Friday, March 29, 2024 | ISSN 0719-241X
logo mundo marítimo
December 15, 2003 Countering Terrorism - The Legal Implications By Davies Lavery Solicitors, UK

After September the 11th, the situation with reference to terrorism has resulted in the development of a plethora of different antiterrorist measures, legislative as well as regulatory.  These measures have been created to resist the threat of terrorism in its wider sense.  For those involved in commerce, these measures involve direct legal consequences. 

The initiatives taken may be divided into 3 main groups.

(a) Those at an international level.
(b) Those at a national level.
(c) Those at a community level.

(a) At an International level we have, for example:

(i) The work of The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) who have made amendments to the Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS) and produced the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS code).  Prior to amendment SOLAS solely addressed maritime transport security. The amendments and the ISPS code now take into account maritime transport issues in connection with ships and port facilities.

(ii) The work of The International Labour Organisation (ILO) who have reviewed the need for a positive identification of seafarers which is crucial for improving maritime security.

(iii) The work of The World Customs Organisation (WCO) who have adopted a resolution on security and facilitation of the International Trade Supply Chain.This has led to the setting up of a task force who are charged with considering legal and procedural questions; commercial affairs and relations with other organisations; development of capabilities; implementation and intelligence; and promotion respectively. On completion of this work it is expected that a needs assessment tool to assist customs authorities in establishing security of the supply chain will be developed.

(iv)    The G8 Group reviewed the current situation mainly under two areas. One under maritime security and the other under container safety.  In relation to the former, they resolved to support the IMO SOLAS amendments to advance installation of Automatic Detection Systems (AIS) on certain ships to December 2004; to require mandatory ship security plans and ship security officers on board by July 2004 and to require mandatory port facility security plans and port facility security assessments for those ports engaged in serving ships making international voyages by July 2004. In relation to container security, they resolved to work swiftly to develop and implement an improved global container security regime and ensure in-transit integrity of high risk containers; to develop an integrated container security regime; to implement common standards for electronic customs reporting and to work to obtain advance electronic information concerning containers as early as possible in the trade chain. They also considered the need to develop an effective and proportionate security regime for overland transportation  and distribution of hazardous goods. Progress is to be reviewed by the G8 every six months. 

(b) At a national level we have the following:

(i) The Container Security Initiative (CSI) (US)
(ii) The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)(US)
(iii) The Maritime Transport Security Act (MTSA)(US)
(iv) The Bio Terrorism Act 2002.(US)
(v) The Maritime Transport Security Bill 2002 (Australia).
(vi) The National Maritime Security Programme (NMSP) (UK).

(c) At a community level, we have

             (i) The recent agreement initiated between the European Union and the     United States to include Transport Security cooperation between the EU and the US. 

             (ii) The proposed regulation by the EC to enhance ship and port facility security.

            (iii) The adopted regulation by the Council of the European communities establishing the community customs code.  

The above mentioned antiterrorist measures are not exhaustive by any means. However, I have sought to highlight the main initiatives which have the following principle characteristics:

1. Control of international and national commerce through the creation of new responsibilities and related liabilities relative to the national and international movement of goods.
2. They require disclosure of more detailed information and tighter controls in the infrastructure such as port facilities and customs which create the need for training to enable compliance.
3. They require financial investment from the private sector. If this does not materialise,     many firms will find it difficult to comply with the rules which will undoubtedly place them at a commercial disadvantage.
4. They create a heavy burden on the operational activity of the commercial and  transportation communities both nationally and internationally as different jurisdictions will require different procedures.
5. They deal with an issue which is related to national security but which also affects the commercial activity around the world.Whilst US Customs have insisted that they are keen to balance preventative measures concerning terrorism with facilitation of trade, they have also conceded that whilst it is not their intention to cause businesses to fail, this may be an inevitable consequence if such businesses cannot afford the cost of compliance.
6. Some have the force of law and some others are merely initiatives or programmes. The statutory provisions include liabilities and the initiatives or programmes are adopted by companies and incorporated contractually into contracts with third parties. Indeed, the intention is that members of the CT-PAT programme will ensure incorporation of the programme requirements into all their contracts .  

