Talk:Flag of convenience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Maritime Trades, a group of editors working to improve Merchant Shipping topics. To learn more or join the project, please visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Loss Statistics for FOC 2 General tenor 3 This article needs a rewrite 4 External Links = References/Citations? 5 List 6 Restructuring 7 Civil ensigns 8 Removing NPOV tags

[edit] Loss Statistics for FOC

Article states:

"Casualties are higher among FOC vessels. In 2001, 63 per cent of all losses in absolute tonnage terms were accounted for by just 13 FOC registers. The top five registers in terms of numbers of ships lost were all FOCs: Panama, Cyprus, St Vincent, Cambodia and Malta."

This statistic is meaningless as it is not qualified with what proportion of international shipping uses a FOC. If, for example, most of the world's shipping is FOC, then it would be reasonable for them to account for most of the losses. Either the statistic should be put into context or removed. --Ade myers 17:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty much verbatim from http://www.itfglobal.org/flags-convenience/flags-convenien-184.cfm under the heading "Unsafe". I couldn't (easily) dig up any background to the statistic so I'm in favour of removing it, too.

--Andreala 13:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General tenor

Agree with preceding comment about statistics (will try and get some better data and rationalise the stat). I was also concerned that the tenor of the article was strongly anti-FOC (which is a view held by the ITC) but ignores the very much pro-FOC approach of the shipping industry and the financial markets. --Colinriegels 13:48, 10 May 2006

It isn't merely the ITC that's against FOC. Consumer agencies in the US, at least, have been quite against them, as cruise ships have held Bahamian and Liberian registries and been implicated in low sanitation standards on board, if not fraud. Additionally, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, as well as the WWF, have taken a stand against the FOC for the overfishing of areas, as well as the otherwise-illegal fishing techniques. I'm not sure, therefore, that there is very much need to change the tone of the article. So far as I can see, the dim view is attributed to its sources, and NPOV doesn't mean "balance" or "no". It means dispassion and avoiding judgment. The judgments are all, as far as I can tell, made by non-Wikipedians -- they're reported, not provided. Geogre 13:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ITC does offer a more balanced view of FOC than parts of the above comment. ITC does maintain a blacklist of companies (and individuals) that seems to hide behind a lax FOC for their own benefit (abusing either conservational laws, labour, etc.), but it doesn't put forward the notion (which the article seems to border) that all FOC are modern day "pirates"... --Andreala 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a rewrite

Certainly there are FOC - flags of convenience -- that are no good, but the seas are not the free for all that the author is depicting. While the IMO deals with technical aspects such as the safety of life through SOLAS and pollution through MARPOL (among other things), labour laws are done through the ILO

There are a number of reasons why companies choose to register with foreign registries, usually because of cabotage law such as the Jones Act, taxation schemes and nationality requirements. However, through both international conventions which Bahamas, Liberia etc. are party to, the principle of no more favourable treatment (where ships of nations not complying are treated to the same standard) and port state control, this does not mean that ship are any worse off than if they were registered in a first world country. Having served under a number of flags, I believe there is very little difference between the various regulatory environments.

The author’s views are not entirely unreasonable and I would like to rewrite the article to include those views. But, as I mentioned, registering in a tax efficient location is not synonymous with poor standards, a point I cannot make too often.

I agree, I think it needs some love and a bit more balance. If you look at ship financing transactions for the acquisition of new build hulls, the bank syndicates will often require that the vessel be flagged in a FOC country because they prefer the enforcement regimes for admiralty matters in those countries (particularly where the shipowner is based in a country with underdeveloped maritime laws). Scarcely consistent with cowboying if the bank wants you to park a $30M asset there. The other point that is worth mentioning is that FOC countries are not the quasi-pirates that they are sometimes made out to be. The British Virgin Islands (which would be classified as a FOC country, albeit not a very large one) has been recently trying to upgrade its status to a Category 1 registry and the procedure involves a massive tightening up of applicable labour laws, inspection regimes and environmental regulation. The image of cowboy regulators is probably historically accurate, but it is starting to look a little dated. It is also becoming less relevant as more and more maritime nations regulate vessels according to port and geography, or just straight pan-global liability, rather than flag,[1] for example the US OPA 90.[2] Just my 5¢ worth. Legis 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would suggest that everything after the first three paragraphs could be re-worked or removed. The present article ignores the regulatory requirements of underwriters (ABS, DNV, Lloyd's) and International Maritime Organization which control everthing from environment to fire fighting. These are applied to vessels internationally independently of where they are flagged. Signatory countries will refuse access to their harbours unless their own regulations and the IMO requirements are met. I fully support a re-write. Jmvolc 12:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how far this article has been rewritten but it still has many questonable or wrong statements outside the Opposition/Support sections where I suppose the partisan perspectives belong. I would suggest following to the editors:

INTRODUCTION: (a) Add end para 1 "Flags of Convenience are also known as Open Registers." [mentioned in History]. (b)There needs to be note that here there is no commonly-agreed definition of a FOCs to adequately differentiate them from other national registers. For example, a very large number of registers permit the registry of a vessel owned by foreigners (some require a local legal ownership company, while some do not - indeed, within the EU it would be illegal for a national register not to allow registration by shipowners from elsewhere in the EU)(The ITF’s definition is developed for its own purposes). One of the underlying problems is that it is very difficult to define the “nationality” of a business, especially for international groups with subsidiaries in many countries For example, Cunard Line has been owned sequentially by Kvaerner of Norway and now by Carnival, whose head company is a Panamanian corporation with operating companies in the USA, and Cunard has operating companies in the USA and UK – through all these changes the registered owner of the QE2 has been a British-registered company.

