Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2018G
ET
TIN
G T
HE
DE
AL T
HR
OU
GH
Shipping
ShippingContributing editorKevin Cooper
2018© Law Business Research 2017
Shipping 2018Contributing editor
Kevin CooperInce & Co LLP
PublisherGideon [email protected]
SubscriptionsSophie [email protected]
Senior business development managers Alan [email protected]
Adam [email protected]
Published by Law Business Research Ltd87 Lancaster Road London, W11 1QQ, UKTel: +44 20 3708 4199Fax: +44 20 7229 6910
© Law Business Research Ltd 2017No photocopying without a CLA licence. First published 2008Tenth editionISSN 1759-0744
The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. This information is not intended to create, nor does receipt of it constitute, a lawyer–client relationship. The publishers and authors accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. The information provided was verified between July and August 2017. Be advised that this is a developing area.
Printed and distributed by Encompass Print SolutionsTel: 0844 2480 112
LawBusinessResearch
© Law Business Research 2017
CONTENTS
2 Getting the Deal Through – Shipping 2018
Global overview 7Kevin Cooper, Reema Shour, Monika Humphreys-Davies and Eleanor DickensInce & Co LLP
Australia 11Geoffrey Farnsworth and Dilip RamaswamyHolding Redlich
Brazil 18Godofredo Mendes Vianna, Camila Mendes Vianna Cardoso and Lucas Leite MarquesKincaid | Mendes Vianna Advogados
Chile 26Ricardo Rozas and Max MorganJorquiera & Rozas Abogados
China 35James Hu, Mervyn Chen, Lawrence Chen and Jasmine LiuWintell & Co
Croatia 48Gordan Stanković and Maja DotlićVukić & Partners
Cyprus 55Michael McBride, Yiannis Christodoulou and Michael PapadopoulosChrysses Demetriades & Co LLC
Denmark 61Ulla Fabricius and Christian Benedictsen-NislevNJORD Law Firm
England & Wales 68Kevin Cooper, Reema Shour, Monika Humphreys-Davies and Eleanor DickensInce & Co LLP
Estonia 82Indra KaunisConsolato del Mare OÜ
Finland 89Nora Gahmberg-Hisinger and Matti KomonenHPP Attorneys Ltd
France 97Christine EzcutariNorton Rose Fulbright LLP
Germany 106Christian FinnernWatson Farley & Williams
Ghana 113Kimathi Kuenyehia, Augustine Kidisil and Paa Larbi AsareKimathi & Partners, Corporate Attorneys
Hong Kong 121Andrew Rigden Green and Evangeline QuekStephenson Harwood
Indonesia 129Sahat AM Siahaan, Ridzky Firmansyah Amin and Desi Rutvikasari*Ali Budiardjo, Nugroho, Reksodiputro
Italy 135Filippo Pellerano and Francesco GaspariniStudio Legale Mordiglia
Japan 142Shuji YamaguchiOkabe & Yamaguchi
Korea 148Sung Keuk Cho and Hee-Joo LeeCho & Lee
Latvia 154Gints VilgertsVILGERTS
Liberia 160Lawrence RutkowskiSeward & Kissel LLP
Malaysia 165Siva Kumar Kanagasabai and Trishelea Ann SandosamSkrine
Malta 172Kevin F Dingli and Suzanne ShawDingli & Dingli Law Firm
Netherlands 182Arnold J van Steenderen and Charlotte J van SteenderenVan Steenderen MainportLawyers BV
New Zealand 195Simon Cartwright, Sarah Holderness, Richard Belcher and Robert McStayHesketh Henry
Nigeria 202Funke Agbor and Chisa UbaAdepetun Caxton-Martins Agbor & Segun
Norway 209Christian Bjørtuft EllingsenAdvokatfirmaet Simonsen Vogt Wiig AS
Panama 217Gabriel R Sosa, Eduardo A Real and Alberto Lopez TomDe Castro & Robles
Peru 223Francisco Arca Patiño and Carla Paoli ConsigliereEstudio Arca & Paoli Abogados SAC
Portugal 230Ana Cristina PimentelAna Cristina Pimentel & Associados, Sociedade de Advogados, SP, RL
© Law Business Research 2017
www.gettingthedealthrough.com 3
CONTENTS
Russia 236Alexey Karchiomov, Yulia BeliakovaEgorov Puginsky Afanasiev & Partners
Singapore 242Ajaib Haridass, Thomas Tan, Augustine Liew and V HariharanHaridass Ho & Partners
South Africa 252Tony Norton, Mike Tucker and Kate Pitman*ENSafrica
Spain 261Marie Rogers, David Diez Ramos and Luis Alberto García VillarRogers & Co Abogados
Switzerland 269Alexander Blarer and Anton VucurovicBratschi Wiederkehr & Buob SA
Taiwan 275Daniel T H Tsai and James ChangLee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law
Turkey 281Burak ÇavuşÇavuş & Coşkunsu Law Firm
