The world has become more warlike. This is also true at sea. Terrorist missile attacks, sabotage, pursuit missions, and special forces boarding tankers – the oceans are currently not exactly safe workplaces. And many a threat suggests that things won’t calm down in the medium term.
The shipping industry is taking notice. Shipowners’ offices are grappling with legal risks that, until recently, were considered relics of the past: “Requisition Clause” and “War Cancellation Clause.” These are contractual clauses that allow for termination of charter parties in the event that a state requisitions ships belonging to “its” shipowners for military purposes in wartime, for example, for transporting equipment or personnel.
So, what is the legal situation when things get really dicey? How might all of this affect the enormous volume of time and travel charters? (We sought an expert opinion on this matter. Take a look at the new issue of HANSA.)
For the shipping industry, however, this is about more than just clauses; it’s about fundamental principles. The uncertainty extends to other aspects, as many shipowners tell us: How should such a requisition proceed? One example: Martin Kroeger, Managing Director of Germanys Shipowners Association VDR also explicitly emphasizes in the new episode of HANSA podcast: What will the ships be needed for in such a situation, and what do the authorities actually want from the shipowners? Kröger has a point: He calls for a clearer definition and stronger communication from the government.
The list of questions can be further specified: How should the interaction between the military, authorities, and shipowners work? Where will operational control and ship management take place? How will the flag states be addressed? It’s not as simple as it seems. A flag at the stern is and remains a symbol of sovereignty…
And last but not least: What does government intervention mean for the ships’ crews? It cannot be assumed that the authorities have a sufficient number of seafarers available who can readily operate a merchant fleet. Even if the soldiers and civilian employees master the technical and operational tasks, the sheer number of available personnel will likely be the stumbling block.
So, should we rely on the existing crews of merchant ships? Well, there are concerns about that. Do we want to expose them to the risks faced by ships used for military purposes? They could be classified as hostile targets and attacked, not just theoretically. Also, as the days, when ships owned by shipowners from country A were manned by many sailors from this country A are, as we know, more or less over in many regions: Do governments really want to rely on ships for military transports manned with men and women from all over the globe? The crewing market is already extremely tight. There’s a shortage of qualified seafarers. Not to mention the lack of new recruits.
So, there are a lot of questions. Not so long ago, we wouldn’t have felt compelled to seriously consider this. This might also apply to the government. If not, all the better. Perhaps there are ready-made plans tucked away in bureaucratic drawers. If so, bring them out. Dear government, use this time while things are still relatively peaceful at sea to clarify these issues with the shipping companies.
____________
Michael Meyer
Editor-in-Chief
HANSA International Maritime Journal &
Hansa.news global