BACKGROUND: (c) For the reasons at (b) even a general statement such as "half the world's tonnage of merchant ships were [was!!] registered under flags of convenience" remains subjective. The para might begin "A substantial proportion of the world's merchant ships can be said to be registered under flags of convenience; by some definitions in 2000 this covered half the world's tonnage." (d) in the examples of reasons delete “avoidance of environmental regulations” as they are applied to all ships under common provisions; but perhaps add to the examples “the requirements of ship-financing banks” (correctly mentioned by another contributor or two in this discussion) and/or “to reduce political restrictions” (the major reason why, for example, many South African, Cuban, Israeli, Taiwan vessels have at different times chosen not to use their national registers) (e) in the 3rd para delete the reference to Prestige. Whatever the causes the incident, it was not an example of "poor conditions, inadequately trained crews, and frequent collisions. " (f) It is not true that half the world’s fleet “frequently fail to pay their crews”, has poor safety records or abandons seamen etc. If such material belongs anywhere, it should be in the Opposition section and begin “The International Transport Workers' Federation claims [or asserts] that ….” (g) The last sentence is unsupported supposition and should be deleted (and in any case Liberia is generally considered a well-developed FOC and better than most)

HISTORY: (h) Begin “The first flag of convenience in recent times was that of Panama…” [There are much older examples of the use of flags of convenience – eg shipowners from both sides in the American Civil War used the British flag] (i) The emphasis on Prohibition is however mistaken. The prime reason for the growth of FOCs after WW1 was to enable US shipowners to control much larger fleets than could be economic under US flag; and they were closely followed by Greek owners. Once such arrangements were possible they were of course also utilised by those in illegal trades such as alcohol and arms smuggling. Other interwar FOCs included Costa Rica and Honduras. (j) It was not just the OECD countries, but also many of the FOC countries themselves that defeated the proposed restrictions in the 1970s.

LIST OF FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE: (k) Better to begin “As noted above, there is no generally accepted definition of Flag of Convenience on which to identify a list. For its own purposes the International Transport Workers' Federation maintains a list of what it considers FOCs. Davidships (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Cheers. Haus^Talk 09:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links = References/Citations?

Is the external links section supposed to be references/citations? These are normally two different sections. Fourohfour 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Separated. --84.20.17.84 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

-Having served under a number of flags, I believe there is very little difference between the various regulatory environments.- Ha!!! Whoever made this comment either has no idea of what he is talking about or is not very fond of the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.147.31.166 (talk) 20:30, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List

ITF says that it gives certificates to "good" FOCs. I have not marked them in the list, but you could search for it.

Foreign-owned tonnage per country would be nice as well.

Besides, in Special:Whatlinkshere/Flag of convenience there are countries not listed by ITF. --84.20.17.84 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring

I tried to give the article a little structure, and to separate the pro-FOC and anti-FOC arguments. There is a (now commented-out) paragraph at the end of opposition section that, as far as I can tell, is just a criticism of ITF, and doesn't seem to lend anything to the topic at hand. The article still needs a dozen {{fact}} templates and a big copy-edit. Cheers. Haus42 18:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil ensigns

I have put back the civil ensigns of those countries that have them. After all, this is an article about flags. The accessibilty text explains what they are to those who do not recognize them. I think I'm following the spirit of WP:FLAGS. --84.20.17.84 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As this article is about maritime flags, surely it is the merchant shipping flags/ensigns which should be shown. At least Malta, Belize and Netherlands Antilles would need changing. Davidships (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to find some information about if the registering company has an obligation to protect the ship as it would protect citizens on it's own soil. For example, if a ship is registered in the U.S. and is attacked in international waters by a ship registered from Germany, does the U.S. government have an obligation to step in and protect the U.S. ship?

190.10.27.218 13:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)TPMeyer

[edit] Removing NPOV tags

There are currently three NPOV tags on the page, but they are not supported on this talk page. Two of them are just silly: WP:NPOV demands that we treat seriously both sides of a contested issue, not that both sides be neutral in their point of view. Of course the "opposition" section is going to list criticisms of flags of convenience, the "support" section, answers to those criticisms. The bare presence of such sections is not a violation of NPOV. The main flag for the article as a whole seems similarly unsupported. The {{NPOV}} template is not for registering a disagreement or objection to what reliable sources say. RJC ^Talk 02:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)