigation Acts (1651-1849): The British Navigation Acts are among the earliest formalized examples of cabotage law. These laws were enacted to protect and promote English shipping by mandating that goods imported into England or its colonies be carried on English ships. The Navigation Acts were pivotal in establishing the principle of cabotage by restricting domestic trade to vessels of the country imposing the laws[23].

Mercantilist Policies

Mercantilist Era (16th-18th Centuries): During the mercantilist era, many European nations adopted similar protectionist policies to bolster their maritime industries and control trade. These policies included cabotage regulations that restricted domestic transport to national vessels, thereby promoting the growth of national fleets and ensuring economic benefits remained within the country[24].

Early U.S. Legislation

Early U.S. Cabotage Laws: In the early United States, cabotage laws were also adopted to protect domestic shipping. The Act of 1789 established that only American ships could engage in domestic trade between U.S. ports, setting the stage for later regulations like the Merchant Marine Act (Jones Act) of 1920, which reinforced and expanded these protections[25].

These early developments laid the groundwork for the formalization and expansion of cabotage laws in subsequent centuries, reflecting the evolving priorities of nations in protecting their maritime industries and regulating domestic trade.

Evolution of Cabotage Law through International Conventions and Treaties.

The evolution of cabotage law through international conventions and treaties has been marked by shifts in global trade dynamics, regional integration efforts, and changing national interests. Here is an overview of key international agreements that have influenced the development of cabotage law:

Early International Efforts                               

The Hague Rules (1924): While primarily focused on international cargo transport, The Hague Rules set the stage for future international conventions by establishing standards for maritime law, which indirectly influenced cabotage regulations. These rules were aimed at harmonizing international shipping practices and were later supplemented by other agreements[26].

Mid-20th Century Developments

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the IMO has been instrumental in developing international maritime regulations. Although the IMO does not specifically govern cabotage laws, its conventions and protocols have set safety, environmental, and operational standards that impact how nations regulate domestic shipping[27].

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)[28]: UNCLOS, a comprehensive framework for maritime law, includes provisions related to the territorial sea and exclusive economic zones. While it does not directly address cabotage, UNCLOS provides a framework within which national cabotage laws must operate, influencing how countries regulate their domestic maritime activities[29].

Regional and Bilateral Agreements

European Union (EU) Maritime Policy: The EU has been at the forefront of cabotage liberalization within its member states. The EU’s policies, including the Regulation on the freedom to provide services in maritime transport, aim to create a single maritime market by removing restrictions on cabotage services among member states. This regulation reflects the EU’s commitment to promoting competition and efficiency within the internal market[30].

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) : While NAFTA did not directly address cabotage, it included provisions that impacted maritime transport among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The agreement influenced how these countries approached cabotage by promoting trade and investment, which indirectly affected domestic shipping policies[31].

21st Century Trends

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea[32] : The Rotterdam Rules, which aim to modernize international cargo transport regulations, have implications for cabotage by setting standards for multimodal transport. Though they focus on international carriage, their emphasis on uniformity and efficiency influences how countries may view and regulate domestic shipping practices.

Regional Trade Agreements and Bilateral Treaties: In recent years, various bilateral and regional trade agreements have included provisions that affect cabotage laws. These agreements often aim to relax restrictions to promote trade and economic cooperation. Examples include the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and other trade agreements that address barriers to maritime transport[33].

These international conventions and treaties illustrate how global and regional agreements have shaped the evolution of cabotage law, reflecting changes in trade practices, economic priorities, and regulatory frameworks.

KEY COMPONENTS OF INTERNATIONAL CABOTAGE LEGAL REGIME

We will be discussing the following under this heading:

The definition and scope of cabotage, rights and obligations of coastal states and foreign vessel and finally the exceptions and exemption of cabotage laws

The Scope of Cabotage

Cabotage refers to the transportation of goods or passengers between two places in the same country by a transport operator from another country. The scope of cabotage regulations can vary significantly depending on the legal and regulatory frameworks of different countries. Here are some common aspects and considerations within the scope of cabotage:

Geographic Limitation: Cabotage laws generally restrict foreign operators from providing domestic transportation services within a country. For example, in the United States, the Jones Act restricts cabotage in maritime shipping to U.S.-flagged vessels[34].

Sector-Specific Regulations: Cabotage rules can apply differently across various transportation sectors, such as maritime, aviation, and road transport. In the European Union, the road transport sector has specific cabotage rules that permit temporary operations by foreign haulers under certain conditions[35].

Registration and Flag Requirements: Cabotage often involves requirements related to the registration and flag of the transport vehicle. For instance, vessels engaged in cabotage in Brazil must be registered under the Brazilian flag[36].

Crew Nationality: Some cabotage laws mandate that the crew of the transport vehicle (e.g., ships or planes) must be citizens of the country in which the service is being provided. This is often the case in the United States for maritime operations under the Jones Act[37].

Economic and Security Considerations: Cabotage laws can be enacted for economic protectionism, ensuring that local industries and labor are protected from foreign competition. They can also be driven by national security concerns, as control over domestic transport can be crucial in emergencies[38].

Rights and Obligations of Coastal States

The rights and obligations of coastal states and foreign vessels are governed by international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). These rules define the jurisdictional zones and the corresponding rights and responsibilities. Here are the key aspects:

1. Territorial Sea:

Rights: Coastal states have sovereignty over their territorial sea, which extends up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline. This includes the right to regulate navigation, fishing, customs, and environmental protection.

Obligations: Coastal states must allow innocent passage of foreign vessels, which is defined as passage that is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state [39][1].

2. Contiguous Zone:.

Rights: Beyond the territorial sea, up to 24 nautical miles from the baseline, coastal states may exercise control to prevent infringement of their customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws.

Obligations: Coastal states must not impede the freedom of navigation and overflight in this zone [40]2].

3. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ):

Rights: Coastal states have sovereign rights for exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing natural resources, both living and non-living, in the waters, seabed, and subsoil up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline.

Obligations: Coastal states must consider the rights of other states in the EEZ, particularly concerning navigation and overflight, and they must conserve and manage living resources sustainably [41][3].

4. Continental Shelf:

Rights: Coastal states have the exclusive right to exploit mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil, extending beyond the EEZ up to the outer edge of the continental margin or 200 nautical miles.

Obligations: Coastal states must not impede the laying and maintenance of submarine cables and pipelines by other states [42][4].

Rights and Obligations of Foreign Vessels

1. Innocent Passage:

Rights: Foreign vessels have the right to innocent passage through the territorial sea of a coastal state without prior notification or permission, provided that they do not engage in activities harmful to the coastal state.

Obligations: Foreign vessels must comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state relating to navigation, safety, and the protection of resources and the environment[43].

2. Transit Passage:

Rights: In straits used for international navigation, foreign vessels and aircraft have the right to transit passage, which must be continuous and expeditious.

Obligations: Foreign vessels must refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of states bordering the strait[44].

3. Freedom of Navigation:

Rights: Beyond the territorial sea, in the EEZ and on the high seas, foreign vessels enjoy the freedom of navigation, overflight, and the laying of submarine cables and pipelines.

Obligations: Foreign vessels must respect the rights and jurisdiction of coastal states in the EEZ and abide by international regulations to prevent collisions at sea and pollution[45].

Freedom of Navigation: UNCLOS, Articles 87 and 58. Cabotage laws, which restrict the transportation of goods or passengers between two points within the same country by foreign operators, can have various exceptions and exemptions. These exceptions and exemptions are typically established to accommodate specific economic, political, or practical considerations. Below are some common exceptions and exemptions to cabotage laws, along with authorities:

Exceptions and Exemptions to cabotage Laws

These exceptions and exemptions can vary significantly depending on the country and the specific regulatory framework in place. They are often used to balance the protection of domestic industries with the practical needs of international trade and cooperation.

1. Public Interest and National Security

Exemption: Some countries may waive cabotage restrictions for specific vessels or aircraft in cases of national emergency or public interest. This can include natural disasters, defense requirements, or other urgent situations.

Authority: The Jones Act in the United States, for example, allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive the requirement for U.S.-flagged vessels in cases of national defense or emergency[46].

2. Special Economic Zones and Free Ports

Exemption: Goods transported to or from special economic zones (SEZs) or free ports may be exempt from cabotage laws to encourage trade and investment. These areas are often treated as being outside the customs territory for certain purposes.

Authority: In the European Union, goods transported between free ports and other parts of the customs territory may benefit from specific exemptions[47].

3. Limited Duration and Temporary Waivers

Exemption: Some countries may grant temporary waivers for foreign vessels or aircraft for a limited period, often when there are insufficient domestic resources to meet demand.

Authority: The U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) can issue temporary waivers for foreign vessels in specific circumstances, such as oil spill response or other emergency situations[48].

4. Reciprocal Agreements and International Treaties

Exemption: Bilateral or multilateral agreements between countries may allow for reciprocal exemptions to cabotage laws. These agreements facilitate mutual benefits, such as reduced costs or increased trade.

Authority: The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (now the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA) includes provisions that affect cabotage, particularly in the trucking and rail sectors[49].

5. Special Categories of Vessels or Aircraft

Exemption: Certain categories of vessels, such as cruise ships, scientific research vessels, or vessels engaged in offshore exploration, may be exempt from cabotage restrictions.

Authority: The Passenger Vessel Services Act in the United States provides certain exemptions for foreign-flagged vessels under specific conditions, such as when no U.S.-flagged vessels are available[50].

6. Promotional Purposes and Cultural Exchanges

Exemption: Exemptions may be granted for vessels or aircraft engaged in cultural exchanges, promotional tours, or other activities that promote tourism and cultural understanding.

Authority: The Canadian Coasting Trade Act allows for exemptions in cases where a foreign vessel is used for a “cultural or heritage event” under certain conditions[51]

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND ISSUES

Under this heading we will be discussing contemporary challenges and issues under the cabotage laws. The following challenges and issues will be discussed; Impacts of globalization and trade liberalization on cabotage laws, tensions between coastal states sovereignty and freedom of navigation and Environmental and Safety concerns in cabotage operations.

Impacts of globalization and Trade Liberalization on Cabotage Laws

Globalization and trade liberalization have significantly influenced the development and application of cabotage laws around the world. These forces present contemporary challenges that reshape the landscape of maritime transportation, national security, and economic policies. This essay explores the key impacts and challenges posed by globalization and trade liberalization on cabotage laws, supported by authoritative sources.

1. Pressure for Economic Efficiency and Competitiveness

Globalization and trade liberalization have heightened the demand for efficient and competitive shipping services. The increased integration of global markets necessitates rapid and cost-effective transportation of goods. Cabotage laws, which traditionally restrict domestic shipping services to national carriers, often limit competition and can lead to higher costs for domestic transportation. The push for liberalization stems from the potential economic benefits of allowing foreign vessels to participate in domestic shipping markets, thus lowering costs and improving service quality.

For instance, the European Union’s effort to create a single market has led to the liberalization of maritime cabotage services within its member states through Regulation (EEC) No. 3577/92, which abolished restrictions on the provision of maritime transport services within the EU. This regulation has increased competition, reduced shipping costs, and enhanced service quality, benefiting consumers and industries dependent on maritime transport[52].

2. National Security Concerns

One of the critical arguments against the liberalization of cabotage laws is the potential threat to national security. Cabotage laws are often justified on the grounds of national security, as they ensure that a country’s maritime trade and transport are controlled by national carriers, thus maintaining control over its territorial waters. Allowing foreign vessels to operate within a country’s waters could pose significant security risks, including espionage, smuggling, and unauthorized surveillance.

