Maritime Security Succeeds on the High Seas: Will Regulations Allow Floating Armories To Remain Relevant?
When the most recent barrage of pirate attacks and hijackings on commercial vessels began at choke points in and around the Arabian Sea several years ago, ship owners sought to beef up on-board security. A common practice today is for charterers and ship owners to hire maritime security companies to provide armed guard protection. Recently, security firms have begun subcontracting the service out to nearby floating armories that are strategically placed in some high seas areas with increased risk of piracy. The floating armories dispatch guards, weapons, and ammunition to the merchant vessel client and fulfill their contractual obligations.
Subcontracting to floating armories provides a service that a growing number of traditional maritime security firms with on-land weapons caches and security forces cannot. Consider an area along a popular trade route with high risk of piracy. Assume that all nearby ports do not permit weapons loadings and transfers in any regard. If this is the case, then maritime security firms cannot provide their services vessels from nearby ports. However, security firms can operate on international waters with ease because international maritime statute dictates that armed vessels have the right to “act with impunity.” Floating armories stationed in international waters would be the most viable security service for merchant vessels with security needs in such an area.
Maritime authority restrictions on armed security vessels make the industry particularly closed to expansion of its services worldwide. At the moment, floating armories are only feasible for servicing choke points on international waterways in the Arabian Sea, where authorities are unwilling to provide port access to foreign-flagged security vessels. Floating armories cannot service trade routes along the coastline of arms-averse nations because national authorities patrol coastal waters. As such, nearby and available maritime security infrastructure is completely absent. This is contributing to the growing security threat along major West African trade routes, particularly in Nigerian waters.
The issue begins with ship registries, many of which do not have sufficient controls over the soring and transfer of military equipment aboard registered vessels. In fact, those involved in the floating security business say that many armories are able to not even register as armories carrying weapons and live ammunition. This means that there are numbers of unregistered floating armories. Nations are ever hesitant and reactionary to increasingly many armed vessels of unregistered purpose, ignoring the Law of the Seas statute that “passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to peace.”
Then there is the lack of confidence in security firms’ records of weapons and ammunition stocks. The number of coastal nations unwilling to process weapons, regardless of their stated purpose, is increasing as the maritime security business grows and its subsequent regulatory flaws extend.
Coastal authorities take further precautions against any foreign-flagged vessels carrying arms. For example, if an arms carrier ventures out of international waters and near a coastline, it can be seized by the authorities patrolling that coastline. Furthermore, some ports will not allow the transfer of security supplies or personnel regardless of whether there are actual weapons and ammunitions are included. This exacerbates the issues of poor living conditions aboard floating armories because security guards can be stuck aboard their vessels in international waters for extended periods of time.
As a result of all this pressure, floating armories must be serviced by other boats rather than sailing into nearby ports with weapons on board for crew, cargo, and service. This is the reality of the industry restriction. It makes providing maritime security completely uneconomic for your standard maritime security company, and it is the single largest burden for the floating armories themselves.
Over the past several years, it has become clear that maritime security provides a successful and demanded service. The billion-dollar industry has dramatically reduced piracy along the Arabian Sea choke points. In fact, there has not been a single hijacking in the area since 2012, and piracy rates are at an eight-year low.
The solution is clear: allow the industry to organize itself and expand by instituting firm and clear regulations of security vessels. One or more economically competitive and reputable open registers must allow maritime security companies to register their armed vessels and reveal their operations transparently. If this occurs, security providers will be willing to register their ships in compliance with increased standards, and port authorities may be more willing to acknowledge that increase in standards. They will draw a distinction between an unregulated, unregistered foreign-flagged arms carrier and a reputable foreign-flagged security force. The industry can proliferate and expand to new areas where port authorities eliminated the viability of security. Industry competition will also push for better services and on-board living arrangements.
The industry is pushing for an overhaul of security standards and regulations by the IMO, which ship registries can then adopt and implement with confidence. Providing such a service would certainly provide a competitive advantage for willing registries, and the presence of just one flag that armories can register with and fly with confidence can result in freer market growth.
Sources:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444799904578050492737885074
- shipregistries's blog
- Login to post comments
