1. 1. INTRODUCTION
Shipping has been one of the oldest way for transportation of goods globally,
meaning that the use of vessels for trading has been increasing gradually every
year. However one negative aspect that can be spotted on this particular matter
is the misfortunate event where collision transforms vessels into wrecks
causing or posing the threat of pollution to the environment or the threat for the
navigation of other vessels. For instance the El Faro incident indicated this
danger and has turned public opinion into such matters. El Faro was a roll on-
roll of vessel which departed from Florida to Puerto Rico but due to a hurricane
it lost its propulsion system and was sunken with its wreckage being found at
the coast of Bahamas at 15,000ft depth (Howard, 2016).
Until 2015 the legal framework regulating wreck removal was a mix of domestic
laws of coastal states and international conventions. In order to tackle this issue
IMO established the Nairobi Convention in 2007, which however came into
force in April of 2015 after Denmark became the last state to ratify it, with the
main purpose of this convention to fill the gaps between domestic laws and also
clarify the responsibilities of the parties regarding wreck removal (IMO, 2014).
Consequently it will be very interesting to examine the changes that this new
convention will bring to the current operations of shipping companies and in
addition identify how this will affect Greek ship-owners. The research is
performed in Greece in order to be closer to Greek ship owners and the
respective nationality companies since they are one of the main objectives to
examine and particularly the alternation of their attitude and performance in
accordance with this new convention. This convention addresses in addition
the questions that are left vague like what constitutes a wreckage, on whom to
place responsibility and in what extent the state parties are obliged to assist
and take action during and after a wreckage incident.
The reason for this research however is academically since it constitutes a
dissertation paper for the completion of my postgraduate studies at the
University of Plymouth. Nonetheless through this research is enabled a better
understanding of legal matters in shipping and how international conventions
change the existing operations of companies in more specific matters like
insurance or identify how can supplementary costs can incur like the expenses
of removing a wreck. Finally it also examines the liability posed in both ship
owners and nations which participate in shipping business.

2. 2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of the implementation of the
Nairobi Convention, drafted by the IMO in 2007, for the Greek ship owners and
their companies. Examining this impact will reveal the in addition the upheaval
of changes that this convention will bring to the current legal framework
regarding wreck removal and how it is filling the gaps that have been identified
between differences among domestic laws of states. The objectives
established in order to investigate this specific matter are the following.
a) First present the pre-Nairobi legal system governing wreck removal and
the respective conventions and present the gaps that were spotted.
Support it by presenting previous cases about removing wreck from the
seas.
b) Second objective is to examine the differences that Nairobi convention
brought to the legal and insurance system regarding wreck removal and
liability issues posed to both ship-owners and state parties and their
responsibilities in general.
c) The third objective is to prepare and distribute a questionnaire to Greek
ship owning companies asking their opinion on how they think this new
amendment to the wreck removal system will affect them.
d) The fourth objective is to provide an insight on how the maritime world
will change in terms of insurance and additional costs regarding removal
of wrecks in respect to this new convention.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
a) Pre Nairobi regime and its development
To begin with, first it must be examined the system prior to WRC
conventions that regulated responsibilities and power of states
and ship-owners in relation to wreck removal. The Torrey Canyon
incident, which occurred in 1967 indicated the need for a
convention that would be used as a guideline for disasters that
posed the pollution hazard over the states. The convention
established by IMO was the Intervention Convention in 1969, with
its full name being International Convention Relating to
Intervention on the High Seas in cases of Oil Pollution Casualties.
This allowed states to action against vessels, in the high seas,
that could be considered as a possible source of pollution for the
state. However it has long been considered that the Intervention
convention was in fact a codification of existing domestic law of

