MarIus

2.2 Conventions of general applicability; mortgages, arrest, and global limitation

For the Maritime Liens Convention 1993(1) International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993.to apply, the lien must concern a lien over “…seagoing vessels registered(2) Writer’s emphasis.in a State Party…”. It will be the rules of the flag state in question regarding what is considered a registered vessel, which will determine the application.

For the Arrest Convention 1952(3) International Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to Arrest of Sea-going Ships, 1952.to apply, the claimant must have a claim against a vessel flying the flag of a contracting state for a “maritime claim” included in the list mentioned in the convention Art. 1. Several of the items of Art. 1 include the word “ship”, and the convention in itself presupposes that it is only applicable to “sea-going ships”; however, no definition of the term may be found in the convention. Therefore, as with the Maritime Liens Convention 1993, it will be the requirement for registrable vessels in the underlying flag state, that will be the main issue in determining the scope of application.

Turning to the Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (LLMC 1976),(4) Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 with protocol of 1996.its applicability presupposes that a “seagoing vessel” be relevant in the factual setting, but its applicability is not linked to this as such, but rather to specific legal entities, namely owners, charterers, managers, and operators of seagoing vessels, and to salvors, wishing to limit their liability, see Art. 1(1) and 1(2). The provision has also been used to allow the owners of pleasure boats to limit their liability;(5) NDS 1980.134.however, as will be further elaborated below in section 3.1.b, it is presumed that there is a lower limit regarding how insignificant a structure may be for it to make an “owner of a seagoing vessel”. Still, the inclusion of charterers, managers, and operators in the list of who may be allowed to limit their liability indicates that the process or structure in which the decision-making processes are carried out is not important to the application of the convention. This is further underlined by Art. 1(4), according to which persons for whom the shipowner or salvor is responsible would also be able to limit their liability under the rules of the Convention.