The United States’ Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly known as the Jones Act, is a prominent example of cabotage laws enacted with national security considerations in mind. The Jones Act restricts domestic maritime transport to U.S.-flagged vessels, which are owned, built, and crewed by U.S. citizens. This legislation aims to maintain a robust domestic maritime industry capable of supporting national defense needs in times of crisis[53]. Critics of cabotage liberalization argue that relaxing such laws could compromise a nation’s security by reducing its control over critical maritime infrastructure and operations[54].

3. Protection of Domestic Maritime Industries

Cabotage laws have historically served to protect domestic maritime industries from foreign competition. These laws ensure that domestic shipping companies have exclusive access to the country’s coastal trade, thereby supporting local employment, maintaining a fleet of national vessels, and ensuring the economic viability of the domestic shipping industry. However, globalization and trade liberalization challenge this protectionist stance by advocating for open markets and free trade.

The debate over cabotage liberalization is particularly relevant in developing countries, where domestic maritime industries may not be as competitive as those in more developed economies. Allowing foreign competition can lead to the decline of local shipping companies, loss of jobs, and reduced investment in the domestic maritime sector. For example, the liberalization of the Philippine cabotage laws in 2015, through Republic Act No. 10668, allowed foreign vessels to transport cargo between domestic ports. While the reform aimed to reduce shipping costs and promote trade, it also raised concerns about the potential negative impact on the domestic shipping industry[55].

4. Impacts on Labor Markets

The liberalization of cabotage laws can significantly impact domestic labor markets, particularly in the maritime sector. Domestic shipping industries are often significant employers, providing jobs for seafarers, dockworkers, and other related professions. The entry of foreign competition, often operating with lower labor costs and different standards, can lead to job losses and downward pressure on wages and working conditions.

In the United States, for instance, the Jones Act not only protects the domestic shipping industry but also safeguards the jobs of American seafarers. The law requires that crews on U.S.-flagged vessels be predominantly composed of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, ensuring a stable employment base. Liberalizing cabotage laws could lead to an influx of foreign crews, potentially undermining labor standards and job security for domestic workers[56]. Similar concerns have been raised in other countries with strong maritime traditions, such as Canada and Australia, where cabotage laws have historically protected local jobs[57].

5. Environmental and Regulatory Considerations

Globalization and trade liberalization also bring environmental and regulatory challenges to cabotage laws. Domestic shipping industries are typically subject to national environmental and safety regulations, which may be stricter than international standards. Allowing foreign vessels to operate in domestic waters raises concerns about compliance with these regulations, particularly if foreign operators are accustomed to less stringent standards.

For example, the introduction of foreign-flagged vessels in domestic trade can complicate the enforcement of environmental regulations, such as those concerning emissions and ballast water management. This issue is particularly pertinent in environmentally sensitive areas, where strict adherence to environmental standards is crucial. The potential for increased pollution and environmental degradation due to the entry of foreign vessels with varying standards can be a significant concern for countries considering the liberalization of cabotage laws [58].

6. Impact of Regional and Bilateral Trade Agreements

Regional and bilateral trade agreements have increasingly influenced the evolution of cabotage laws, often promoting liberalization as part of broader economic integration efforts. Such agreements can include provisions that relax cabotage restrictions, thereby fostering greater economic cooperation and trade between the signatory countries.

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is an example of a regional trade agreement that addresses cabotage issues. While not mandating the complete liberalization of cabotage laws, the CPTPP encourages member countries to consider such reforms to enhance trade and economic integration. Similarly, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its successor, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), have provisions that indirectly influence cabotage laws by promoting cross-border trade and investment[59].

7. Resistance and Reform Efforts

Despite the pressures for liberalization, there is often significant resistance to changing cabotage laws, reflecting the complex interplay of economic, political, and social factors. Domestic industries, labor unions, and national security advocates are typically the most vocal opponents of liberalization. They argue that cabotage laws are essential for protecting national interests, preserving jobs, and maintaining control over strategic industries.

Reform efforts are often met with skepticism and concern about the potential negative impacts. For example, in Australia, the debate over cabotage reform has been ongoing, with proposals to relax restrictions facing strong opposition from domestic shipping companies and labor unions. The Australian government’s Coastal Trading (Revitalizing Australian Shipping) Act 2012 sought to balance the need for a competitive domestic shipping industry with the protection of national interests, but the debate continues[60].

In rounding off this discuss, I will state that globalization and trade liberalization present significant contemporary challenges to cabotage laws, pushing for reforms that emphasize economic efficiency and market competition. While the potential benefits of liberalizing cabotage laws include lower shipping costs and increased competitiveness, these must be weighed against the risks to national security, the protection of domestic industries, labor market impacts, and environmental considerations

Tensions between Coastal State Sovereignty and Freedom of Navigation.

The relationship between coastal state sovereignty and the principle of freedom of navigation is a central issue in international maritime law. This relationship is primarily governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which seeks to balance the rights and responsibilities of coastal states with those of the international community. The tension arises because coastal states have sovereign rights over their territorial seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZs), while other states assert the right to navigate freely through these waters.

Coastal State Sovereignty

1. Territorial Sea: Coastal states have sovereignty over their territorial sea, which extends up to 12 nautical miles from their baselines. This sovereignty is akin to the sovereignty a state exercises over its land territory, but it is subject to certain navigational rights accorded to other states, such as the right of innocent passage[61] .
2. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): Beyond the territorial sea, up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline, lies the EEZ, where the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing natural resources[62] . These rights, however, do not amount to full sovereignty and must be balanced against the freedoms of navigation and overflight of other states.
3. Contiguous Zone: In the contiguous zone, which extends from the outer edge of the territorial sea up to 24 nautical miles from the baselines, coastal states can exercise control necessary to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws within its territory or territorial sea[63].