3. states regarding their powers over their waters, since it was based
on the doctrine of self-defence. In other words this convention
allowed coastal states to take action when their domestic waters
where threatened by pollution danger caused by a foreign vessel
(International Convention Relating To Intervention On the High
Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1971). A recent
interesting case that revealed the inefficiency of the existing legal
regime regarding state powers relating to wreck removal was the
Tricolor incident which occurred in 2002. The aforementioned
vessel, which was flying the Norwegian flag collided with the
containership named Kariba, which was registered in the
Bahamas, and the collision took place in the French EEZ, 32 km
north of the French coast in the English Channel. The aftermath
of this misfortunate event was that Tricolor became a total loss
and in addition it proved to be a navigational risk for other vessels
which passed through this very active pathway. Naturally two
other ships collided with the wreckage, despite that French
government had ordered the wreckage to be removed, something
that did not happen due to ambiguity regarding the powers of
coastal states in relation to action in international waters
(Brynildsen, 2005)
In addition to this, IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil
Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC) and also the International
Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Oil
Pollution Damage which lead to IOPC fund, in 1971 (Gaskell and
Forrest,2007).
Nonetheless those aforementioned convention did not make any
specific mention to wreck removal cases, but instead focused on the
case where danger is “imminent and grave” for the coastline of a
country. Consequently the United Nations Convention on the Law of
Sea (LOSC) drafted in 1982 and active since 1994, established some
crucial points for the WRC although again there was no direct
mention to wreck incidents. The points were twofold, with one being
the right of states to intercede in situations where a vessel situated
over the domestic seas poses a pollution danger, and the other
important point was the creation of the Exclusive Economic Zones
(EEZ) as maritime area. According to art.57 the select financial zone
might not reach out past 200 nautical miles from the baselines from
which the expansiveness of the regional sea is measured (Un.org,
2016). Particularly art.221 of LOSC provides that states have the
right to “take and enforce measures beyond the territorial sea…to
protect their coastline and interests…from pollution following upon
maritime casualty which may reasonably be expected to result in
harmful consequences. This means that a maritime casualty that can
result in wreck is included. An interesting point here is that LOSC
lowered the threshold by not demanding an “imminent danger” for

4. states to take international action as it was the case until then, as
stated in the Intervention Convention. After LOSC established the
EEZ it must be mentioned that the right to intervene in high seas,
according to Intervention Convention, could apply in the EEZ as well.
The second crack spotted in the legal system operating until then
regarding wreck removal had to do with who should bear the costs
for the removal operations. Obviously the wreck would have no value,
in order for the state to sell it and recover its expenses, since if this
was the case the salvors and the ship-owners would have
undertaken the operation. However domestic laws even from that
times provide that the liability falls upon the shipowner. The problem
here was that because many times the entity owning the vessel could
be proved to be not trustworthy, since the pattern with single ship
companies dates from previous decades, the state had to provide all
the funds for the removal of the wreck with no possibility of recovery
of that sum of money. An indicative example of such a case is the
Lagik case. This vessel was registered under the Antigua and
Barbuda flag and cracked her back resulting to be an obstacle to
navigation, particularly by blocking access to port of Wisbech for 44
days, during 2000. Consequently the UK authorities removed the
wreckage, with the costs of the operation reaching around 1.45
million pounds, an amount which never recovered (Gov.uk, 2000). As
an answer to this inadequacy of the system, the WRC provided the
need for ships entering state parties’ areas to have compulsory
insurance in order to cover such costs.
To sum up, the WRC convention aims to regulate specific matters
which had not been dealt so far from the previous legal doctrines in
relation wreck removal. Specifically it defines more clearly obligations
of coastal states, flag states and ship-owners with reference to wreck
removal in EEZ and in domestic waters as well. Furthermore it
suggested a new legal liability system according to which vessels
entering states that have ratified the convention ought to have
compulsory insurance so to provide coverage for costs that may
occur in wreckage situations, something that will be discussed
extensively in the next section.
b) Analysis of The Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention
This Convention will fill a crevice in the current universal
legitimate system by giving the primary arrangement of uniform
worldwide standards went for guaranteeing the brief and
compelling expulsion of wrecks situated past the regional waters
(IMO, 2016). The procedure that is followed is that. Since a
maritime casualty occurs, which involves a wreckage, the
affected state has to decide whether there is a hazard that
emanates from this event and if so then it has to communicate