Ukraine 289Evgeniy Sukachev and Anastasia SukachevaBlack Sea Law Company
United States 295Bruce G Paulsen and Jeffrey M DineSeward & Kissel LLP
Quick Reference Tables 301
© Law Business Research 2017
Ince & Co LLP GLOBAL OVERVIEW
www.gettingthedealthrough.com 7
Global overviewKevin Cooper, Reema Shour, Monika Humphreys-Davies and Eleanor DickensInce & Co LLP
The maritime migration crisisThe number of migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea has shown no sign of slowing down in the past year. The humanitar-ian crisis for search and rescue authorities based on the Mediterranean coast and for the international shipping industry continues, with the United Nations Migration Agency (IOM) reporting that, as at 2 June 2017, there were 71,080 Mediterranean-sea arrivals since the begin-ning of 2017, with approximately 1,778 of those feared missing or dead. IOM estimates that, in 2016, there were approximately 362,753 migrants arriving in the Mediterranean, with the number of recorded deaths being 5,098.
On 25 October 2016, the European Parliament adopted a resolu-tion on human rights and migration in third countries. Among other things, this resolution: emphasised the need to create and implement better measures for protecting migrants in distress and in transit and at EU borders; welcomed operations against traffickers and smug-glers and stressed the importance of co-ordinated efforts with third countries to combat organised criminal networks of migrant smug-glers; and called on the EU to step up and continue missions, such as EURONAVFORMED, to tackle migrant smuggling.
This resolution is to be welcomed, particularly in view of the gen-eral hardening of attitudes in Europe towards migrants and refugees in recent times. While there is an established legal framework deal-ing with rescue at sea comprising a number of international treaties, the obligations contained in the relevant Conventions were never intended to address the unprecedented situation that we now face, as was pointed out by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) in their 2017 annual review. The ICS recommends that EU member states maintain adequate search and rescue resources, which were signifi-cantly expanded following an emergency summit of EU leaders in 2015. This is particularly important in light of the fact that, as the ICS further reports, large numbers of merchant ships are still routinely diverted by rescue co-ordination centres to assist in large-scale rescue opera-tions and merchant seafarers involved have been severely affected by their experiences.
Global sanctionsThe impact of international sanctions on the global maritime industry has remained a hot topic into 2017, particularly following the lifting of certain sanctions against Iran in January 2016 and with the introduc-tion of greater restrictions against North Korea and various political events, including Brexit and the beginning of the Trump administra-tion in the United States. Indeed, the blockade of Qatar in June 2017 by Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, among other countries, in what was said to be a response to Qatar’s support of terrorism, is a recent example of how economic and political measures have a significant impact on the shipping industry.
In broad terms, the primary global sanctions regimes are as follows:
IranOn 16 January 2016, Implementation Day, the EU and UN lifted a number of sanctions against Iran in accordance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The JCPOA was signed by the EU3+3 (France, Germany and the United Kingdom and China, the Russian Federation and the United States), following Iran’s agreement
not to seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. ‘Snap back’ provi-sions within the JCPOA will reintroduce sanctions if Iran breaches the commitments it has made. The ‘snap back’ provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts executed in accordance with the JCPOA during the period of sanctions relief.