Freedom of Navigation

1. High Seas Freedoms: Freedom of navigation is a fundamental principle of international law that applies to all parts of the sea not subject to the sovereignty of any state. On the high seas, beyond the EEZ, ships of all states enjoy freedom of navigation, fishing, overflight, laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms[64].
2. Innocent Passage: Within the territorial sea, foreign vessels enjoy the right of innocent passage, which means they can traverse the territorial sea so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state[65] . This right is designed to balance the sovereignty of the coastal state with the interests of the international community in ensuring maritime mobility.
3. Transit Passage: In straits used for international navigation, which are not subject to the regime of innocent passage, ships and aircraft of all states enjoy the right of transit passage. This is a broader right than innocent passage and includes the freedom to navigate and overfly for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit[66].

Points of Tension

1. Security Concerns: Coastal states often cite security concerns to justify imposing restrictions on navigation in their territorial sea and EEZ. For example, they may establish security zones or require prior notification or authorization for warships and other state vessels to enter their territorial waters. These measures can conflict with the right of innocent passage and the broader freedoms of navigation in the EEZ, leading to disputes.
2. Environmental Protection: Coastal states have the right and responsibility to protect and preserve the marine environment in their EEZ. This can lead to the imposition of restrictions on navigation, such as special routing measures, speed limits, or discharge prohibitions, which may be seen as impediments to the freedom of navigation by other states. UNCLOS provides a framework for resolving such conflicts through consultation and cooperation[67].
3. Resource Exploitation: The rights of coastal states to exploit the natural resources in their EEZ can clash with the freedoms of navigation and overflight. For example, the installation of offshore platforms, drilling rigs, and other structures can interfere with navigation and pose hazards to maritime safety. UNCLOS requires that such installations not cause unjustifiable interference with international navigation and must be adequately marked and removed when no longer in use[68].

Case Studies and Examples

1. South China Sea: The South China Sea is a significant example of tensions between coastal state claims and freedom of navigation. Several states, including China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia, have overlapping claims to islands and maritime zones in the South China Sea. China’s construction of artificial islands and its imposition of restrictions on navigation and overflight in the region have led to confrontations with other states, including the United States, which conducts freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) to challenge what it considers excessive maritime claims.
2. Arctic Shipping Routes: The opening of Arctic shipping routes due to melting ice has heightened tensions between coastal states like Canada and Russia, which assert regulatory control over these routes, and other maritime nations that insist on the right of free passage. Canada, for example, regards the Northwest Passage as internal waters subject to its full sovereignty, while other states view it as an international strait where the right of transit passage applies.
3. Gulf of Hormuz: The Gulf of Hormuz is a strategic chokepoint for global oil shipments, and Iran has occasionally threatened to close it to international traffic, citing security concerns. Such actions are highly controversial, as they conflict with the principle of transit passage through straits used for international navigation, which is crucial for maintaining the uninterrupted flow of maritime commerce.

Legal and Diplomatic Mechanisms for Resolution

1. Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: UNCLOS provides several mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of disputes, including negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and adjudication by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ)[69]. These mechanisms are essential for addressing conflicts between coastal state sovereignty and freedom of navigation in a legally binding manner.
2. Regional Cooperation: Regional organizations and agreements can also play a significant role in managing maritime disputes and promoting cooperative solutions. For instance, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been involved in facilitating dialogue and confidence-building measures among its member states and China regarding the South China Sea disputes[70].
3. Bilateral Agreements: Bilateral agreements between coastal states and maritime powers can help clarify and manage specific issues related to navigation and sovereignty. These agreements can address practical concerns, such as notification requirements, environmental protection measures, and security arrangements, thereby reducing the potential for conflict[71].

The tension between coastal state sovereignty and freedom of navigation reflects the broader challenge of balancing national interests with the collective interests of the international community. While UNCLOS provides a comprehensive legal framework for managing these tensions, practical implementation often requires diplomatic engagement, regional cooperation, and adherence to international norms and principles. The ongoing disputes in regions like the South China Sea, the Arctic, and the Gulf of Hormuz underscore the need for continued vigilance and dialogue to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of all states are respected and upheld in the complex and dynamic maritime domain.

Environmental and Safety Concerns in Cabotage Operations

Cabotage operations, which involve the transportation of goods or passengers between two points within the same country by a vessel registered in another country, have significant implications for environmental protection and maritime safety. These operations are subject to specific national laws and regulations designed to protect domestic shipping industries, but they also raise several environmental and safety concerns. This discussion explores these concerns in depth, with references to legal frameworks, case studies, and expert analyses.

Environmental Concerns

Marine Pollution

Marine pollution is one of the most significant environmental concerns associated with cabotage operations. This includes pollution from oil spills, hazardous substances, sewage, garbage, and ballast water discharge.

1. Oil Spills: Oil spills from vessels can have catastrophic effects on marine ecosystems, affecting wildlife, fisheries, and coastal communities. According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), oil pollution is a major threat to the marine environment, and strict regulations are in place under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)[72] to mitigate this risk.
2. Ballast Water: The discharge of ballast water from ships can introduce invasive species into new environments, disrupting local ecosystems. The IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention aims to control and manage ships’ ballast water to prevent the spread of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens[73].
3. Sewage and Garbage: Ships generate sewage and garbage, which, if not properly managed, can pollute the marine environment. MARPOL Annex IV and V provide regulations for the discharge of sewage and garbage from ships, emphasizing the need for adequate onboard treatment facilities and proper disposal methods[74].

Air Pollution

Ships are a significant source of air pollution, emitting sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2). These emissions contribute to air quality degradation and global climate change.

1. SOx and NOx Emissions: The IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI sets limits on sulfur content in marine fuel and NOx emissions from ship engines to reduce air pollution and protect human health and the environment[75].
2. GHG Emissions: The shipping industry is under increasing pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. The IMO’s Initial Strategy on the Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships aims to reduce total annual GHG emissions from international shipping by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels[76].