5. that as soon as possible to both the ship’s registry and the owner
of the vessel. Then the person held liable is under the obligation
to remove the hazard caused from the wreck if not the wreck itself.
Not only that but in addition the WRC provided another important
addition to the wreck removal regime by obliging the owner of
vessels over 300 gross tonnage to have insurance in order to
cover the expenses related to wreckage incident.
Since territorial waters are not covered, and in many cases most
wrecks occur within these area, the convention provided, under
art.3.2, the ability for a state party to expand the powers of the
convention in the domestic sea, by an opt-in clause. Such a
provision ensures that uniformity is reached regarding the
proceedings and powers of a state party in relation to wreck
removal. It has been criticized though that the adoption of such
clause could undermine the powers of a nation to exercise
sovereign power. Nonetheless due to harmonization goal 13 out
of the 25 states, which have ratified the convention have already
decided to opt in (Kern, 2016).
Then in paragraph 2 of art.1 the term ship is described as: “
seagoing vessel of any type whatsoever and includes hydrofoil
boats, air cushion vehicles, submersibles, floating craft and
floating platforms” which according to specialists in these matters
seems to preclude vessels that are navigating in rivers.
Furthermore there was a suggestion during the draft of the
convention to entail into the definition of the ship fixed platforms
which was rejected on the notion that Protection and Indemnity
clubs do not encompass such objects into their insurance
framework (Gauci, 2009).
In the next section, art1.3, maritime casualty is construed as:
“collision of ships, stranding or other incident of navigation or
other occurrence on board a ship or external to it resulting in
material damage or imminent threat of material damage to ship or
its cargo”. This section is reflecting the previous definitions found
in LOSC and Intervention convention, in articles 221 and 2(1)
respectively. However in case the casualty occurs due to war
acts, civil war or natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable
and irresistible character then there is no liability for the shipowner
to cover the damages that may occur. For the latter part though
due to the advancements in technology it becomes more difficult
for such a defence to be raised, since most natural phenomena
are predicted and it is quite hard to meet the three aforementioned
prerequisites for the character of the disaster, only misfortunate
events like tsunamis can be successful in this way. Not only that,
but also under this definition it is logical to expect that vessels that
become wrecks after sinking for operational objectives are not
covered from the WRC.

6. Going further to art1.4 wreck is subdivided into four categories.
One is the profound case of a sunken or stranded ship. The
second includes part of a sunken/stranded ship, incorporating
objects that is or had been on board of the vessel. The third
entails object that is lost from at sea from ship and that is stranded
sunken or adrift at sea and the last one incorporates the case
where a ship is about or reasonably expected to sink or strand
where effective measures to assist the ship or property in danger
are not already being taken. This wide coverage provided by the
definition of the convention aims to ensure coverage and
application of its provisions for most cases that constitute a
danger for navigation or marine environment. For example a
container that is dropped from a vessel and is stranding at sea is
encompassed in this definition.
Continuing in definitions, in art1.5 hazard is described. This term
is crucial to the convention since only when there is a hazard the
provisions of WRC allow the affected state to take action. In the
definition as hazard is defined a danger to navigation as well as
any threat that can be supposed to have an adverse impact for
the marine environment, to the coastline and the related interests
of one or multiple states. Supplementary to that the WRC
provides an additional categorization for the term related
interests. Although as term it could be found in the LOSC, under
art.221, the WRC extended the cases covered under this section
since until then only the related interests threatened by pollution
were covered. Under this title are included four subsections. First
is activities like fishing and port operations which provide an
income for the people in the area. Second is tourist attractions.
Third is the wellbeing of wildlife and fourth offshore and
underwater infrastructure. The important alternation compared to
the Intervention convention here is that through this expanded
definition of hazard, the WRC equips the States with the power to
action outside the EEZ within which a wreck may be located since
it can put in jeopardy the coastline of another country and
consequently promotes cooperation among states in order to
tackle a possible threat resulting from a wreck, as it is described
in the art2.5 in WRC.
Moreover art1.6 illustrates the removal procedure. As stated in
the text, “removal” incorporates avoidance, extenuation and
eradication of the risk caused by a wreck. This can be interpreted
in removal of the hazard and not the wreck itself. It may be the
case for example where the hull of the sunken ship is not posing
any risk itself but instead it is its cargo that threatens the marine
environment of a nation. To balance the liability and the costs of
wreck removal, the WRC dictates that the acts taken by the
affected state should be “proportionate” to the risk to which is

