Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 8 June 1960

Document Number
2421
Document Type
Number (Press Release, Order, etc)
1960/2
Date of the Document
Document File
Document

Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document

CONSTITUTION O:F THEMARITIMESAFETYCOMMITTE OEFTHE
INTER-GOVERNMENTA MLARITIMECONSULTATIVE ORGANIZATION

AdvisoryOpinion of 8June 1960

Byresolutionof 19January 1959,transmittedtotheCouCommittee.ThisCommitteewasresponsibleforthe consid-
andfiledintheRegistryon 25March1959, theAssemblyof erationof anyatterwithinthe scopeof the Organization
theInter-Governmental MariteonsultativeOrganizationdirectly affecting maritimesafety.Its compositionand the
(IMCO)decidedto request theCourt to give an advisormodeof designating itsMembersweregovernedby Article
opiniononthe followingquestion: 28(a)ofthe Conventionwhichreads asfollows:
"Is the Maritime Safety Committee!of the Inter- "TheMaritime SafetyCommitteeshall consstffour-
Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, teenMembers electedbytheAssemblyfrotheMembers,
accordancewith the Conventionfor the Establishmentofovernmentosfthoseutionshavinganimportantinterest
theOrganization?" inmaritimesafet,fwhichnotlessthaneightshallthe
largestship-owningnations,d the remainder shallbe
Bynine votesto five,the Court gavea negative answerbers, governmen1of other nations with an importantem-
appendedto the Opinion their dissenting~qinions.In itsnterestinritim.esafety,suchasnationsinterestedinthe
OpiniontheCourtfirst recallefacts. supplyoflargenuimbeofcrewsorinthecarriageoflarge
numbers ofberthledand unberthedpassengers, and of
TheConventionreferredtointheRequestforanAdvisory majorgeographicitlareas."
mental MaritimeConsultativerganizatic~n,which con-
sisted of anAssembly,a Council and a hdaritimeSafetof Membersof the Committee,it had before ita working

Continued on next pagepaper settingout, in descen~dingrderof total gross regis- TheCourtnextconsideredthemeaningofthewords "the
tered tonnage, thenames of Member States. On this list largest ship-owningnations". If Article 28 (a) were con-
Liberiawas third andPanmilaeighth. In electing the eight strued as conferring upon the Assembly an authority
Memberswhichhad to be the largestship-'owning nations, enabling it to choose those nations uncontrolledby any
however,the Assembly elecledneitherLiberianor Panama. objectivetestof anykind, the structurebuiltinto theArticle
Thedebateshaving revealed a widedivergenceofviewsasto to ensure theirpredominanceon the Comniitteewouldcol-
the interpretationofArticle8(a), the questionwhetherthe lapse. Itwasapparentthatsomebasisof measurementmust
Committee had been constituted in accondancewith that be applied. The.largest ship-owning nationswere to be
Article was, on the proposal of Liberia, submitted to the electedon thestrengthof their tonnage. Theonlyquestion
Court. was in what sense Article 28 (a) contemplated thatships
The Court then consideredthe answerwhich shouldbe shouldbe ownedbyor belong tothem. Liberiaand Panama
given tothat question. hadcontended thatthe soletest wasregisteredtonnagebut
It hadbeencontendedbefore the Courtthat theAssembly certain other Stateshadsubmitted that the propeirnterpreta-
was entitledto refuse toelect Liberia and Fbmma for the tionoftheArticlerequiredthatshipsshouldbelong to nation-
following reasons: the Ar;sembly,it was argued, was als ofrheStatewhose flag theyflew.A comparisonof the
vested with a discretionary power to determine which texts of Articles60 and 28 (a) of the Convention for the
Membersof the Organizationhad an important interestin Establishmentof IMCOand an examinationof thepractice
maritime safety;in electing;the eight largestship-owning followedbythe Assemblyinthe implementationof Articles
nations,it wasempowered to excludethosethat in itsjudg- view that it was unlikely thatwhen Article 28 (a) wasthe
mentdidnothaveanimportantinterestinmaritimesafety;its drafte andy criterion other than registered tonnagewas
discretionarypower extendedalso to thecleterrninationof contemplated. That criterionwas moreoverpractical, cer-
which nations were or we]= not the largest ship-owning tain andcapableof easy application;it was;that which was
nations. mostconsonantwithinternationalpractice,maritime usage
and other internationalmaritimeconventions. The conclu-
TheCourt observed that ithadbeensought tofindin the sion reachedby the Courtwasthat the largest ship-owning
expression "elected", whichappliedto all the Membersof nations;were those having the largest registered ship ton-
the Committee,anotionofchoice,but it wasofopinionthat nage.
that contentionplacedin as~lbordinatepositionthe specific
provisionofArticle28(a)inrelationtotheeightlargestship- TheCourt finallyobserved that itnterpretationofArticle
that those nationsshould beinincipleoftheArticlewas vention and the special functionsof the Maritime Safety
preponderanceon the Com-
to beappointedto thetCommittee:thattheyeach possessed tionwhich wouldempowerthe Assembly toetorefusemember-a-
an important interest in m~aritimesafety and had been shipof the Committee toa Stateregardlessofthe fact thatit
accepted as axiomatic. Thedebate which 'hadtaken place rankedamongthe first eightintermsof registered tonnage.
uponthe draftsoftheArticle:in 1946inthe lJnitedMaritime Consequently,inelectingneitherLiberianor Panama,which
ConsultativeCouncilandin 1.948attheUnited NationsMar- wereincluded amongtheeight, the Assemblyhad failedto
itimeConferenceconfirmed thatprinciple. complywithArticle 28(a)ofthe Convention.

Document file FR
Document
Document Long Title

Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 8 June 1960

Links