Noise Pollution

Underwater noise from ship engines and propellers can disturb marine life, particularly marine mammals that rely on echolocation for navigation and communication. The IMO has recognized the impact of underwater noise and is working on guidelines to mitigate its effects[77].

Habitat Destruction

Cabotage operations can lead to habitat destruction through dredging, port development, and anchor damage. Sensitive habitats such as coral reefs, sea grass beds, and mangroves are particularly vulnerable. Effective marine spatial planning and environmental impact assessments are essential to minimize these impacts.

Safety Concerns                     

Vessel Safety Standards

The safety of vessels engaged in cabotage operations is paramount to prevent accidents and ensure the protection of life at sea. Key safety concerns include:

1. Vessel Construction and Maintenance: The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) sets comprehensive standards for the construction, equipment, and operation of ships to ensure their safety. Regular maintenance and inspections are crucial to maintaining these standards.
2. Crew Competency: The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watch keeping for Seafarers (STCW) ensures that seafarers are properly trained and certified to operate ships safely[78]. This includes training in emergency procedures, navigation, and handling of hazardous cargo.
3. Safety Management Systems: The International Safety Management (ISM) Code requires shipping companies to implement a safety management system that includes procedures for safe operation of ships and pollution prevention. This helps in identifying and mitigating risks associated with maritime operations.

Accident Prevention

Preventing accidents such as collisions, groundings, and fires is a major safety concern in cabotage operations. Factors contributing to accidents include human error, technical failures, and adverse weather conditions.

1. Human Error: Human error is a leading cause of maritime accidents. Effective training, adherence to safety procedures, and adequate rest for crew members are essential to minimize the risk of human error.
2. Technical Failures: Regular maintenance and inspections are necessary to prevent technical failures. The SOLAS convention mandates that ships undergo periodic surveys and inspections to ensure their seaworthiness.
3. Weather Conditions: Adverse weather conditions can pose significant risks to maritime safety. Accurate weather forecasting and route planning are essential to avoid hazardous conditions and ensure the safety of vessels and crew.

Search and Rescue (SAR) Operations

Effective SAR operations are critical to saving lives in maritime emergencies. The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) establishes a global framework for SAR operations, ensuring that assistance is provided to persons in distress at sea regardless of their nationality or the circumstances in which they are found.

Piracy and Armed Robbery

Cabotage operations can be vulnerable to piracy and armed robbery, particularly in certain regions. The IMO, along with regional and national authorities, has developed measures to prevent and respond to piracy incidents, including the use of vessel protection measures and international cooperation.

Case Studies and Examples

1. Deep-water Horizon Oil Spill: The 2010 Deep-water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico highlighted the catastrophic environmental impacts of oil pollution. The spill had devastating effects on marine and coastal ecosystems, fisheries, and local economies, underscoring the importance of stringent safety and environmental regulations in cabotage operations.
2. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska caused widespread environmental damage, affecting marine wildlife and habitats. The incident led to significant changes in U.S. maritime law, including the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which strengthened regulations on oil spill prevention and response.
3. MV Wakashio Incident: The grounding of the MV Wakashio off the coast of Mauritius in 2020 resulted in a major oil spill, causing extensive damage to coral reefs, fish, and other marine life. The incident highlighted the need for improved vessel safety standards and emergency response capabilities.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

1. International Conventions: Several international conventions address the environmental and safety concerns in cabotage operations, including MARPOL, SOLAS, STCW, and the Ballast Water Management Convention. These conventions provide comprehensive regulations and guidelines to ensure the safety of maritime operations and the protection of the marine environment.
2. National Regulations: Coastal states often have specific national laws and regulations governing cabotage operations. These may include requirements for vessel registration, crew nationality, and compliance with environmental and safety standards. For example, the Jones Act in the United States regulates cabotage and aims to protect the domestic shipping industry while ensuring safety and environmental protection.
3. Regional Agreements: Regional agreements and organizations, such as the European Union and ASEAN, also play a role in regulating cabotage operations and addressing environmental and safety concerns. These agreements often complement international conventions and national regulations.

INTERNATIONAL CABOTAGE LEGAL REGIME: AN ANALYSIS

Cabotage, in the context of international law, refers to the transport of goods or passengers between two places within the same country by a foreign vessel or vehicle. The legal regime governing cabotage varies significantly across jurisdictions, reflecting a balance between protecting national industries and fostering international trade. This analysis examines the international cabotage legal regime, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, with a focus on statutory frameworks and judicial interpretations.

Overview of International Cabotage Legal Regime

The concept of cabotage is deeply rooted in the principle of national sovereignty over territorial waters and airspace. Most nations have established strict cabotage laws to protect their domestic industries, particularly in maritime, aviation, and road transport sectors. These laws typically restrict foreign vessels, aircraft, or vehicles from engaging in domestic trade or transport without special permission.

1. Maritime Cabotage: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) recognizes the right of coastal states to regulate maritime cabotage within their territorial waters[79]. Many countries, such as the United States under the Jones Act[80], have stringent laws reserving domestic shipping routes exclusively for national vessels. Similarly, the European Union (EU) allows Member States to impose restrictions on maritime cabotage under specific conditions[81].
2. Aviation Cabotage: In aviation, the Chicago Convention of 1944 establishes the foundational framework, allowing countries to regulate air cabotage within their territories[82]. Most countries prohibit foreign airlines from operating domestic flights, though exceptions exist under bilateral or multilateral agreements, such as the European Common Aviation Area[83].
3. Road Transport Cabotage: The legal regime for road transport cabotage is less uniform. In the EU, Regulation (EC) allows limited cabotage operations by foreign carriers within Member States[84]. Other regions have similarly complex frameworks, balancing liberalization with protection of domestic industries.

