34
35
QUESTION 3
REPLIES OF THE GOVERNMENTS
28
29
tonnage of the vessel, or the character and power of its propelling machinery.
But appropriate certificates of capacity might be provided for each case, and in drawing up programmes of subjects in which candidates for one or other certificate would have to pass tests regard might be had to the minimum requirements of each class of navigation. In drawing up such programmes national legislation could be guided by the possibilities allowed by the intellectual and professional development of the classes from which deck and engineer officers are recruited.
The Draft Convention should leave it open to each of the contracting States to issue transitional regulations covering a certain number of years. Similarly, provision might be made for the issuing of licences for a limited period, or even permanent licences, to persons who for a certain number of years had, without holding a certificate but without committing any serious technical mistake, been in charge of a ship or perma- nently in charge of its machinery or had exercised the functions of mate in either capacity.
CUBA
3. It is considered that it should be left to national laws to provide for the exceptions that are considered desirable as indicated in this question.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
See reply under Question 1, ante, p. 10.
3.
DENMARK
The reply is in the affirmative: Government ships and ships below 100 tons gross tonnage should be exempted.
ESTONIA
3. The reply is in the affirmative. The Government proposes to leave it open to national law to allow exceptions in respect of ships of less than 60 cubic metres gross tonnage, as provided in existing Estonian legislation, and for ships not used with a view to profit.
FINLAND
3. The reply is in the affirmative. It should be possible, under national legislation, to allow minor exceptions for vessels not engaged in trade, for those engaged exclusively in inland
navigation, and those under 100 tons register or which are manned exclusively by members of the owner's or master's family.
FRANCE
3. The French Government considers that, if it were possible, no exception should be allowed to the principle of the minimum of professional capacity as defined in effect in Ques- tion 4. The guarantees finally maintained by the Thirteenth Session are such as may be truly called a minimum, and, except for a voyage of a few hours along the coast, it would not appear that this minimum could be reduced. Looking at the matter from every point of view, it is in the interest of the seaman himself that he should not undertake certain responsibilities without a minimum of professional capacity, which would result either from his age or the practical experience acquired by him in company with or under the orders of experienced navigators. The fact of passing one or more examinations organised and supervised by the public authorities no doubt serves to confirm the fact that this minimum has been acquired: but the value as a proof of the examination passed might perhaps in practice be a matter for discussion, without claiming on the other hand that a good seaman who is uncertificated does not exist.
As a matter of fact, the character of the question examined at the Thirteenth Session was more special, and as it dealt with certain circumstances of navigation there is a possibility that certain other circumstances may be left outside the field of the Convention and the obligation under consideration.
The object of the Convention is to avoid or reduce as far as possible the risk of collision. It is an obvious truth that the risk or rather the consequences of a collision are all the more considerable the greater the tonnage of the ship and its speed. The danger is almost nil for small ships, as a collision usually only involves material damage and does not develop into a catastrophe in which numbers of persons lose their lives.
These are the considerations which may justify exceptions to the principle of the minimum of professional capacity.
There can accordingly be no question of allowing important exceptions or beyond certain limits. The discussions at the Thirteenth Session show that there was a very definite tendency to consider only minor exceptions. The rejection of certain amendments referring to fishing vessels as a whole and the adoption of an amendment proposed by the French delegation would seem to show that the system of exceptions cannot be too strict. Further, the cases which might justify exceptions are very varied if they are not numerous, and the formula proposed by the French delegation and adopted by the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.