The EU has adopted several legal actions that implement the JCPOA through UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015). These amended the main EU legislation dealing with nuclear-related activi-ties in relation to Iran, namely Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012. These amendments have lifted restric-tions against Iran in the following sectors:• financial, banking and insurance;• oil, gas and petrochemicals;• shipping, shipbuilding and transport; and• precious metals and currency.
In addition, a number of persons and entities who were previously sub-ject to travel bans and asset freezes have been delisted.
Now that these restrictions have been lifted, EU entities have been able to begin legal trading in relation to Iran, including with Iranian enti-ties. That said, some restrictive EU measures remain in place (but these relate largely to military goods; weapons and items that might be used for internal repression) and some entities and individuals remain listed. Accordingly, all trades related to Iran should be checked to ensure that they comply with the remaining sanctions. Nonetheless, this ‘opening up’ presents opportunities for, among others, those keen to take advantage of opportunities in Iran’s oil, gas, shipping, trade and aviation sectors.
While this is a positive step for EU entities looking to trade or work with Iran, it is important to be alert to the fact that the United States has only lifted extraterritorial or secondary sanctions. While we are not US lawyers, we understand that sanctions still remain on non-US persons from dealing with US Specifically Designated Nationals and primary sanctions (those that affect US persons or entities and those within the United States) remain in place. Accordingly, as a general rule, any US person or business with a US nexus will still be unable to deal with Iran. One of the challenges presented by the continued impo-sition of US sanctions on Iran is that US banks (including those within US jurisdiction) are unable to clear US dollar transactions where there is a connection to Iran. Therefore, any EU resident or entity looking to work or trade with Iran will not be able to use US dollars as the trans-actional currency. Further, many banks remain reluctant to deal with Iranian-related transactions, even in non-US dollar currencies. In July 2017, the United States also announced its intention to impose further sanctions on Iran.
SyriaThe European Union has maintained restrictive measures against Syria. These restrictions include a number of export and import bans, such as a ban on the import, purchase and transport of crude oil and petroleum products from Syria. There are also restrictions on investment, including a ban on investment in the Syrian oil industry. Restrictions affecting the transport sector include an obligation for EU member states to inspect vessels and aircraft if there are reason-able grounds to believe they carry arms, related material or equipment that might be used for internal repression. Since December 2014, the European Union has prohibited the provision of jet fuel and certain
© Law Business Research 2017
GLOBAL OVERVIEW Ince & Co LLP
8 Getting the Deal Through – Shipping 2018
fuel additives to any person, entity or body in Syria, or for use in Syria. Brokering services in relation to these products are also prohibited. The United States also has sanctions in place against Syria that affect deal-ings by US persons or those within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Russia/UkraineIn July 2014, EU Regulation 833/2014 came into force, imposing eco-nomic sanctions on Russia. These were enforced as a consequence of Russia’s failure to comply with EU demands regarding the annexa-tion of Crimea and Sevastopol. This Regulation targeted the military, oil and financial services industries and was further amended by EU Regulation 960/2014 in September 2014 and EU Regulation 1290/2014 in December 2014. EU sectoral sanctions currently in place against Russia have been extended until 31 July 2017. It is likely that these restrictions will be renewed for a further six months.
The Regulation prohibits the following:• making available, directly or indirectly, a wide range of tech-
nologies (primarily used in energy projects) originating inside or outside the European Union, to anybody in Russia or to anyone outside Russia for use in Russia, without prior authorisation;
• providing, directly or indirectly, associated services necessary for certain categories of exploration and production projects in Russia (including its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf ); and
• to directly or indirectly purchase, sell, provide investment services or assistance in the issuance of, or otherwise deal with, transferable securities and money-market instruments with certain maturities in relation to certain entities that have been designated as subject to sectoral sanctions.