The legislation and regulations coming out inevitably create liabilities.  Liability arises when a party is legally responsible to another party for his committed fault out of which arise losses for the affected party.  Liability may result from statutory, common law or contractual obligations.  A party may be liable to a government and a contractual party for not having complied with an antiterrorist law and be unable to comply with his obligations under his commercial contract.  For example, under the Food and Drug Administration publication of the “Prior Notice of Imported food or food offered for import into the United States”  it is stated that “the causing of the prohibited act and being responsible for the commission of a prohibited act are both subject to sanction under the Act ( 21 U. S.C.3311).  Thus under the interim final rule, the owner, operator, or agent in charge of any facility that manufacturers /processes, packs or holds food for consumption in the United States, who is required to register the facility with [the] FDA but fails to do so, commits a prohibited act.”.

Furthermore, in the case of food held at the port in the United States in the printed interim final rule,  it is stated that “Any storage and transportation cost  associated with FDA’s refusal process are borne by the relevant private parties according to their contractual agreements”. With reference to cost, it is also stated that the “FDA has reconsidered and believes that it will not be appropriate to specify which parties are responsible for costs as this is a commercial rather than a regulatory matter”.  This means that as a result of a statutory breach of the US Bio Terrorism Act, there will be contractual consequences as to the cost and the parties dealing with the commercialisation and transportation of the goods will have to agree among themselves who should bear the attendant costs in case of refusal of entry of the food into the United States.

In relation to liability under the Required Advance Electronic Presentation of Cargo Information in it’s final rule, the Department of Homeland Security in the US stated that when, for example, information is presented to the CBP and it was acquired from another party and determined to be false, it is stated that under such circumstances, “CBP will take the facts and circumstances of any such situation into account in determining whether a penalty/ liquidated damages claim should be initiated and whether and/or to what extent such a claim should be mitigated. The CBP intends to issue mitigation guidelines in this matter”.
 
Customs is the first and last point of effective control under which the goods can be assessed by Government.  That is why we are experiencing the change in the function of customs.  We are beginning to see a development from its traditional function into a new one which will mean that the customs will not only deal with issues related to taxation but also customs will become involved in screening and preventing terrorist acts.  A comparison may be drawn between the Maritime Transport Security Act in the US and the Immigration and Asylum Act in the UK which deals with clandestine entry. In the United Kingdom the appeal court, in litigation brought by operators against the secertary of State for the Home Department, sustained that the system under which penaltys are given to a breaching party for having been found to have illegal entrants inside the vehicle, did not give an opportunity  to have the penalty reviewed by an independent Court and did not protect property rights under Human Right legislation.  At this point, it is necessary to realise that those governmental entities which will need to deal with the prevention of terrorism, will have to be given the correspondent legal authority to be able to proceed. In a balancing manner, the safeguards to protect those who have been accused of committing a breach will need to be carefully considered.  If a party is given a penalty because he has committed a breach of an antiterrorist legislation, proper safeguards will need to be provided for. Undoubtedly, Governments will be permitted to deal with issues of national security, but correspondent safeguards will need to be implemented for those caught under relative legislation. 

The Container Security Initiative and the C-TPAT are not legislation.  In both cases a bilateral agreement will put any other party which is not part of this agreement under a more competitive commercial disadvantage.  The effect will be the same, irrelevant of the community, firm or port which enters into this agreement or not.  Some industry representatives have expressed the view that the European Community should create the same scheme as in the case of C-TPAT, but the European Community should not create antiterrorist legislation, initiatives or programmes which create inequity and breaches of European Community law as well as Human Rights Legislation.  If CSI and CT-PAT were to be applied in the European community, there will need to be suitable protective measures brought in to deal with anti competitive issues.  For example, as we mentioned earlier, the European community and United States have entered in an agreement to “include transport security cooperation”.  Our concern, is with the fact that this agreement should secure not solely the needs of the United States and of the European Commission but should include worldwide interests as well.  The United States and the European Commission have made an agreement which satisfies the needs and concerns of both. This may be creating a block which will put third countries under a more difficult position.  We must not forget that these agreements will have practical and direct consequences for all those involved in the commercialisation and transportation of goods.