7. exposed, and in addition those acts do not go over the required
limit as it is stated in the official document. In other words the
affected state shall remove the wreck by using the most rational
and efficient mechanisms while always put as priority the
wellbeing and security of the aquatic environment.
Last but not least, the responsibility allotment is directed upon the
registered owner of the vessel which is involved in the
misfortunate event of a wreckage. According to art.1.8 as
“registered owner” is described the individual or legal entity who
is logged as proprietor of the ship. Nonetheless in the case where
a vessel is a public property held from a nation and operated from
a company, the respective corporation is considered as the
owner. In addition in art1.9 defines that as operator of the ship is
held the person or company which has presumed liability over the
vessel’s obligations under the International Safety Management
Code. Finally art1.9 defines as affected state the country within
which the EEZ the wreck is located. It is important to mention here
that the application of WRC, from the moment it is ratified and on,
does not impose liability for wrecks that occurred before it came
power. Thus states within which wrecks already exist are not
responsible to inform the maritime community about the existence
of such wrecks. However in case of an old dated wreck poses a
danger after the ratification of the convention then its provisions
may be applied. An example could be a wreck that after many
years in that situation starts to lose its bunker and consequently
pollutes the environment. Nonetheless historic wrecks are
discussed in the next section.
c) Application of the WRC and relationship with other Conventions
Coming down to enforcement of the WRC many issues must be
discussed analytically in order to show how exactly this new
convention will tackle the gaps that were spotted under the
previous legal regimes. To begin with the WRC establishes a
framework in which the affected state, the shipowner and his
insurer are directly involved. A first practical aspect to be defined
is that of reporting. As soon as a vessel is engaged in a maritime
casualty which can result into a wreck, the operator or master of
the ship is obliged to report it to the affected state and not the
registered owner, who will have the burden to provide the
appropriate funds for the removal. By reporting the WRC requires
from the operator information like the name and place of business
of the registered owner, aside from practical details like exact
location of wreck, type and size of the ship, what damage has
been made to the vessel and of course nature and quantity of
cargo. If reporting is considered successful then the liability

8. passes to the affected state to continue the removal procedure.
Then the affected nation has to decide whether the wreck
constitutes a hazard or not, not only for its security but for any
nation at all, since the wreck can put in jeopardy another nation.
A limit has been set from the WRC so to ensure transparency in
its application. According to art13 the action isto be brought within
3 years from the time the hazard was declared and in no case can
a claim be successful if it is brought after 6 years from the time
the incident occurred. From the moment the registered owner has
been informed about his obligation to remove the wreck, he has
the option to come in contact and employ any salvor or entity
available to do so in order to address the danger caused from the
wreck, as it is stated in art9.4 of WRC. This enables the owner to
select on his own whom to contact and not by obliged to employ
the salvor indicated by the affected state. Here is crucial to explain
how the WRC overlaps with the respective convention regarding
salvage operations. As describe in the art11.2 of WRC, when the
salvage services are rendered successful then the reward paid to
salvor are calculated according to Salvage Convention of 1989.
REFERENCES
Brynildsen, I. (2005). TRICOLOR - The collision, sinking and wreck removal -
GARD. [online] Gard.no. Available at:
http://www.gard.no/web/updates/content/51625/tricolor-the-collision-sinking-
and-wreck-removal [Accessed 29 Jul. 2016].
Gov.uk. (2000). Grounding of general cargo vessel Lagik resulting in total
constructive loss of the vessel Marine Accident Investigation Branch report -
GOV.UK. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/grounding-of-
general-cargo-vessel-lagik-at-port-sutton-bridge-river-nene-england-resulting-
in-total-constructive-loss-of-the-vessel [Accessed 29 Jul. 2016].
Howard, G. (2016). Ship Operations - Last recorded words of El Faro master
played at USCG hearing - Lloyd's List. [online] Lloydslist.com. Available at:
https://www.lloydslist.com/ll/sector/ship-operations/article514187.ece
[Accessed 10 Jul. 2016].
Imo.org. (2014). Wreck-removal convention to enter into force. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/Wreck-removal-
convention-to-enter-into-force.aspx#.V3oZaLh97IU [Accessed 4 Jul. 2016].

9. Imo.org. (2016). Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks.
[online] Available at:
http://www.imo.org/en/About/conventions/listofconventions/pages/nairobi-
international-convention-on-the-removal-of-wrecks.aspx [Accessed 25 Jul.
2016].
International Convention Relating To Intervention On the High Seas in Cases
of Oil Pollution Casualties. (1971). Nordic Journal of International Law, 41(1),
pp.247-251.
Kern, J. (2016). Wreck Removal and the Nairobi Convention—a Movement
Toward a Unified Framework?. Front. Mar. Sci., 3.
Un.org. (2016). PREAMBLE TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON
THE LAW OF THE SEA. [online] Available at:
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm
[Accessed 23 Jul. 2016].