In addition to the above, an EU-wide asset freeze and travel ban was also imposed in March 2014 on those undermining the territorial sov-ereignty or security of Ukraine and those supporting or doing busi-ness with them under Regulation (EU) No. 269/2014, and in relation to those responsible for misappropriating state funds pursuant to Regulation (EU) No. 208/2014. These targeted asset freezes and travel bans on Russia/Ukraine were subsequently extended and are not due to expire until 15 September 2017.
Similarly to the European Union, the United States has also imposed sanctions on certain sectors in Russia, in addition to sanctions against certain individuals and entities. In July 2017, it also announced its intention to impose further sanctions on Russia.
Crimea/SevastopolPursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 of 27 March 2014, Crimea and Sevastopol continue to be considered part of Ukraine. EU authorities have continued to condemn what is considered to be the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, with restrictions having been introduced in response to this annexation, which try to restrict trade and assistance to the region, including assistance to the energy industry in the territory.
Various legislation has been imposed by the European Union in relation to Crimea/Sevastopol. In December 2014, the latest EU Regulation on Crimea/Sevastopol came into effect (Regulation (EU) No. 1351/2014). The restrictions contained in this Regulation have replaced a number of the earlier restrictions, and are more extensive in scope.
Pursuant to the current restrictions, it is prohibited to import goods into the EU that have originated in Crimea/Sevastopol, and to provide direct or indirect financing or financial assistance, insurance and rein-surance related to such import.
It is also prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export certain goods and technology to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Crimea/Sevastopol or for use in Crimea/Sevastopol that relate to the following industry sectors:• transport;• telecommunications;• energy; and• the prospecting, exploration and production of oil, gas and min-
eral resources.
In addition, it is prohibited to provide technical assistance, or brokering, construction or engineering services directly relating to infrastruc-ture in Crimea/Sevastopol and to provide services directly related to
tourism activities in Crimea or Sevastopol. There are also a number of restrictions that curtail investment in Crimea/Sevastopol, including restrictions on real estate in the region, ownership or control of entities in Crimea/Sevastopol and the creation of any joint venture.
These restrictions have been renewed until 23 June 2018.
KoreaThe European Union, UN and US have all now significantly extended sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), particularly as a result of the recent nuclear and missile tests carried out.
The European Union restrictions are wide-ranging and include, among others:• requirements for cargo inspections on all cargo going to or from
North Korea by sea or air, or which has been brokered or facilitated by North Korea or its nationals, or which is being transported on North Korean flagged aircraft or maritime vessels;
• a prohibition on North Korea and its nationals from chartering air-craft or maritime vessels, a prohibition on member states or their nationals from providing crew services to North Korea;
• a restriction on providing helicopters and vessels to North Korea;• a prohibition on the import of petroleum products from
North Korea;• prohibitions on the transfer of funds to and from North Korea
unless the funds are for a specific purpose listed in the Regulation;• a prohibition on the transfer of funds to or from North Korea unless
they fall within a specific exception;• a prohibition on investment in certain commercial activities and
financing and financial assistance for trade with North Korea; and• a prohibition on services incidental to mining or manufacturing in
the chemical, mining and refining industry.
There are various other prohibitions and restrictions and anyone con-sidering doing business with a North Korean connection should review the legislation carefully. In addition, in July 2017, the United States announced its intention to impose new sanctions on North Korea.
EU sanctions post-BrexitThe United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union will likely have an impact on the sanctions landscape. While nothing will change in the immediate future (as with other areas of EU law, the United Kingdom will continue to implement EU Regulations for two years after the United Kingdom has officially notified the European Union of its wish to leave the European Union), going forwards, the United Kingdom will likely be able to decide its own economic sanctions but will be unable to influence the decisions of the European Union. This will likely add an additional layer of complexity.
While it is not clear what path the United Kingdom will take in rela-tion to sanctions post-Brexit, it is probable that the United Kingdom will continue to favour the use of economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. Indeed, it was announced on 21 June 2017 that a new international sanctions bill would form part of the United Kingdom’s post-Brexit legislative programme. Further, without the need to achieve agreement between 28 member states, the United Kingdom will be free to impose whatever restrictions it considers to be appropriate, and will be able to act quickly.