Strengths of the Current Legal Framework

Protection of Domestic Industries

One of the primary strengths of the current cabotage legal regime is the protection it affords to domestic industries. By reserving certain markets for national operators, countries can shield their industries from foreign competition, preserving jobs and promoting economic stability. For example, the Jones Act in the United States has been instrumental in supporting the U.S. shipbuilding industry and maintaining a fleet of vessels for national defense purposes[85].

National Security Considerations

Cabotage laws also play a crucial role in national security. By restricting domestic transport to national carriers, countries can ensure that critical infrastructure and supply chains remain under local control. This is particularly important in times of crisis, where reliance on foreign operators could pose significant risks. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries reinforced cabotage restrictions to secure essential supplies[86].

Environmental and Safety Standards

Another strength of the cabotage legal regime is the ability to enforce national environmental and safety standards. By controlling which vessels, aircraft, or vehicles operate within their borders, countries can impose stringent regulations to ensure that these operations meet national standards. This helps in mitigating environmental risks and enhancing the safety of transport operations[87].

III. Weaknesses of the Current Legal Framework

1. Barriers to Trade and Competition

One of the most significant weaknesses of the current cabotage legal framework is the creation of barriers to trade and competition. By restricting foreign operators, cabotage laws can lead to monopolistic practices, reduced competition, and higher costs for consumers. In the maritime industry, for example, the Jones Act has been criticized for leading to higher shipping costs within the United States[88] .

2. Inconsistency and Fragmentation

The international cabotage regime is marked by inconsistency and fragmentation, with varying rules and regulations across different countries and sectors. This lack of uniformity creates challenges for international operators, who must navigate a complex web of legal requirements. In the aviation sector, while some regions like the EU have harmonized rules, others have a patchwork of bilateral agreements, leading to inefficiencies and confusion[89].

3. Challenges in Enforcement and Compliance

Enforcing cabotage laws can be challenging, particularly in sectors like maritime and road transport, where monitoring and policing operations can be difficult. Illegal cabotage operations are not uncommon, and the resources required to enforce these laws can be significant. Moreover, compliance costs for businesses can be high, particularly for international operators unfamiliar with local regulations[90].

4. Impact on International Relations

Cabotage laws can also strain international relations, particularly when they are perceived as protectionist measures. Disputes over cabotage restrictions have led to tensions between countries, especially in trade negotiations. For instance, the United States has faced criticism from its trading partners over the restrictive nature of the Jones Act, which some argue violates the principles of free trade[91].

Statutory and Judicial Authorities

1. Statutory Frameworks

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): UNCLOS grants coastal states the right to regulate cabotage within their territorial waters, providing a broad legal framework for maritime cabotage laws globally[92].

 This U.S. federal statute mandates that goods transported by water between U.S. ports must be carried on U.S.-flagged vessels, built in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens or permanent residents[93].

This EU regulation governs road cabotage, allowing foreign carriers to perform a limited number of domestic transport operations within another Member State after an international journey[94].

2. Judicial Interpretations

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles[95]: In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of a local ordinance that were found to violate federal preemption principles under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), highlighting the tension between local cabotage regulations and federal law[96].

Commission v. Italy[97] : The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Italy’s restrictions on cabotage in road transport were incompatible with EU law, emphasizing the importance of the internal market and the free movement of goods and services within the EU[98].

Comparison with other International Maritime Legal Regimes

The international cabotage legal regime represents a complex interplay between national sovereignty, economic protectionism, and international trade liberalization. While the current framework provides significant benefits in terms of protecting domestic industries, ensuring national security, and maintaining high environmental and safety standards, it also poses challenges in terms of trade barriers, regulatory fragmentation, enforcement difficulties, and potential strain on international relations. Moving forward, there is a need for greater harmonization and cooperation at the international level to address these weaknesses while preserving the legitimate interests that cabotage laws are designed to protect. Cabotage laws and maritime regimes are critical components of international maritime law, influencing the regulation of shipping activities within a nation’s territorial waters and between countries. Cabotage refers to the transportation of goods or passengers between two ports within the same country by a foreign vessel. The international cabotage regime is distinct from other maritime regimes, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations, and various bilateral and multilateral agreements governing international shipping. This essay provides a comparative analysis of the international cabotage regime with other international maritime regimes, highlighting their similarities, differences, and legal underpinnings.

Cabotage laws are designed to protect and promote domestic shipping industries by reserving the right to engage in coastal trade to national vessels. These laws vary widely between countries, with some allowing limited foreign participation and others enforcing strict national control. For example, the United States enforces the Jones Act, which mandates that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports must be carried on U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-crewed vessels.[99] Similarly, the European Union has a more liberal cabotage regime under Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92, which allows for some degree of foreign participation under specific conditions[100].

In contrast, international maritime regimes such as UNCLOS are broader in scope, governing the rights and responsibilities of states in their use of the world’s oceans. UNCLOS defines the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and the high seas, providing a comprehensive legal framework for all activities conducted at sea.[101] While cabotage laws are primarily concerned with national interests within territorial waters, international maritime regimes address the global commons, including navigation, resource exploitation, and environmental protection.

