Content area
Full text
I
INTRODUCTION
Reconciling the conflicting interests of the maritime claimants and shipowners has always been a controversial issue in the domain of Admiralty Law. On one side, from a claimant's perspective, the right to arrest a ship is the single most valuable tool in enforcing his maritime claims and recovering debts against ship owners and operators. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of ship owners as well as mortgagees, it is equally essential that a wrongful arrest, attachment, or injunction against a ship does not interrupt the legitimate trading of that ship. This struggle between two opposing interests has, over the centuries, created a dichotomy that still exists today: both factions believe that the law is unfavorable and that the other side has the greater advantage under existing law.1 Both the 1952 and 1999 Arrest Conventions aim at striking a balance between the diametrically opposite interests of maritime claimants and shipowners, bearing in mind the different approaches adopted by various legal systems.2 To determine the extent the provisions of both the Conventions have achieved the objective of ensuring a fair balance and enabled maritime claimants to obtain security from shipowners and have their claims settled in full requires a full analysis of the substantive provisions of the Conventions.
II
ANALYSIS OF THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE 1952 AND 1999 ARREST CONVENTIONS
A. Closed List of Claims
The 1999 Convention, in line with its predecessor, provides for a closed list of maritime claims giving rise to a right of arrest. Compared to the corresponding provision of the earlier convention, article 1(1) of the 1999 Convention recognizes a longer list of claims (new claims include environmental damages; wreck removal; port, harbor and canal dues; vessel sale and purchase contract disputes; and Protection & Indemnity insurance claims) as being maritime claims but it still is not "open-ended," to take account of new types of maritime claims that may emerge with the passage of time.3 Moreover some claims, for instance insurance premiums payable in respect of the master and seamen, would have been useful to add to article 1(1)(o), but no such addition was made and accordingly there is no right of arrest for life insurance premiums under the Arrest Convention 1999.4
However it cannot be denied that...