Whatever happens in the United Kingdom/European Union dis-cussions over the next couple of years, it is clear that the sanctions landscape will remain a complex one. Compliance officers, particularly those working in companies affected by UK jurisdiction, will now have to contend with potentially differing US, EU and UK sanction regimes.
Shipping insolvenciesThe collapse in containership charter rates and asset values has led to insolvencies in the containership market. In February 2017, the world’s seventh largest container shipping line was declared officially bank-rupt. The bankruptcy of the Korean shipping line, which had 2.9 per cent of the global container shipping market, was reported to be the biggest ever to hit the container shipping sector in over 50 years and had a significant knock-on effect throughout the industry and wider supply chains. At the time the company filed for receivership, there were reports of almost 100 boxships left stranded at sea and outside ports with approximately US$14 billion worth of cargo on board. This
© Law Business Research 2017
Ince & Co LLP GLOBAL OVERVIEW
www.gettingthedealthrough.com 9
bankruptcy was said to have had much to do with the overcapacity in the industry, together with falling cargo rates and no signs of long-term recovery. A number of legal issues arising out of the bankruptcy have been highlighted, including damages claims by cargo owners and the scope of cargo insurance coverage, as well as problems for banks who had provided trade finance arrangements and were left with inad-equate security.
On 30 May 2017, a German ship-owning group also filed for insolvency after talks with its main lender relating to a financial restructuring proved unsuccessful.
Environmental measuresThe global shipping industry continues to promote a range of initiatives aimed at minimising damage to the environment from shipping.
The Ballast Water Management Convention 2004 (BWMC) will come into force on 8 September 2017 after Finland’s accession in September 2016 brought the combined tonnage of contracting states to 35.14 per cent and the number of contracting parties to 52. The Convention stipulates that it will enter into force 12 months after rati-fication by a minimum of 30 states with at least 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The Convention requires ships to manage their ballast water to remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake or discharge of aquatic organisms and pathogens within ballast water and sediments. The aim is to halt the spread of invasive aquatic species that can have an adverse effect on local ecosystems and affect biodiversity.
The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (the Polar Code) entered into force on 1 January 2017. The IMO has stated that the Polar Code is intended to cover the full range of shipping-related matters relating to navigation in waters surrounding the two poles:• ship design, construction and equipment;• operational and training concerns;• search and rescue; and• the protection of the unique environment and eco-systems of the
polar regions.
In October 2016, the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) agreed that IMO member states should develop a road map to reduce CO2 emissions from the international shipping sector in line with the Paris Agreement adopted by the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The aim is to agree and adopt a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships within 2018, with a revised strategy expected to be adopted in 2023. Also in October 2016, the IMO adopted a global CO2 data-collection system for ships which, being a mandatory requirement, will provide the IMO with far more accurate fuel consumption data by 2019. The three-step process agreed by the IMO member states comprises data collection, analysis and consideration of additional measures. It is expected that this data will facilitate the development of measures for the delivery of any reduction objectives agreed in 2018 when the IMO road map is finalised in 2023.
Ship recyclingShip recycling is also on the rise, partly due to overcapacity in the market, but also due to regulatory pressures. Both declining freight rates and the anticipated costs of complying with regulations on bal-last water system installation and sulphur emissions have led to a reported increase in ship demolitions by 14 per cent year-on-year in 2016. However, ship recycling raises certain environmental concerns, According to the European Maritime Safety Agency, most ship recy-cling takes place in South Asia, often on tidal beaches and in dangerous conditions that lead to health risks and extensive pollution of coastal areas. Furthermore, old ships contain many hazardous materials, including asbestos, PCBs and large quantities of oil and oil sludge. As a result, there have been a number of international regulatory initiatives designed to ensure that ship recycling is done in an environmentally sound manner.
