www.ousaokello.com

The International Maritime Organization’s Facilitation Committee (the Committee) will, at its 50^th session (FAL 50), be invited to consider, for adoption, draft amendments to the annex to the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965 (FAL Convention). The proposed amendments, approved by the 49^th Session of the Committee (FAL 49), consist, broadly, of the following amendments, i.e.,.:-

1. The introduction of a revised section 6.24 of the Annex to the FAL Convention which will, if adopted, read as follows:-

“6.24 Recommended Practice. Contracting Governments and their relevant authorities should take account of recommendations of the Organization relevant to the facilitation of crew changes, their travel and movements, as well as the provision of vaccinations, to the extent possible, within the State’s national vaccination programmes, and access to medical care during a public health emergency of international concern.”

B. In order to harmonize the FAL Convention and the International Health Regulations (IHR) of the World Health Organization, it has been proposed to replace the expression “Maritime Declaration of Health”, which is mentioned six times in the annex to the FAL Convention and is also mentioned in Appendix 2 of the FAL Convention, with the expression “Ship Declaration of Health”.

1. The introduction of the revised section 6.24 of the Annex to the FAL Convention

With regard to the introduction of the revised section 6.24 of the Annex to the FAL Convention, our views are as follows:-

1. The Amendment Is Subtle but Strategically Significant

On the surface, it looks like a soft “Recommended Practice.” But in IMO language, that’s not trivial. Recommended Practices often become the normative baseline against which State performance is measured, especially during audits or when negotiating bilateral port‑state/flag‑state arrangements.

This amendment quietly strengthens the expectation that:-

• Crew changes must not be obstructed during global health crises;
• Seafarers’ mobility is a protected interest;
• Vaccination access should be integrated into national programmes; and
• Medical care for seafarers is a shared international responsibility

It’s a soft law tool with hard law implications.

2. It Responds to the Failures Exposed by COVID‑19

The pandemic revealed how fragile crew change arrangements were. Hundreds of thousands of seafarers were stranded, denied medical care, or prevented from disembarking. States invoked public health exceptions broadly, often without proportionality.

This amendment is IMO’s way of saying:

“Never again should seafarers be treated as expendable or invisible during global emergencies.”

It reframes seafarers as essential workers whose rights must be safeguarded even when borders close.

3. It Respects State Sovereignty While Nudging Compliance

The phrase “to the extent possible, within the State’s national vaccination programmes” is a diplomatic compromise.

It acknowledges:-

• States control their vaccination priorities;
• Public health resources vary; and
• Not all States can immediately vaccinate foreign crews

But it still creates a normative expectation that seafarers should be included whenever feasible. In practice, this gives port States political cover to prioritize seafarers without appearing to privilege foreigners over citizens.

4. It Expands the Concept of Facilitation Beyond Paperwork

Traditionally, the FAL Convention focused on reducing administrative burdens — forms, clearances, inspections.

This amendment broadens “facilitation” to include:-

• Human mobility;
• Health protection;
• Medical access; and
• Vaccination logistics

That’s a conceptual evolution. It aligns the FAL Convention with modern realities where maritime trade depends not just on documents but on the physical well‑being of the people who operate ships.

5. It Strengthens the Human Element in Maritime Law

For decades, the IMO has been criticized for being ship‑centric rather than people‑centric. This amendment is part of a broader shift:-

• STCW revisions;
• MLC 2006 synergies;
• Seafarer mental health initiatives; and
• Crew change crisis resolutions

It signals that the human element is no longer peripheral — it’s central to maritime governance.

6. From a Legal Perspective: Soft Law with Hard Expectations

Even though it’s a Recommended Practice, it will influence:-

• Port State Control behaviour;
• National legislation;
• Maritime labour policies;
• Industry standards; and
• Charterparty clauses (e.g., crew change flexibility)

Courts and tribunals increasingly look at such IMO recommendations when interpreting due diligence obligations under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS) and flag‑state responsibilities.

Our Overall View

It is a well‑crafted, politically realistic amendment that strengthens seafarer protections without provoking sovereignty pushback. It acknowledges the lessons of COVID‑19 and embeds them into the facilitation framework in a way that will shape State practice for years.

It’s not revolutionary — but it’s quietly transformative.

B. Replacement of the expression “Maritime Declaration of Health” with the expression “Ship Declaration of Health”

With regard to the amendments dealing with the shift from the expression “Maritime Declaration of Health” to the expression “Ship Declaration of Health” our views are as follows:-

1. They strengthen coherence between IMO and WHO instruments

The FAL Convention and the International Health Regulations (IHR) operate in parallel spaces:- one governs facilitation of maritime traffic, the other governs global public health. When the IHR changes terminology from “Maritime Declaration of Health” to “Ship Declaration of Health”, it creates a divergence unless IMO aligns its own instruments.

The proposed amendments simply remove that divergence.

This is good treaty practice. It avoids:-

• inconsistent terminology across global instruments;
• confusion for port health authorities;
• operational discrepancies for shipmasters; and
• interpretive uncertainty for courts or tribunals.

In short: harmonization reduces friction.

2. The shift from “maritime” to “ship” is more than cosmetic

Even though some may view the change “editorial,” it has a subtle conceptual effect. “Maritime” refers to the domain. “Ship” refers to the object.

The IHR amendment clarifies that the declaration attaches to any ship—seagoing or inland—on an international voyage. That removes ambiguity for:-

• inland waterway vessels;
• river-sea ships; and
• hybrid craft that previously fell into grey zones.

So while the amendment is small, it tightens the scope of application.

3. The amendments preserve legal continuity

Nothing in the FAL Convention’s substantive obligations changes:-

• no new reporting requirements;
• no new health data;
• no new burdens on shipmasters or agents.

Only the name of the document changes.

This is the ideal form of technical amendment: zero disruption, full clarity.

4. The adoption process is straightforward and low‑risk

Because the amendments are editorial and non‑controversial:-

• they are unlikely to trigger objections under article VII(2)(b) of the FAL Convention;
• they should enter into force smoothly; and
• they maintain the FAL Committee’s reputation for consensus‑based housekeeping.

This is the kind of amendment that keeps the Convention modern without political friction.

5. The deeper significance: a more integrated global health–maritime governance system

The pandemic era exposed fragmentation between maritime, aviation, and health regimes. WHO’s shift to “Ship Declaration of Health” is part of a broader effort to:-

• standardize terminology;
• modernize health documentation; and
• prepare for future public health emergencies.

IMO aligning with WHO signals:-

• inter‑regime cooperation;
• shared operational language; and
• a unified global response framework.

This is subtle but important. It shows the maritime sector is not operating in isolation.

Our overall view

The amendments are:-

• legally sound;
• operationally sensible;
• administratively light; and
• strategically aligned with global health governance.

They are exactly the kind of quiet, technical updates that keep international law coherent.