Quantification of influence and interest at IMO in Maritime Safety and Human Element matters

Datos Bibliográficos

ID21521669
AutoresRaphaël Baumler (0000-0003-3786-8914, World Maritime University, autor de correspondencia), María Carrera-Arce (0000-0001-9644-0315, World Maritime University), Maria Carrera Arce, Anne Pazaver (0000-0001-5037-3508, World Maritime University)
Año2021
Volumen133
Páginas104746
Fecha de publicación2021-11-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaMarine Policy (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0308-597X • E-ISSN: 1872-9460
EditorialElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104746
OpenAlexW3200045831
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas8
Referencias citadas13

Recently, the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Transparency International, and InfluenceMap questioned the International Maritime Organization (IMO) governance. The critics suggested that the industry and a handful of countries captured IMO's regulatory development. To verify NGOs' claims, the paper introduces a quantitative methodology to assess the most influential stakeholders in IMO's debates. The study quantified twenty-two years of written evidence of participation in the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and seven years of the Sub-committee on Human Element, Training, and Watchkeeping. The study completes its analysis by integrating the audio records available from 2013 to 2019. The findings confirm the previous studies and a century-long historical trend. By quantifying the influence, the study demonstrates that few players dominate maritime debates. Only 20% of the delegations (n = 67) attending MSC meetings submit 90% of the documents. Consequently, these delegations can control the agenda of debates. Additionally, the data shows the overwhelming influence of developed countries, large flag States, major shipbuilding nations, and trade organizations on MSC and HTW debates. Alarmingly, the study shows that 74 out of 174 Member States have not participated in any submissions or discussions in the studied Committees. It signifies that 42.5% of Member States attending the meetings do not actively participate. Additionally, it seems that the ownership of maritime assets determines the influence. Finally, by quantifying the preeminent role of some countries and industry players, it is expected that enhanced mechanisms for developing nations to engage effectively in maritime forum can be established

Business · Corporate governance · International trade · Member states · Political science · Public relations · Law · Maritime Ports and Logistics · Maritime Security and History · Maritime Transport Emissions and Efficiency · Public Administration · Accounting · Finance