The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (the Basel Convention) is an international treaty that came into force in 1992. As at June 2017, it had been ratified by 186 states, including all members of the European Union. The Basel Convention aims to reduce hazardous waste generation and promote environmentally sound management
of hazardous wastes, wherever the place of disposal. It also aims to restrict the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes, except where this is perceived to be in accordance with the principles of envi-ronmentally sound management. The exact regulatory requirements are, however, dependent on the national law of each contracting state party. The Basel Convention also permits party states to impose addi-tional requirements to those laid down by the Basel Convention, in order to better protect human health and the environment.
In addition, The Hong Kong Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (the Hong Kong Convention), an IMO convention, was adopted on 15 May 2009 but is not yet in force. It will enter into force 24 months after ratification by 15 states representing 40 per cent of the world’s merchant shipping by gross tonnage, provided that those states’ combined maximum annual ship recycling volume is not less than 3 per cent of their combined ton-nage. Nonetheless, the IMO has issued several guidelines to assist member states with the early implementation of the Convention. The Hong Kong Convention focuses on environmentally sound recycling. Among the main requirements are:• the performance of an initial survey to verify and produce the
inventory of hazardous materials;• a ship-specific recycling plan; and• the recycling must take place at an authorised ship recycling facility.
Furthermore, on 30 December 2013, EU Ship Recycling Regulation (EU) No. 1257/2013 entered into force, with the aim of reducing the negative impact linked to the recycling of EU-flagged ships. The Regulation was based on the Hong Kong Convention and was designed to implement the Convention quickly, without waiting for its ratification and entry into force. In addition, on 19 December 2016, the European Commission issued Decision (EU) No. 2016/2323 establishing the European List of ship recycling facilities pursuant to the Ship Recycling Regulation. The Regulation provides, among other things, that ships flying the flag of an EU member state can only be recycled at one of the facilities included in the List. In order for a facility to be approved and included in the List, it must comply with the requirements set out in the Regulation. The first edition of the List, published in December 2016, included 18 European recycling yards that are considered to be safe for workers and environmentally sound in accordance with the Regulation’s require-ments. However, the European Community Shipowners’ Association has argued for ship recycling facilities in non-EU countries to get EU recognition in order to raise standards worldwide. As at June 2017, the European Commission had received applications from yards in non-EU countries and was considering those applications.
Cybersecurity measuresThe extensive ransomware attack that hit almost 100 countries in May 2017 is only one of many incidents that have highlighted the increased global cyber threat in recent years. Indeed, that attack was soon fol-lowed by the Petya cyberattack in June 2017 that affected a number of large companies around the world, including the Danish transport and logistics group AP Moller-Maersk. The cyberattack was reported to have resulted in the shutdown of the group’s IT systems in multiple offices around the world.
On 21 December 2016, the United Kingdom government published a Cyber Security Regulation and Incentives Review that was conducted as part of the government’s national cyber security strategy. The United Kingdom government’s cyber security strategy is a five-year plan esti-mated to cost £1.9 billion and is aimed at making the United Kingdom a safe place to live and do business online. The Review follows an exten-sive consultation with a wide range of commercial and non-commercial stakeholders and presents the government’s position on cyber risk regulation and management in the private sector. Furthermore, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation will come into force on 25 May 2018, as will the EU Directive on cybersecurity, the Network and Information Security Directive. As at June 2017, there was no indication that the United Kingdom government intends to repeal EU cyber security legislation after Brexit. Rather, the United Kingdom government looks set to continue to invest heavily in UK cybersecurity.
