CO129-536-10 Need for leglisation concerning number of certificated officers carried on passenger ships 18-11-1931 - 15-6-1932 — Page 46

73

GENERAL SURVEY

68

69

during the voyage the duties of a certificated person have to be taken over for the time being by a person not possessing the requisite certificate.

The French Government thus instances the case (pro- vided for in French regulations) where, when in a parti- cular port there are not available certificated engineers for performing the duties of engineer officer on watch, a seaman who is not in possession of one of the certificates for engineer officer may be engaged. Such seaman, however, must previously pass an examination before the shipping inspector to show that he possesses as far as possible the practical knowledge required. Exceptions of this kind, the Government adds, are essentially of a temporary character and are limited to a voyage already begun by a specified vessel or to a very restricted period.

It would appear that the Draft Convention should expressly provide for the possibility of exceptions in cases of the kind referred to above. It seems clear, how- ever, that there can hardly be any question of giving any enumeration of the cases which might be taken into account or of endeavouring to define them closely. In effect the cases contemplated can perhaps be reduced to what in the conditions in which shipping is carried on would amount to circumstances of force majeure and would generally be confined to circumstances arising after the voyage had been begun. It is accordingly proposed to include in the Draft Convention a clause allowing exceptions to the rules mentioned above only in cases of force majeure.

III.

Scope of the Draft Convention and minor exceptions

as regards vessels (Question 3).

The question here was whether the Draft Convention should leave it open to national laws or regulations to provide for minor exceptions as regards vessels to the rule that the performance of certain duties in controlling the movements of a vessel should be entrusted only to certificated persons, on such grounds for example as the type of vessel and tonnage, and, if so, what proposals the Governments had to make. The expression "minor exceptions", it may be recalled, was purposely used by

QUESTION 3

the Committee of the Thirteenth Session of the Conference with a view to endeavouring to keep the range of excep- tions within as narrow limits as possible.

1. Before considering in detail the replies of the Governments on this question as such, there are two preliminary points to be dealt with affecting the general definition of the scope of the proposed Draft Convention.

(a) In the first place, it has to be remembered that the wording of the item on the Agenda refers to "merchant ships". Hence references in a number of replies to the necessity of excluding from the Draft Convention vessels which would not appear to be covered by these words: e.g. vessels not engaged in trade or employed for profit (Belgium, Estonia, Finland); ships of war (Germany); Government vessels not engaged in trade (Denmark, Germany, Irish Free State), and vessels of a public including lighthouse authority which are not engaged in trade (Irish Free State); and pleasure yachts (Germany, Irish Free State, Rumania, Yugoslavia). It may be assumed that it would be agreed by the Governments generally that these classes of vessels should be excluded from the Draft Convention, and it would appear that the following formula might be used for the purpose "ships of war; Government vessels or vessels in the service of a public authority which are not engaged in trade; pleasure yachts".

(b) Secondly, the question is expressly raised in one or two replies whether the Draft Convention should be limited to vessels engaged in maritime navigation. Thus Belgium considers that the draft should apply only to vessels intended to be ordinarily employed at sea or in maritime waters, while Finland proposes to exclude vessels exclusively engaged in inland navigation, and Japan1 vessels not engaged in maritime navigation. The other Governments which have replied to the Ques- tionnaire do not refer to inland navigation, but would appear to have had only maritime navigation in mind. In these circumstances it would appear for the present at any rate that the scope of the draft to be submitted

See also post, p. 78.

74