共通論題：EU の環境ガバナンスとグローバル社会
欧州連合における海上安全及び海洋環境保護政策
―船舶の避難場所に関する指令審議―
2009 年 2009 巻 29 号 p. 59-82
詳細
2009 年 2009 巻 29 号 p. 59-82
One of the measures for the maritime accidents such as collision or running aground of tankers is to accommodate the ship in distress, as early as possible, into a sheltered or protected place in the best possible condition and transfer her cargo and fuel oil to the other ship or facility in order to prevent or mitigate the environmental damage. The place where a ship in distress should be accommodated is called “place of refuge.”
As the framework of place of refuge, IMO (International Maritime Organization) Guidelines on Places of Refuge for Ships in Need of Assistance (Res. A. 949(23)) was adopted, on the international level, subsequently to the directive establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (2002/59/EC) within the EU. Both of them haven't stipulated the obligation or the principle to accommodate a ship in distress to a place of refuge.
Following the tanker “Prestige” accident off the Spanish coast in November 2002, the Commission proposed the amendment of the directive to introduce two principles in November 2005, in order to ensure a harmonized and effective implementation of the place of refuge and clarify the scope of obligations incumbent on the Member States. The first is that a ship in distress must be accommodated in a place of refuge, subject to the result of an assessment of the situation, and the second is the requirement for the Member States to set up “an independent competent authority” with which is replaced the present provision “a competent authority” to assess the situation and take a decision, in good time and free from political pressure, for the accommodation of a ship in distress. The amendment is more ambitious than the present IMO guidelines.
The proposal has been under consideration by the Parliament and the Council within the framework of the co-decision procedure since the transmission by the Commission. There is a big difference between the institutions: the Parliament basically supports the amendment proposed by the Commission but the Council is less enthusiastic on it and those arouse the interest in carrying out research on the measure for maritime accidents. The present paper examines the significance and the problem of the amendment proposal, especially from the viewpoints of the two principles above, through the positions expressed by both these institutions.