3. Legal Foundations and Jurisdiction

The legal basis for cabotage laws lies in the principle of sovereignty, which grants states the authority to regulate activities within their territorial waters. This principle is enshrined in Article 2 of UNCLOS, which states that the sovereignty of a coastal state extends beyond its land territory and internal waters to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea.[102] However, UNCLOS also recognizes the right of innocent passage for foreign vessels through the territorial sea, provided they do not engage in cabotage.[103]

On the other hand, international maritime regimes like UNCLOS are grounded in customary international law and the need for cooperative management of the global maritime domain. UNCLOS establishes jurisdictional zones, including the territorial sea, EEZ, and the high seas, each with different legal regimes governing the rights of states and the responsibilities of vessel operators.[104]The IMO, as a specialized agency of the United Nations, further develops international maritime law by setting global standards for ship safety, security, and environmental performance through conventions such as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).[105]

4. Economic and Policy Objectives

Cabotage regimes are typically driven by protectionist economic policies aimed at preserving domestic shipping industries, securing maritime jobs for nationals, and maintaining national security by ensuring a strong merchant fleet under national control. The Jones Act in the United States is a prime example, where the primary objectives are to protect U.S. shipbuilders, safeguard American jobs, and ensure that the U.S. has a reliable fleet for defense purposes.[106]⁸ The economic impact of such policies can be significant, leading to higher shipping costs and reduced competition, but they are often justified on the grounds of national interest.

In contrast, international maritime regimes prioritize the promotion of free and open maritime trade, the protection of the marine environment, and the equitable sharing of maritime resources. UNCLOS, for instance, seeks to balance the rights of coastal states with the interests of the international community in maintaining freedom of navigation and overflight.[107]The IMO’s regulatory framework aims to ensure that shipping practices are safe, secure, and environmentally sustainable, reflecting a global consensus on the need for standardized maritime regulations.[108]

5. Conflict and Harmonization between Regimes

Conflicts between national cabotage laws and international maritime regimes can arise when a state’s protectionist policies clash with the principles of free trade and open access to maritime resources. For example, the European Union’s efforts to harmonize cabotage laws among its member states have faced resistance from countries with more restrictive regimes, leading to legal challenges and the need for compromise.[109]Similarly, the U.S. Jones Act has been criticized by international trading partners for its restrictive impact on foreign shipping companies, potentially violating World Trade Organization (WTO) principles.[110]

6. Judicial Interpretation and Precedents

Judicial interpretation of cabotage laws and international maritime regimes has played a crucial role in shaping their application. In the United States, courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the Jones Act, emphasizing the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.[111]Similarly, European courts have addressed cases related to the interpretation of cabotage regulations, often balancing the need for market integration with respect for national sovereignty.[112]

Internationally, the ITLOS and other judicial bodies have issued rulings that clarify the application of UNCLOS provisions, particularly in cases involving maritime boundary disputes and the rights of coastal states in their EEZs.[113]

7. Environmental and Security Considerations

Environmental and security concerns are increasingly influencing both cabotage laws and international maritime regimes. The IMO’s regulations, such as MARPOL, impose strict environmental standards on ships, including those engaged in cabotage, to prevent pollution and protect marine ecosystems.[114] National cabotage laws may also incorporate environmental considerations, as seen in the European Union’s emphasis on reducing emissions from ships operating in its waters.[115]

Security considerations are another critical factor, particularly in the context of national cabotage laws. The Jones Act, for instance, is justified not only on economic grounds but also as a means of ensuring that the U.S. maintains a fleet of vessels that can be mobilized for defense purposes in times of national emergency. International maritime regimes also address security issues, with UNCLOS and IMO conventions providing frameworks for combating piracy, trafficking, and other maritime threats.

CONCLUSION

Cabotage laws represent a complex policy area with significant implications for maritime trade and national economies. The examples of the United States, the European Union, Australia, and Brazil illustrate the diverse approaches countries can take to cabotage regulation and the varied impacts these laws can have. While such laws can protect and promote domestic maritime industries, they often do so at the cost of higher shipping expenses and reduced competition. Policymakers must carefully balance the goals of protecting domestic industries with the need to maintain an efficient and competitive maritime sector.

FOOTNOTES

*Dr Kalada D.S. Nonju is a senior lecturer in the department of Jurisprudence and International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria

*Dr Nelson Sobere Uwoh is a senior lecturer and Ag HOD in the department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria

[1] Examples of economic protectionism in cabotage laws. See also detailed analysis of protectionism in maritime sector.

[2] National security implications of cabotage laws

[3] Case studies on security benefits  of cabotage restrictions

[4] Enforcing impacts of cabotage restrictions

[5] Infrastructural investments driven by cabotage policies

[6] Regulatory compliance and safety standard in cabotage

[7] Overview of restrictive cabotage policies across various countries

[8] Analysis of economic and security considerations driving cabotage laws

[9] Examples of international agreements and exemptions affecting cabotage.

[10] An   analysis of economic and security considerations driving cabotage laws.

[11] Studies on enforcement and compliance with cabotage regulations

[12] Historical analysis of the 17^th century British Navigation Act and its impact on maritime law

[13] Also commonly known as Jones Act

[14] Ibid, see also legislative history and judicial interpretation of the Merchant Act of 1920

[15] Post World War 11 developments in global maritime policies

[16] European Union directives on international maritime market liberalization

[17] Case studies on cabotage law reforms in Asia

[18] Analysis of cabotage policy charges in Latin America

[19] Impact of EU cabotage liberalization on members’ state.

[20] Ibid,(see n-12)

[21]Historical analysis of ancient Greek and Roman maritime regulations.

[22] Overview of medieval maritime code, including the laws of Oleron

[23]Detailed history and impact of the British Navigation Act.

[24] Examination of Mercantilist policies and their influence on cabotage law.

[25] Early US cabotage laws and their development including the Act of 1789

[26] Overview of the Hague Rules and their impact on maritime law

[27] IMO ,established in 1948, see particularly ,history and role of IMO

[28] UNCLOS iii, 1982

[29] Ibid, its analysis and influence on cabotage regulations

[30] EU regulations (EC)No 3577/92 on maritime cabotage services

[31] Impacts of NAFTA.(1994) on maritime transport and cabotage

[32] 2009, The Rotterdam Rules and their implications for international and domestic transport.

