journal of international humanitarian legal studies 11 (2020) 282-294 brill.com/ihls
International Law Perspectives on Cruise Ships and covid-19
Natalie Klein Professor, Faculty of Law, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia [email protected]
Abstract
Cruise ships have contributed to the spread of covid-19 around the world and State responses to the pandemic have needed to account for the presence of these ships in their ports and the medical treatment of both passengers and crew on board. This contribution outlines the key bodies of international law that must be brought to bear in deciding on State action in response to cruise ships and their covid-19 cases: the law of the sea, international health law, shipping conventions and especially treaties protecting the rights of seafarers, international human rights law and laws relating to consular assistance. While these laws tend to reinforce each other, it is argued that the need for humanitarian considerations to feature strongly in State decision-making is challenged by systemic weaknesses.
Keywords covid-19 – cruise ships – port States – seafarer rights – International Health Regulations – human rights at sea – vessels in distress
What men, what monsters, what inhuman race, what laws, what barba- rous customs of the place, shut up a desert shore to drowning men, and drive us to the cruel seas again. Virgil1
1 Virgil, Aeneid i, 593–594 quoted in Myres S McDougal and William Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans (Martinus Nijhofff 1987) 104, fn 35.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/18781527-bjaDownloaded10003 from Brill.com10/01/2021 11:59:46PM via free access
1 Introduction
In the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic, it became rapidly apparent that large cruise ships, each with approximately 3,000 passengers and between 500–1000 crew,2 were a significant source of cases and contributed to the spread of covid-19. This awareness was exemplified by the Diamond Princess, which docked in Japan and had the most cases of covid-19 outside mainland China in February 2020.3 The close confines of a cruise ship facilitated the spread of covid-19 among those onboard. After the Diamond Princess, there were estimates that at least another 25 cruise ships had cases of covid-19.4 Even when passengers were disembarked and returned to their home coun- tries, the crew remained susceptible to the transmission of covid-19. In early April 2020, it was estimated that 15,000 crew members were stranded on 18 cruise ships around the Australian coast with concerns that coronavirus would take hold and spread.5 Within an international law framework, there are diverse actors involved, including the flag States of the cruise ships, the port States visited, the cruise ship companies, the passengers onboard the ships and their States of national- ity, as well as the crew who work on these cruise ships and their home coun- tries. The international rules implicated by the situation include the law of the sea, international health law, shipping conventions and especially treaties pro- tecting the rights of seafarers, international human rights law and laws relating to consular assistance. The purpose of this article is to explain how some of these various bodies of international law intersect in regulating the public health crisis prompted by covid-19 on cruise ships. It will be shown that there is a strong international law frame in place, which anticipates action by the aforementioned actors, to manage the protection of public health, but system- ic weaknesses risk limiting responses to the current crisis.
2 ‘An estimated 30 million passengers are transported on 272 cruise ships worldwide each year’. Leah F Moriarty et al., ‘Public Health Responses to covid-19 Outbreaks on Cruise Ships – Worldwide, February–March 2020’ (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 26 March 2020)
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11 from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access
2 Ports and Customary International Law
Australia, New Zealand, and countries in the Pacific and Caribbean began ban- ning the entry of cruise ships in March 2020.6 Cruise ships were also denied entry into ports in South America, including restrictions on access through the Panama Canal.7 Under the law of the sea, States have sovereignty over their ports and can control port access,8 including the possibility of closing ports. Access to ports is frequently governed by treaty, especially for the purposes of promoting international trade. States may close ports ‘when the vital interests of the State so require’.9 In practice, de la Fayette has noted the closure of ports ‘for various reasons related to the protection of public health and safety; to ships carrying explosives; to ships carrying passengers with contagious diseases; to ships carrying dangerous cargoes, such as hazardous wastes; for general coastal pollution protection; to substandard ships; and to ships presenting hazards to maritime navigation’.10 While port closures are permissible, there are excep- tions that apply. When a vessel is in distress, it is allowed to enter a port of refuge.11 What constitutes ‘distress’ has been discerned from national court decisions, which more commonly dealt with the consequences of the vessel’s entry rather than the situation of distress itself.12 Distress relates to a situation that clearly threatens the safety of persons aboard a ship, or a danger to the ship, cargo or crew that risks their loss.13 In the context of cruise ships, it would seem evident
6 ‘Coronavirus and International Cruises’ (Smartraveller, 20 March 2020)
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access
14 See, eg, F Oanh Ha, ‘Stuck at Sea, Cruise Ship’s Sick Crew Must Keep Vessel Going’ (Bloom- berg, 31 March 2020)
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11 from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access
distress to enter ports and so remain subject to port State regulations. None- theless, the refusal of cruise ships to leave port when requested could be justi- fied on the basis of seeking to avoid creating a situation of distress. Greater danger to the ship, as well as those onboard (and possibly other ships in the region and the marine environment), may be posed if a vessel with insufficient crew capabilities is stuck out at sea. The rights of the flag State in regulating its vessels, including matters in- ternal to the vessel, must be balanced against the rights of the port State in relation to its decisions protecting its sovereignty. This balance is recognised in Guidelines on Places of Refuge for Ships in Need of Assistance,22 which were adopted following an environmental disaster onboard a ship.23 In re- sponse to reported covid-19 cases on the Zaandam, Panama initially refused passage through the Panama Canal on the basis that its canal staff navigate ships through this passage and would have their health endangered; passage through the Canal was ultimately allowed on a humanitarian basis.24 The des- tination of the Zaandam, and the Rotterdam – which was sent to assist those on board the Zaandam – was Florida, and US officials similarly expressed con- cerns about crafting a ‘humanitarian solution’ for those onboard while main- taining ‘strong safeguards’ for the local community.25 This example reflects how each State may adopt differing views on what is the correct balance. In making these decisions, the key source of rights for port States over cruise ships carrying infectious persons on board is the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations, which are next discussed.
