cuss interdiction scenarios. Important subjects of interest to industry like diversion and liability are regularly discussed within PSI, often vigorously, as it is recognized within PSI circles that these are critical issues for shipowners. It should be noted, however, that strictly speaking PSI does not address liability. Questions of liability must be resolved according to each nation's domestic legislation and applicable international law. PSI nei-
ther detracts from nor creates any rights, duties, or obligations concerning liability. On the subject of disposition -- which generally refers to the fate of items that may be seized as a result of an interdiction -- it is equally true that PSI neither adds nor takes away from any nation's domestic legislation or from applicable international law. Questions of disposition must be resolved according to the requirements of these authorities. The chief relevance of PSI to these two areas has been as a forum for expert and candid discussion of related issues. By sharing information and comparing the experiences of participating states in the areas of disposition and liability, it is hoped that participating states will discover new ways to remove barriers to better international cooperation. Such barriers might exist because of differences between legal systems (e.g., between the common law and continental traditions), differences in command
and control arrangements within states, economic factors (e.g., the interests of a large open registry state compared with states with smaller commercial fleets), or for other reasons. State efforts under PSI are leading to an increasingly visible anti-terrorism (including WMD proliferation) regime of cooperation on the seas that did not exist previously. It is a regime with potential implications for shipowners because of vessel boardings, but which is also making its influence felt as a deterrent. It is important in this vein to recall that PSI is not a treaty-making organization. Neither is it an enforcement organization. Rather, it is a voluntary activity in which interested states have an opportunity to meet, share information, exchange views, and take home to their capitals suggestions and ideas for revising internal domestic law or policy in ways that enhance international cooperation. In other words, PSI states return home from PSI meetings with ideas and recommendations, not enforceable obligations. The concrete manifestation of PSI is not in treaties - rather, it is in actual cooperation with other states, whether in maritime or land interdiction exercises, information exchange, training, and a host of other activity that may be undertaken according to the internal law and policy of each state. Such activity is not "PSI activity" per se - rather, it is activity undertaken by national authorities, in national territory, applying national statutes or treaty obligations recognized by each state. Among participating PSI states, it is understood that not all states will be able or willing to undertake the range of activities that PSI participation might suggest because of internal legal, commercial, or policy considerations. Still, efforts to cooperate under these circumstances often make clear where such differences may lie, in advance of actual interdiction efforts. Affected states may then carefully consider internal changes that could be appropriate to foster greater cooperation. Conclusion: Shipowners & PSI How can shipowners "engage" with PSI activity in their respective flag or ownership states (preferably both) and expect to have an impact? As in most international activity undertaken by states, each PSI participant nation's foreign ministry typically has the lead role for PSI activity. Defense, interior, or finance ministries will also have important equities in PSI given the need for naval, law enforcement, and customs assets to conduct exercise and interdiction planning. It should also be recalled that PSI's semi-annual OEG meetings could provide a forum for contacts with industry, and such contacts may also be undertaken with PSI participant governments between OEG sessions. The author submits that prudent shipowners will consider establishing contacts with offices responsible for PSI in the governments whose actions may affect their commercial interests. By establishing such contacts and maintaining a dialogue with authorities involved in PSI, shipowners will be better informed about PSI's direction and may be well positioned to influence or react to change where necessary. The subject matter of PSI -- and its devastating, catastrophic potential -- underscores the importance of a vigorous dialogue that includes all actors in international ocean commerce: above all, shipowners.
14
Maritime Reporter & Engineering News