Governments around the world should re-affirm their commitment to global maritime governance and should abide by their global obligations, the International Chamber of Shipping has said.
“[We] have serious concerns regarding the growing use of unilateral and regional regulatory measures affecting global shipping,” ICS wrote in a briefing paper which was received by Shipping Australia. The paper adds that such measures are increasingly exceeding “jurisdictional limits established under international law and / or depart from internationally agreed standards”.
Commenting on the move, Capt. Melwyn Noronha, CEO of Shipping Australia, added the voice of Australian shipping to support the call of ICS.
“Sadly, Australia’s national and regional governments have made several such moves over time. In our view, such moves are unnecessary and unwelcome.
“Shipping moves vast amounts of goods and commodities around the planet in a way that is environmentally friendly, safe, and inexpensive. Global shipping benefits everyone on the planet, no matter how far they live from the sea. Global shipping is just that: global. And, as a global industry, it requires global regulation. Not local regulation.
“However, Australia’s government, and elements of the administrative State within Australia, seem determined to heap layers and layers of regulation and expense onto shipping. And they seem determined to do so at a time of global uncertainty and increasing costs.
Inappropriate governance of this type will, ultimately, harm the well-being of ordinary, everyday, Australian families.
“Such inappropriate over-reach ought to be condemned.
“And we do condemn it,” Capt. Noronha declared.
Growing efforts to grow governance
Governments of coastal States have been engaged in growing efforts to extend the application of their domestic laws to internationally-trading ships, ICS says, adding that it is increasingly being done through unilateral and regional measures to control operations traditionally governed by flag States. Examples include measures relating to employment conditions for crew, greenhouse gas emissions, the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems, ship reporting obligations, and other technical and operational requirements applicable to foreign vessels engaged in international trade, ICS explains.
Internationally agreed rules and principles already exist for many of these issues and work on other matters is underway at the appropriate international organisations and multilateral processes. But coastal States are increasingly going their own way and are imposing requirements that go beyond international standards developed at the global level.
“This development raises significant concerns for the global shipping industry. International shipping depends fundamentally on uniform global regulation, legal certainty and predictability, and the consistent application of internationally agreed rules. The fragmentation of maritime regulation through unilateral and regional approaches risks creating overlapping legal obligations, conflicting enforcement standards, increased compliance burdens, and operational uncertainty for shipowners,” ICS says.
The body adds that such costs are inevitably passed on to consumers in countries that adopt more of a go-it-alone approach.
Shipping Australia certainly believes this to be true in Australia. Research by the Reserve Bank of Australia (Li, 2025) reinforces the economic significance of our concerns by demonstrating how higher international shipping costs can contribute to Australian inflation.
UNCLOS and the balance of jurisdiction
ICS continues to emphasise the importance of preserving the global rules-based maritime order, the flag State’s primary regulatory and enforcement role in the international maritime regulatory framework, and the continued development of globally applicable standards through multilateral cooperation. ICS is concerned that States that are acting unilaterally, or regionally, challenge the long- and carefully-established jurisdictional balance established through customary international law and codified and developed under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which has long served as the constitutional framework governing the oceans and international navigation.
Articles 92 and 94 of UNCLOS establish that every ship must sail under the flag of one State. Each ship is then subject to the jurisdiction and control of its flag State. The flag State thereby carries rights and responsibilities, which include administrative, technical and social matters.
The flag State is also responsible to take measures necessary to ensure safety at sea and compliance with international maritime conventions. The extent to which coastal States are entitled to exercise jurisdiction over foreign ships varies by maritime zone and is subject to strict legal limitations.
ICS highlights that this balance is essential to ensuring freedom of navigation, uniform regulation, legal certainty and predictability, and the efficient and competitive operation of global shipping.
On the High Seas
Article 92 of UNCLOS provides that a ship is subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of its flag State when it is sailing on the High Seas. The principle of exclusive flag State jurisdiction is comprehensive and is subject only to very limited exceptions expressly provided for in UNCLOS or other international treaties.