3 International Health Regulations (2005)
In 2005, in the wake of the sars epidemic, the World Health Organisation up- dated its International Health Regulations.26 These Regulations address the
22 Guidelines on Places of Refuge for Ships in Need of Assistance, imo Assembly Res A.949(23) (5 December 2003). 23 Namely, the Prestige oil disaster in 2002 off the coast of Spain. 24 Patrick Greenfield and Erin McCormick, ‘Coronavirus: Panama to Allow Cruise Liner Zaandam through Canal’, The Guardian (29 March 2020)
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access
If clinical signs or symptoms and information based on fact or evidence of a public health risk, including sources of infection and contamination, are found on board a conveyance, the competent authority shall consider the conveyance as affected and may: (a) disinfect, decontaminate, disinsect or derat the conveyance, as appropriate, or cause these measures to be carried out under its supervi- sion; and (b) decide in each case the technique employed to secure an adequate level of control of the public health risk as provided in these Regulations. … The competent authority may implement additional health measures, including isolation of the conveyances, as necessary, to prevent the spread of disease. …
In these circumstances, the affected ship can still take on fuel, food, water and other supplies.32 It is incumbent on a vessel that is entering port to advise the relevant port authorities of any cases of infectious diseases or other evidence of a public health risk on board.33 However, according to the International Health Regula- tions, a ship is not to be prevented from entering a port for public health rea- sons.34 This exception aligns with the customary international law obligations discussed previously in relation to distress.
Regulations entered into force in 2007 and have 196 State parties. World Health Organisa- tion, ‘Strengthening Health Security by Implementing the International Health Regula- tions (2005)’
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11 from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access
Moreover, ‘ships or aircraft shall not be refused free pratique by States Par- ties for public health reasons; in particular they shall not be prevented from embarking or disembarking, discharging or loading cargo or stores, or taking on fuel, water, food and supplies’.35 Free pratique refers to the permission typi- cally accorded to vessels to enter port, as well as embark or disembark cargo or stores. It facilitates the movement of international shipping, and the World Health Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation have advo- cated its maintenance in the face of the covid-19 pandemic.36 For port States, an inspection of the vessel can still be required in this situation and decon- tamination measures put in place to remove the risk to public health.37 Foremost among State concerns to the presence of cruise ships with sick passengers and crew has been the additional costs incurred and resources re- quired for local health systems.38 Under the International Health Regulations, there are limits to what charges a State may levy against travellers. Relevant for the covid-19 cases on cruise ships is that the State may not charge a traveller for medical examinations or ‘appropriate isolation or quarantine requirements of travellers’.39 Presumably hospitalisation and additional medical care would be payable by travellers. The financial situation is different to that of the crew and is discussed in the following section.
4 Shipping Law and the Maritime Labour Convention
Under the UN Law of the Sea Convention (losc), the flag State has the pri- mary duty to exercise effective jurisdiction and control over ships flying its flag.40 In doing so, the flag State is to ensure that each ship has master and crew who are appropriately qualified and that the number of crew on board is ap- propriate in relation to the type and size of ship.41 Further, flag States must
35 Ibid art 28(2). 36 who and imo, ‘A Joint Statement on the Response to the covid-19 Outbreak’ (13 Febru- ary 2020)
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access
42 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (adopted 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980) 1184 unts 278. 43 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (adopted 7 July 1978, entered into force 28 April 1984) 1361 unts 2; 1362 unts 2. 44 See Ha (n 14). 45 This situation has arisen in relation to the Ruby Princess, which had over 1000 crew mem- bers onboard, and would not leave Australian waters (at time of writing). See Jessie Da- vies, ‘The Coronavirus Cruise Ship Ruby Princess Has Docked at Port Kembla in nsw – This Is What the Australian Authorities Will Do Next’ (abc News, 6 April 2020)
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11 from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access
48 See Maritime Labour Convention, Explanatory Note. 49 Maritime Labour Convention art iv(4) and title 4, reg 4.1.1. 50 Ibid reg 4.1.3. 51 Ibid reg 4.1.4. 52 See, eg, Mark Saunokonoko, ‘Ruby Princess Hospital is Drowning with “200 Sick Crew”’ (msn News, 6 April 2020)
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access
treating covid-19 patients within their territory.56 As mentioned in relation to the passengers and their rights under the International Health Regulations, the costs of some medical treatment is to be borne by the port State.57 For crew, the key purpose is to ensure that they are protected from financial liability for illnesses suffered in connection with their employment.58 Instead, the ship- owners are responsible for the health protection and medical care of all seafar- ers working on board their ships.59 In particular, for those crew who are sick and hospitalised with covid-19, it is the shipowner who is ‘liable to defray the expense of medical care, including medical treatment and the supply of the necessary medicines and therapeutic appliances, and board and lodging away from home until the sick or injured seafarer has recovered, or until the sickness or incapacity has been declared of a permanent character’.60 How this obliga- tion might work in practice would entail a government providing medical as- sistance and seeking compensation from the relevant shipping company. This recovery might be difficult if the shipping company has no presence in the port State’s jurisdiction.
