6 Some concluding remarks on Norwegian law
It is time to sum up:
We have a long tradition of applying the principle that the contract of employment is subject to the law of the flag state - unless there is an agreement that the law of another country shall apply. The basis for this principle is - as I see it - twofold:
There was a strong connection between vessel and the flag state: The vessel was owned and operated from the flag state by nationals - individual persons or legal entities domiciled in the flag state. And the seaman was a national of the flag state.
The employment contract was strictly bound to a specific vessel - when the vessel was sold or lost, the contract came to an end.
Both of these two premises have slowly eroded. Open registers are not a rare exception today, and even with the traditional registers, the vessels therein have, in most cases, strong financial and operative connections with other countries.
The most striking feature in the Eimskip case is - as I see it -that the choice of law depends upon the decision of the employer: The employee is not informed beforehand and is not required to consent when the employer has made his decision.(1) If the employee were to protest when informed that he is to serve on a vessel registered outside Norway, I suggest that the issue of whether his objections are sound would need to be decided in accordance with Norwegian law.