To have a global system under which governments play a primary role is not just a phrase. This should mean that legislation is standard and financed by governments or world organisations.  We have put the case across the world for the creation of a convention under which those responsible for the packing should send a declaration or a prior notice to the pertinent customs and this declaration be followed throughout the transportation process.  At this moment we have seen that there is reluctance by some to create such a system but we have also seen that the United States and European Community are both taking a more lenient approach towards this concept. So far, there is a greater majority in favour of this concept. We note that the US customs has considered other industry standards when dealing with their own legislation in the prevention of terrorism. It takes time, but the U.S. and the EC are listening.  This is by far a more positive approach than when United States first began the drafting of its antiterrorist legislation as it shows a will to gain worldwide uniformity if possible. 

Most of the antiterrorist measures created up to now have the peculiar characteristics that they require financial investment by private industries.  For example, the need to have x-ray equipment or scanner equipment to check containers means that a port in the United States will have more access to financial resources, for example, than a port in Argentina, Chile, Brazil or India.  As a result of this inequality, the antiterrorist measures will bring about unfair competition.  One consequence is not to comply with the legislation because, for example, of not having established the incorporation of a code of practice given by a government into the operational programme of a transport firm but another is not having complied with the legislation because of not being able to purchase equipment and train the necessary number of employees to work not just the new computer system but also understand the new information required.  To what extent the European community, the United States or the G8 Community will consider other less expensive alternatives  which are as efficient coming from poorer countries is a moot point. This is the question which must be answered as a matter of urgency.It is only with a fully integrated and uniform system for the prevention of terrorism that terrorism may be successfully countered.

The current situation is changing daily and more initiatives are being brought about. If the industry wants to protect it’s corner, it must lobby for proper reforms. The real concern at present is the fragmented approach being taken with the United States leading the way. It does appear that they are prepared to listen to suggested changes. Our department wrote to the US Government on 5 August 2003 stressing the importance of singular reporting when it became clear that different reports would need to be lodged under the MTSA and Bio Terrorism Act. On 24 November 2003, the reply was that “there will not be a single reporting transaction that will meet all requirements.” However, on 5 December 2003, the Federal Register issued a final rule , and, with reference to the issue of a single prior notice which would accommodate the requirements of the CBP and FDA, the final rule states that “The CBP is working diligently with the FDA  towards integrated filing and risk management mechanisms. In fact, an agreement was reached in May 2003 between CBP and FDA  to modify CBP’s Automated Commercial System (ACS) to enable importers, in most cases,  to use this system to satisfy the advance information requirements of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002”  (The Bioterrorism Act). Also, it is stated that “the CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) is intended to operate as a single window for the submission of import information to the Government, once it is developed and implemented as part of the International Trade Data System (ITDS)”.

This is an approach to be welcomed as simplicity and uniformity are paramount if an effective system worldwide in countering terrorism is to be achieved without causing any unnecessary interference with the facilitation of trade.

Kay Pysden Head of the Marine & Goods in Transit Department
Samuel Perez Goldzveig Legal Assistant.
Davies Lavery Solicitors
London, United Kingdom.

Políticas de Privacidad

La política que en el presente documento se indica, tiene por objeto informar a los usuarios de MundoMaritimo sobre el proceder de nuestra empresa respecto del tratamiento de los datos de carácter personal recogidos a través de nuestros portales.

1 | Recolección:

Cuando Usted requiere los servicios de MundoMaritimo, se recoge información personal como su nombre, rut, dirección, etc, a través de correo electrónico o formularios. Nuestro sitio no utiliza actualmente cookies, para registrar o recabar información del usuario, pero, podrá en cualquier momento y a su sola discreción y sin necesidad de autorización, utilizarlas, comprometiéndose dar el tratamiento y protección señalado precedentemente a dichos datos.

Para qué se utiliza la información recolectada.

Toda la información recolectada de los usuarios en MundoMaritimo tiene por objetivo:

(1) Brindar servicios, contenidos y publicidad personalizada al usuario en su navegación por los portales de MundoMaritimo

(2) Realizar estudios internos sobre los datos demográficos, intereses y comportamiento de nuestros usuarios. La información se utiliza para entender y servir mejor a nuestros usuarios.

2. Uso:

Estos datos que usted proporciona libre y voluntariamente, tienen por objeto dar un mejor servicio, información y utilidades a nuestros usuarios. Usted tiene el derecho de no aceptar entregarlos, renunciando a los beneficios que nuestro sitio web entrega.

