Assessment Task 2: Legal and Institutional Challenges in Maritime Safety Regulation

Assignment

• Target Level: Postgraduate (Level 7 UK, )

• Module Code/Name: MARLAW601 – Maritime Law, Regulation, and Governance

• Assessment Type: Research Essay / Technical Report

• Length Requirement: 2000–2500 words

• Weighting: 50% of the final module grade

• Academic Cycle: Semester 1, 2025/2026

This assessment is designed to evaluate advanced legal reasoning, policy analysis, and the ability to integrate international maritime law with domestic governance realities. Students are expected to demonstrate independent research skills consistent with postgraduate standards in the United Kingdom and Australia, including engagement with primary legal instruments and peer-reviewed scholarship.

Module Context and Task Description

Background Context

The global shipping industry operates on the principle of uniform international standards, primarily developed by the International Maritime Organization. Conventions such as SOLAS, MARPOL, and STCW are intended to ensure consistent safety and environmental protection standards across territorial waters and the high seas. However, the incorporation of these international instruments into domestic legal systems is rarely uniform.

Developing states often face significant legal, economic, and institutional constraints that hinder effective ratification, implementation, and enforcement. These challenges affect not only national maritime safety performance but also the integrity of the global maritime governance system. As future maritime lawyers, policy advisors, and maritime administration officials, you are required to critically examine the sources of these implementation gaps and evaluate their broader implications for international maritime regulation.

The Task

You must produce a 2000–2500-word research essay analysing the legal and institutional challenges that developing states face when implementing and enforcing international maritime safety regulations.

You are required to:

• Select a specific developing region or state as your primary case study, such as West Africa, Southeast Asia, or a Small Island Developing State.

• Ground your theoretical analysis in the operational and legal realities of the selected jurisdiction.

• Develop a clearly articulated thesis that moves beyond description and demonstrates critical engagement with competing perspectives in maritime governance.

Your argument should demonstrate structured reasoning, engagement with academic literature, and integration of relevant international legal instruments.

Specific Guidelines and Requirements

1. Legislative Integration

• Evaluate the domestic legal hurdles involved in ratifying and incorporating IMO conventions into national law.

• Address issues such as legislative backlog, constitutional limitations, dualist or monist legal traditions, and parliamentary capacity constraints.

• Consider the time lag between ratification and effective enforcement mechanisms.

Strong responses will distinguish between formal ratification and substantive implementation.

2. Institutional Capacity

• Analyse the operational capabilities of the selected state’s maritime administration.

• Examine flag state responsibilities, port state control mechanisms, inspection regimes, and certification procedures.

• Evaluate staffing levels, training standards, and institutional independence.

You should demonstrate understanding of how administrative weaknesses translate into regulatory enforcement gaps.

3. Socio-Economic Factors

• Discuss the impact of budget constraints, corruption risks, limited infrastructure, or shortage of trained maritime legal professionals.

• Consider how political instability or competing national priorities influence maritime governance.

• Assess how economic dependence on shipping revenues may create regulatory tensions.

Your analysis should connect socio-economic conditions directly to compliance outcomes rather than treating them as isolated background factors.

4. Remedial Strategies

• Propose realistic and context-sensitive policy recommendations.

• Consider regional cooperation agreements, technical assistance programmes, IMO capacity-building initiatives, and institutional reforms.

• Evaluate feasibility and sustainability of proposed reforms within the political and economic environment of the chosen case study.

Recommendations should be clearly linked to the weaknesses identified in earlier sections of the essay.

5. Formatting and Citation

• Structure your essay with a clear introduction, logically organised thematic sections, and a conclusion that synthesises your findings.

• Use the Harvard referencing system consistently for all in-text citations and the reference list.

• Support arguments with academic journal articles, official IMO documents, and where appropriate, domestic legislative sources.

• The word count excludes the bibliography and any appendices.

Students are expected to engage with a minimum of 10 high-quality academic or institutional sources to meet postgraduate research standards.

Grading Rubric / Marking Criteria

Knowledge and Contextual Understanding (25%)

High Distinction (80–100%)
Demonstrates an exceptional and nuanced grasp of maritime law and the socio-political realities of the selected developing state. Shows advanced contextual awareness and legal precision.

Credit / Merit (65–79%)
Shows strong understanding of IMO regulations and identifies credible institutional challenges within the case study.

Pass (50–64%)
Displays adequate knowledge of core regulations but relies on generalised assumptions about developing states.

Fail (Below 50%)
Lacks fundamental understanding of maritime safety conventions or fails to apply them to a relevant context.

Critical Analysis and Argumentation (30%)

High Distinction (80–100%)
Provides deep critical insights into tensions between international mandates and domestic legal frameworks. Arguments are coherent, evidence-based, and conceptually sophisticated.