However, in relation to the matters addressed in this article, neither UNCLOS nor any other international agreement give a coastal State the right to impose its domestic requirements, or to enforce those requirements, against a foreign ship operating on the high seas.
“The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has consistently recognised that the principle of exclusive flag State jurisdiction is an inherent component of freedom of navigation under Article 87 of UNCLOS, and that any exercise of jurisdiction over foreign ships on the high seas, outside of the recognised exceptions, is a breach of freedom of navigation,” ICS says.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf
In the EEZ and on the continental shelf, coastal States have only limited jurisdiction under UNCLOS. The right of a country to extend its domestic laws to foreign flagged ships is strictly confined to specific purposes, such as regulating fisheries among other things.
Ships navigating in the EEZ and the waters above the continental shelf enjoy freedom of navigation and remain subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag State.
Coastal States cannot regulate activities taking place beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon them by UNCLOS. Nor can they seek to enforce such requirements against foreign vessels through subsequent port State actions. Where coastal States do so, they are in breach of freedom of navigation. This includes the application of domestic requirements relating to seafarers’ employment and working conditions.
Coastal States do have a very limited jurisdiction in the EEZ in relation to marine environmental protection. But this must be exercised in a way consistent with the freedom of navigation and within the environmental jurisdiction framework in Part XII of UNCLOS.
This right of coastal States to adopt laws for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from foreign vessels in the EEZ is limited by Article 211(5) to measures that conform to, and give effect to, generally accepted international rules and standards established through the International Maritime Organization. Coastal States have no right to unilaterally impose additional requirements on foreign ships navigating in the EEZ when international rules and standards do not yet exist.
Territorial sea
The exercise of jurisdiction over foreign ships travelling through a country’s Territorial Sea is limited by a ship’s right of innocent passage.
Coastal States may adopt laws and regulations relating to innocent passage only in the areas specified in Article 21(1) of UNCLOS. Coastal state law and rules do not apply to the design, construction, manning or equipment of foreign ships unless they give effect to generally accepted international rules or standards. Coastal States may not unilaterally impose domestic requirements that go beyond those standards and which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage.
These limitations reflect the fundamental premise of UNCLOS that matters relating to the operation of ships engaged in international navigation should remain subject to flag State jurisdiction and internationally agreed rules and standards, developed through the IMO and, where relevant, the International Labor Organization.
ICS therefore stresses that measures applicable to foreign ships transiting territorial waters must remain consistent with these limitations and consistent with internationally agreed rules and standards so as not to undermine navigational rights and flag State jurisdiction.
Global rules for global shipping
International shipping relies on internationally agreed rules developed through the IMO and the ILO, including conventions relating to safety, environmental protection, training, and social and labour standards. The growing use of unilateral and regional measures that conflict with, or depart from, these frameworks risks undermining the consistent implementation of international maritime conventions and reducing the predictability and coherence of the global maritime legal order.
“This regulatory divergence can increase operating costs, foster hidden protectionism and distort competition,” ICS explains.
If such measures become more widespread, they could erode the competitive neutrality on which international shipping depends and diminish the central role and importance of the IMO and the ILO as the principal forums for developing and maintaining global maritime rules.
ICS therefore stresses that all standards applicable to global shipping must continue to be developed by the IMO and the ILO, consistent with the allocation of jurisdiction between flag and coastal States under international law, and on the basis of international consensus.
“Maintaining this framework is essential for preserving safe, efficient and sustainable global shipping,” ICS asserts.
References
International Chamber of Shipping (2026, August). The Limits of Coastal State Jurisdiction in relation to Foreign Ships. Available at https://www.ics-shipping.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ICS-Paper-on-The-Limits-of-Coastal-State-Jurisdiction-in-relation-to-Foreign-Ships.pdf. This ICS paper is based on an expert opinion obtained by ICS on this matter.
Li, V. (2025, July 24). How do changes in global shipping costs affect Australian inflation? Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin. Reserve Bank of Australia. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2025/jul/how-do-changes-in-global-shipping-costs-affect-australian-inflation.html