[33] Recent Regional and bilateral trade agreements affecting cabotage laws

[34] Jones Act: Merchant Marine Act of 1920,46 U.S.C. Ss’ 55101-55111

[35] EU Road Transport Regulation: Regulation(EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 8 and 9

[36] Brazilian Cabotage Law: Law No 9,432/1997

[37]  See(n-34) Crew Requirements: 46 U.S.C. S.8103

[38] Cabotage and National Security: see , The Economic and Security Rationale of the Jones Act, CRS Report for Congress, R45725

[39] Articles 2 and 7 ,UNCLOS ( Territorial Waters

[40] Article 33,Ibid

[41] Articles 56 and 58, Ibid

[42] Articles 776 and 77, Ibid

[43] Articles 18 and 19,Ibid

[44] Articles 37-44

[45] Ibid

[46] See (n-34) 46 U.S.C. s.501(a) (b)

[47]Article 166, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, establishing the Community Customs Code

48 see (n-46)S 12102 (d)(2) and 46 U .S.C. s.12121

[49] Article 7.3. United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)

[50] Special categories of Vessels: Passenger Vessels Services Act, 46 U.S.C. s. 55103

[51] Promotional and Cultural Exchanges: Canadian Coasting Trade Act, c 31, section 3(2) S.C. 1999

[52]European Commission (1992)Council Regulations(EEC0 N0 3 of 7^th December 1992,applying the principles of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within member states (maritime cabotage) official journal of the European communities, Retrieved from https://eur-lex.euro.eu

[53] Rodrique JP and NotteboomT.(2020). The Jones Axt: Protection on Maritime Security” in the Geography of Transport Systems, 5^th ed. Routledge.

[54] O’Rourke,K and Williamson,J.G.(1999)GLOBALISATION AND History” The Evolution of a nineteenth Century Atlantic Economy, MIT press.

[55] Philippine Congress (2015): Repblic ActNo 10668: An Act allowing Foreign Vessels to Transport and Co load foreign  cargoes for domestic transshipment and for other porposes; Official gazette of the Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.official gazette.gov.PL

[56] U.S,. Government Accountability Office (2013) Maritime Jones Act Economic Impacts of the Law on tne U.S. Maritime Industries and National Securities. GAO 14-478. Retrieved from  https://www.goa.gov

[57] MacNeil,L. and Gordon ,J.(2015) Canadian Cabotage:The  case for Reform, Cnadian journal of maritime law, 31(2)93-126

[58] International Convention  for the control and Management of Ships,

Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM) International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (2018) Retrieved from https://www.imo.org

[59] Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)(2018) Retrieved from https://www.internationalgc.ca

[60] Coastal Trading (Revitalizing Australian Shipping) Act 2012, Parliament of Australia(2019)

[61] Art 2,UNCLOS,1982

[62] Ibid, Art 56

[63] Ibid, Art 32

[64] Ibid, Art 87

[65] Ibid, Art 19

[66] Ibid, Art 38

[67] Ibid, Art 192-194

[68] Ibid, Art 60 and 80

[69] Ibid, Part xv

[70] Kraska,J and Pedrozo,R ‘ International Maritime Security Law’(2013) Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

[71] Roach,J.A. and Smith, R.W. ‘Excessive Maritime Claim’(2012) Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

[72] International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’ International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Retrieved from https:/www.imi.org/en

[73] Ibid, ‘Ballast Water Management Convention

[74] Ibid, Marpol Annex iv and v

[75] Ibid

[76] Ibid

[77] Ibid

[78] STCW was created to promote safety of life and property at sea and to protect the marine environment.

[79] Art 2 (1) UNCLOS

[80] Merchant Marine Act(1920)46 USC S.55102

[81] Council Regulations (EEC) No 3577/92, applying principles of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within member states maritime cabotage.

[82] Convention on International Civil Aviation ( Chicago Convention, Art 7

[83] European Common Aviation Area Agreement,2006

[84] Regulations(EC) No 1072/2009 of the European parliament and of the council on Common Rules for access to the International road haulage market

[85] Phillips J. Shapiro” The Jones Act Under Threat: A maritime Industry Perspective, Mar Law 3 (2010)35

[86] International Chambers of Shipping, Covid-19 and Shipping: Impacts and response,April,2020

[87] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Environmental Impacts of Shipping: The role of Ports(2010)

[88] S Government Accountability Office (GAO), Maritime Security: Jones Act’s Impact on US Transportation System and Economy GAO-13-260(2013)

[89] IATA, Aviation Liberalization and the role of Bilateral Agreement,April,2018

[90] European Commission, Study on the Enforcement of Regulations(EC) No 1072/2009, November,2020

[91]Congressional Research Services. The Jones Act: An overview of the Merchant Maritime Act of 1920,Jan 20,2019

[92] See (n-79)

[93] See (n-80)

[94] See (n-84)

[95] (2013)569 US 641

[96] Ibid

[97] Case C-49/89(1991) ECR 1-3607

[98] Ibid

[99] See (n-80)

[100] See (n-81)

[101] See (N-79) 1833 UNTS entered into force 16^th November,1994

[102] Ibid, Art2

[103]Ibid, Art 17

[104] Ibid, Art 55-57

[105] International Maritime Organization, International Convention for the safety of life at sea (SOLAS) 1974 as amended.

[106] PL,66-261,41 stat 998(1920) Merchant Maritime Act, commonly referred to as Jones Act

[107] See (n-102) preamble

[108] See (n-103) Imo website

[109]De Castro Freitas and Escallier(2001) ECR,1-08757

[110] World Trade Organization ‘ United States- Measures concerning the importation Marketing and sale of Tuna and Tuna products (WT/DS 381

[111]  The S.S. Coamo,308 US 256 (1939)

[112] Mondiet SA v Armement Islais SARL (1995) ECR 1-00313

[113]  Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh/ Myanmar, Judgement,14 March, 2012, ITLOS Report ,p 4

[114] International Maritime Organization, International Convention for the prevention of pollution from ships (MARPOL) as amended

[115] Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the parliament and of the council.