Si decide aportar dichos datos, nos obligamos con usted a mantener una conducta clara y regular, sometida a la política que a continuación expresamos, de la cual usted es informado y que acepta.

Nuestra política respecto de los datos recogidos es la siguiente:

La responsabilidad por la veracidad de los datos recogidos por esta vía, es exclusiva del usuario.

3. Seguridad:

Mantenemos una base de datos Off-Line, la que asegura a sus clientes total privacidad, respecto de los datos proporcionados a MundoMaritimo.

Por otra parte, una reconocida empresa externa proveedora de servicios de conectividad y hosting debidamente certificada, "aloja" nuestros sitios en sus servidores web, los 365 días del año, los siete días de la semana y las veinticuatro horas, lo que asegura que nuestro sitio tenga la menor posibilidad de "caída" en la web o intrusiones de "hackers" que vulneren nuestro Portal.

4. Calidad:

Sin perjuicio de las responsabilidades que al usuario le corresponden, MundoMaritimo tendrá especial cuidado al recolectar, mantener, usar, publicar o distribuir la información personal vinculada a los usuarios y visitantes, verificando que los datos sean correctos, completos y adecuados para cumplir con los fines para los que serán utilizados.

5. Modificación:

El usuario que haya entregado previamente datos o información personal a MundoMaritimo, podrá solicitar su modificación, corrección o eliminación, enviando un correo electrónico a [email protected], indicando su nombre, rut, dirección, teléfono, y expresando claramente que información de la que hubiere entregado desea modificar o eliminar.

En todo caso, y como medida de seguridad, MundoMaritimo se reserva el derecho de verificar la autenticidad de la comunicación.

6. Publicación e intercambio:

MundoMaritimo, como norma general, no transferirá, cederá, venderá o de otra manera proveerá sus datos de carácter personal a persona alguna. MundoMaritimo podría transferir, revelar o ceder los datos recopilados a sus usuarios, a terceros de acuerdo a las siguientes circunstancias:

(1) En caso de tener la aprobación explícita del usuario, sus datos de carácter personal pueden ser usados por terceros para efectos de realizar marketing directo, llamadas telefónicas, para enviar correos electrónicos, entre otros. El usuario tiene el derecho y la opción de poder denegar la recepción de esta información por parte de terceros.

(2) En el caso de "contactos de negocios", sus datos de carácter personal pueden ser usados por terceros sólo para efectos de poder completar y ejecutar la transacción que motivó la entrega o recolección de esa información.

(3) Aquella información que sea requerida por la ley, una orden judicial u otro procedimiento legalmente válido que así lo exija.

7. Uso de información vinculada a terceros:

En caso de tener la aprobación correspondiente, MundoMaritimo usará la información del usuario para comunicarle e informarle, a través del correo electrónico, acerca de:

(1) Modificaciones a sus servicios o productos existentes, aparición de nuevos servicios o productos, u otros especificados por el usuario.

(2) Información, ofertas o cualquier tipo de promoción de marketing que MundoMaritimo pueda otorgarle al usuario.

(3) Sugerencia por parte del usuario acerca de ,"recomienda esta noticia a un amigo"

8. Servicios prestados por terceras empresas en el sitio:

Eventualmente, MundoMaritimo, puede contratar los servicios de empresas externas, con el fin de entregar nuevos servicios y productos a través de este sitio web. La información recabada en su caso por dichas empresas, se regirá por el acuerdo del usuario de la misma.

Si tiene alguna duda o pregunta sobre nuestra política de privacidad, le rogamos contactarse a [email protected]

9. Publicidad asociada

Respecto a los servicios de anuncios publicitarios o información promocional, con el objeto de presentarle servicios asociados que puedan ser de su interés, tenemos vínculos con otras compañías a las que permitimos colocar publicidad en nuestras páginas. Estas compañías podrían individualmente solicitar su información directamente con usted, siendo exclusiva responsabilidad de ellas el manejo y manipulación de esta información.

Finalmente, MundoMaritimo no garantiza la privacidad de la información personal del usuario, si éste suministra o difunde información en guías telefónicas públicas, reportajes de prensa, publicaciones, zonas de chateo, boletines u otras similares. Dicha información podrá ser recopilada por terceros, con o sin su consentimiento. El usuario revela esa información bajo su responsabilidad.