According to IBM’s 2016 Cyber Security Intelligence Index, transportation was the fifth most cyberattacked industry in 2015. The potential severity of the consequences of a malicious cybersecurity attack on board a ship is a significant issue throughout the shipping
© Law Business Research 2017
GLOBAL OVERVIEW Ince & Co LLP
10 Getting the Deal Through – Shipping 2018
industry. Major shipping organisations continue to raise awareness of cybersecurity risks. On 16 November 2016, the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) published its statement on cyber secu-rity in the shipping industry. This position statement followed on from the 2016 cybersecurity guidelines launched by BIMCO, together with other stakeholders in the shipping industry. BIMCO’s statement indicated, among other things, that suitable high-level framework reg-ulations implicitly covering cybersecurity have already been adopted by the IMO through the International Safety Management code (ISM), which entered into force on 1 July 1998, and the International Ship and Port Security code (ISPS) in 2004. In BIMCO’s view, additional regu-latory actions are not required because the ISM and ISPS codes are suitable regulatory frameworks for cybersecurity. BIMCO supported the IMO’s work to develop voluntary cybersecurity guidelines and fur-ther recommended:• the implementation of standards for software maintenance on
board to protect shipboard networks and maintenance;• training and education to raise awareness of cybersecurity
risks; and• the design of software to promote cyber-resilient ships.
Subsequently, in June 2017, the IMO Maritime Safety Committee approved various measures intended to enhance maritime security, including adopting a resolution that cyber risk management form part of ships’ safety management systems going forward. This was followed, on 5 July 2017, by BIMCO’s revised cybersecurity guidelines. This sec-ond edition of the guidelines was once again compiled in conjunction with other international shipping organisations and is intended to build on the first edition, rather than to replace it. It has been aligned with the IMO’s cybersecurity management guidelines of June 2017. Among other things, the second edition includes guidance on:• the need to ensure appropriate insurances are in place to deal with
any losses arising from a cyber incident;• how to ensure an effective response to such an incident, including
having a team of personnel and/or external experts in place to take the appropriate action; and
• how to effectively segregate networks on board.
The Trump administration has also made it clear that cybersecurity is one of its top priorities. The United States Coast Guard and the United States Department of Homeland Security issued a Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular in July 2017, seeking public comments on how to strengthen cybersecurity in the maritime sector.
© Law Business Research 2017
2018G
ET
TIN
G T
HE
DE
AL T
HR
OU
GH
Acquisition Finance Advertising & Marketing AgribusinessAir Transport Anti-Corruption Regulation Anti-Money Laundering Arbitration Asset RecoveryAutomotiveAviation Finance & Leasing Banking Regulation Cartel Regulation Class ActionsCommercial ContractsConstruction Copyright Corporate Governance Corporate Immigration CybersecurityData Protection & PrivacyDebt Capital MarketsDispute ResolutionDistribution & AgencyDomains & Domain Names Dominance e-CommerceElectricity RegulationEnergy DisputesEnforcement of Foreign Judgments Environment & Climate Regulation
Equity DerivativesExecutive Compensation & Employee BenefitsFinancial Services LitigationFintechForeign Investment Review Franchise Fund ManagementGas Regulation Government InvestigationsHealthcare Enforcement & LitigationHigh-Yield DebtInitial Public OfferingsInsurance & Reinsurance Insurance LitigationIntellectual Property & Antitrust Investment Treaty Arbitration Islamic Finance & Markets Labour & EmploymentLegal Privilege & Professional SecrecyLicensing Life Sciences Loans & Secured FinancingMediation Merger Control Mergers & Acquisitions MiningOil Regulation Outsourcing Patents Pensions & Retirement Plans
Pharmaceutical Antitrust Ports & TerminalsPrivate Antitrust LitigationPrivate Banking & Wealth Management Private Client Private Equity Product Liability Product Recall Project Finance Public-Private Partnerships Public Procurement Real Estate Restructuring & Insolvency Right of Publicity Securities Finance Securities LitigationShareholder Activism & EngagementShip FinanceShipbuilding Shipping State Aid Structured Finance & SecuritisationTax Controversy Tax on Inbound Investment Telecoms & Media Trade & Customs Trademarks Transfer PricingVertical Agreements
Also available digitally
Strategic Research Sponsor of the ABA Section of International Law
Official Partner of the Latin American Corporate Counsel Association
ShippingISSN 1759-0744
Shipping
Getting the Deal Through
Onlinewww.gettingthedealthrough.com
© Law Business Research 2017
