Berlingieri on Arrest of Ships Volume 2
Page 6
2
Implementation of the Convention
Implementation of the Convention
2.01 The 1999 Convention entered into force on 14 September 2011, the tenth “consent to be bound” having been deposited by Albania on 14 March 2011. As of 30 June 2016 the States parties to it were Albania, Algeria, Benin, Bulgaria, Congo, Ecuador, Estonia, Latvia, Liberia, Spain and Syrian Arab Republic. Six of such States, Algeria, Benin, Congo, Latvia, Spain1 and Syrian Arab Republic were parties to the 1952 Convention and therefore should have timely denounced that Convention. Prior to the entry into force of the Convention several maritime States and groups of States, amongst which some of which of significant importance, had introduced in their maritime legislation all or most of the provisions of the Convention of 1999.Action required by States parties to the 1952 Convention
2.02
The States parties to the 1952 Convention ought to have denounced it, in order to avoid a conflict between their obligations under that convention and the 1999 Convention. Where for example a claimant seeks to arrest in any State party to both the 1952 and the 1999 Conventions a ship flying the flag of State party to the 1952 Convention in respect of a claim that is included in article 1(1) of the 1999 Convention but not in article 1(1) of the 1952 Convention (e.g. a claim in respect of insurance premiums), the arrest would entail a breach by the State in question of its obligations under the 1952 Convention, while the refusal to grant the arrest would entail a breach of the 1999 Convention. The question that might arise in such case is whether the claimant would be entitled to claim damages against that State.