5 Human Rights and Consular Rights
As discussed above, the International Health Regulations and the Maritime Labour Convention provide protections for the health of passengers and crew, respectively, on cruise ships. These specific rules are then supplemented by additional rights enjoyed by all individuals. While human rights are discussed in more detail in other contributions to this special issue, the discussion in this section focuses on the application of human rights at sea, as well as additional assistance that may be afforded by the States of nationality of the individuals concerned, given that these States may be different to the flag State or the port State that otherwise have authority over aspects of the cruise ship’s operations and responses to covid-19. Although the issue has not been without controversy, human rights obliga- tions can apply at sea when a State exercises effective control over a vessel, area or person. This standard applies in relation to the International Covenant
56 See above n 38. 57 See above n 39 and accompanying text. 58 Maritime Labour Convention title 4, reg 4.2. 59 Ibid standard A4.2.1. 60 Ibid standard A4.2.1(c).
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11 from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access
61 UN Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No 31: Nature of the General Legal Ob- ligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant’ (26 May 2004) UN Doc ccpr/C/21/ Rev.1/Add.13, para 10. 62 UN Committee against Torture, ‘Concluding Observations: United States of America’ (2006) UN Doc cat/C/USA/C/2, para 20. See also jha v Spain (21 November 2008) UN Doc cat/C/41/D/323/2007. 63 Hirsi Jamaa v Italy, App no 27765/09 (ECtHR, 23 February 2012) para 73. 64 Ibid para 81. See also Irini Papanicolopulu, ‘Hirsi Jamaa v Italy’ (2013) 107 American Jour- nal of International Law 417, 420. 65 See above n 40 and accompanying text. 66 International Health Regulations art 32.
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access
For individuals who find themselves on cruise ships and need assistance to return to their home country, they may turn to consular assistance. The pri- mary international law instrument dealing with consular rights and duties is the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.67 Consular functions include ‘helping and assisting nationals’,68 and may entail the repatriation of passen- gers from cruise ships that have cases of covid-19 on board. This action was taken by countries for their nationals on board the Diamond Princess.69 Simi- larly, passengers deemed well enough on the Zaandam and the Rotterdam had chartered flights back to their home countries.70 The emphasis in consular assistance has been on the return of passengers to their States of nationality, but it is also important to recall that crew members may also need to be repatriated. The crew of the Zaandam and the Rotterdam were not allowed to disembark in Florida.71 Repatriation is becoming increas- ingly difficult because of travel restrictions in place in the home States of the crews.72 The Maritime Labour Convention reinforces the consular rights en- joyed by all individuals under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, noting that States should facilitate access to consuls when seafarers are in for- eign ports.73
6 Concluding Remarks
This analysis has explained some of the different bodies of international law that have bearing on the impact of covid-19 on cruise ships. These interna- tional laws seek to provide different rights and responsibilities in relation to the myriad of actors with interests at stake. In many instances, the rules do work together and are mutually reinforcing. However, the flexibility that is understandably accorded to States to deal with public health crises may not necessarily protect the interests of the most vulnerable (namely, in this in- stance, the sick crew members). This outcome may not be surprising when
67 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (adopted 24 April 1963, entered into force 19 March 1967) 596 unts 469. 68 Ibid art v(e). 69 Beritasatu (n 52). 70 Madeleine Carlisle, ‘Passengers Disembark Two Coronavirus-Impacted Cruise Ships in Florida After Weeks at Sea’, Time (3 April 2020)
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11 from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access
The Covid-19 situation is one of the most urgent tests of our common humanity. To slam the door in the face of these people betrays our deep- est human values.77
Despite his initial response to the arrival of the Diamond Princess in California, even US President Donald Trump urged Florida to allow for the entry of the Zaandam and the Rotterdam on the basis that it was ‘what’s right, not only for us but for humanity’.78 Such humanity needs to extend to passengers and crew equally. Humanitarian considerations should be the overriding concern in operationalising the legal rights and responsibilities relevant for the operation of cruise ships during the covid-19 pandemic.
74 See Natalie Klein, ‘Explainer: What Are Australia’s Obligations to Cruise Ships off Its Coast under International Law?’ (The Conversation, 2 April 2020)
journal of international humanitarian legal studiesDownloaded 11from (2020) Brill.com10/01/2021 282-294 11:59:46PM via free access