Credit / Merit (65–79%)
Delivers solid critical analysis supported by relevant literature and case-specific evidence.

Pass (50–64%)
Primarily descriptive with limited critical engagement or theoretical framing.

Fail (Below 50%)
Weak argumentation, unsupported claims, or excessive generalisation.

Policy Evaluation and Recommendations (20%)

High Distinction (80–100%)
Proposes original, legally sound, and practically viable solutions grounded in institutional realities.

Credit / Merit (65–79%)
Offers practical recommendations clearly linked to identified challenges.

Pass (50–64%)
Provides generic suggestions lacking contextual specificity.

Fail (Below 50%)
Recommendations are absent, impractical, or disconnected from analysis.

Research Quality and Integration (15%)

High Distinction (80–100%)
Uses a wide range of high-quality peer-reviewed scholarship and authoritative institutional reports. Evidence is seamlessly integrated.

Credit / Merit (65–79%)
Engages with credible academic and institutional sources with appropriate citation practice.

Pass (50–64%)
Relies on limited or uneven sources. Evidence integration lacks sophistication.

Fail (Below 50%)
Insufficient research or heavy reliance on unreliable materials.

Academic Writing and Referencing (10%)

High Distinction (80–100%)
Precise academic tone, accurate legal terminology, and flawless Harvard referencing.

Credit / Merit (65–79%)
Clear and professional writing with minor referencing or stylistic errors.

Pass (50–64%)
Readable but contains structural weaknesses or inconsistent referencing.

Fail (Below 50%)
Disorganised writing and significant referencing failures.

Developing states frequently encounter systemic barriers when attempting to implement international maritime safety conventions within domestic legal frameworks. Resource limitations and inadequate institutional capacity often prevent maritime administrations from effectively enforcing standards mandated by the International Maritime Organization. Legislative backlogs complicate the domestic integration of conventions such as SOLAS. Regulatory bodies may struggle to retain qualified maritime lawyers and technical inspectors necessary for rigorous flag state control. As a result, substandard vessels may continue operating under weakened inspection regimes and inconsistent penalty enforcement. Research demonstrates that strengthened port state control cooperation and structured capacity-building programmes significantly improve compliance outcomes in emerging maritime economies (Cariou, Wolff and Mejia, 2021). Regional cooperation frameworks allow neighbouring developing states to pool expertise and share financial burdens associated with maritime governance. Sustainable improvements in maritime safety require ongoing technical support rather than purely punitive enforcement mechanisms.

Academic Commentary

The implementation gap between international maritime obligations and domestic enforcement reflects broader structural inequalities within global governance. Developing states often operate within constrained administrative systems that lack the institutional depth necessary to manage complex technical conventions. Empirical research suggests that robust port state control regimes and harmonised regional inspection mechanisms can partially compensate for flag state weaknesses by increasing oversight and accountability across jurisdictions (Exarchopoulos et al., 2018). However, long-term regulatory effectiveness depends upon strengthening domestic legislative coherence, judicial capacity, and administrative professionalism. Without sustained institutional investment, formal ratification of international conventions may remain symbolic rather than transformative.

Recommended Learning Materials / References

Cariou, P., Wolff, F.C. and Mejia, M.Q. (2021). The impact of port state control on maritime safety: A global perspective. Marine Policy, 129, 104523. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104523

Exarchopoulos, G., Zhang, P., Shirashige, M. and Dalaklis, D. (2018). The impact of the new harmonised system of survey and certification on maritime safety. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 17(2), 163–180. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0140-5

Monios, J. and Wilmsmeier, G. (2020). Between path dependency and transitions: The role of institutions in port development. Marine Policy, 117, 103937. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103937

Okeke, P.N. and Aniche, E.T. (2021). Legal and institutional frameworks of maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea. Ocean Development & International Law, 52(2), 163–178. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1901344

Tanaka, Y. (2019). The International Law of the Sea. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Next Week Assignment / Discussion Post

Course Code: MARLAW601
Next Assessment Title: Comparative Analysis of Flag State and Port State Jurisdiction in Global Maritime Governance

Description:
In the following weeks, students will prepare a comparative analytical paper examining the evolving balance between flag state sovereignty and port state control enforcement mechanisms. The task will require evaluation of recent case law, regional Memoranda of Understanding on port state control, and debates concerning regulatory fragmentation. Students will assess whether port state control has become the de facto enforcement mechanism in international maritime law and consider implications for state sovereignty and global compliance equity. This assessment builds directly upon the institutional capacity issues explored in Task 2 and advances critical comparative legal analysis skills.