Guardcon

25 Июн

В статье рассматривается проформа контракта, разработанного и утвержденного БИМКО 28.03.2012, GUARDCON. В частности, анализируется важность и значение этой проформы, призванной урегулировать отношения между судовладельцем, экипажем и командой обеспечения безопасности.

A new contract from BIMCO aims to establish some clarity in the complex relationship between shipowners, crew and private security team

At a conference held to mark the end of a series of anti-piracy initiatives at IMO, it was clear that the use of armed guards – officially, privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP) – had been the subject of much discussion, both during the MSC session during the week, and during the High Level Segment discussions attended by ministers and ambassadors. A key move will be the development of an international framework setting out guidelines for the deployment of PCASPs, and moving towards the establishment of standards for private security companies.

Secretary General Sekimizu was keen to emphasise that, while the IMO is trying to generate practical solutions for the use of armed guards to protect merchant shipping on board, this was to be regarded as an exceptional measure only. ‘We are coming to the stage where we need to heighten support for merchant vessels. If we settle the piracy issue, this measure will not be carried over for future use’, he said.

Significance of Guardcon

While discussions at the IMO continue, BIMCO has taken an important step in defining the relationship between shipboard personnel and the security team, and their respective roles on board with the publication of its Guardcon, a model contract for shipowners wishing to engage PCASPs. While Guardcon is designed as a basis for more extensive contracts, and owners are free to define their own commercial terms, BIMCO says that ‘We strongly recommend against any amendments to the key clauses – namely those dealing with insurance, liabilities, Master’s authority, and permits and licences’.

While it may well be the case that it is the vessel’s charterers who arrange for and pay for the PCASPs, it is essential that the owners are identified as the contracting party. Where the contract is entered into by the charterers or ship managers, their names and details should be listed along with those of the vessel’s owners, or the contract should be signed for and on behalf of the owners.

Some of the key points covered in the contract include:

  • Training and background experience, including basic shipboard efficiency. The team leader must have some prior experience of providing shipboard services. Guards must be able to communicate effectively with the Master and each other in a common working language;
  • Responsibility of the Master and Security Team leader in the event of an attack, including in the event of capture;
  • PCASPs must have and maintain adequate insurance;
  • PCASPs do NOT have an automatic right to subcontract;
  • Owner’s obligations and responsibilities, including provision of a secure firearms locker and the provision of familiarisation training;
  • Permits and licences;
  • Investigations and claims.

Standards in the contract are set deliberately high, and are intended to raise the bar for security companies offering their services in what is still a crowded market with very little regulation. BIMCO emphasises throughout that the use of PCASPs cannot be regarded as an alternative to existing security measures, such as BMP. Worryingly, some security companies are apparently advertising that use of their services will enable owners to save money by transiting the high risk areas at slower speeds.

Rules for the Use of Force

BIMCO has also produced guidance for the establishment of Rules for the Use of Force in defence of a merchant vessel. These Rules form a vital part of any security contract, but BIMCO cannot itself provide a set of such rules, as they are subject to the national law of the flag state.

The Rules are to be invoked only in response to a specific threat, and are not necessarily in force for the entire time that PCASPs are on board. BIMCO observes that ‘It is very important to note that invoking the RUF does not necessarily mean the use of lethal force, or indeed force of any kind by the security guards’. The Rules should detail all the stages of a graduated and proportionate response to attack, from non-violent measures through to the use of potentially lethal force. However, in the event of an attack, both crew and security team will be attempting to deal with a fast-developing and often ambiguous

‘It must be made clear that the Master retains overall control of the vessel ‘

situation. For this reason, it is vital to have the Rules, including the chain of command, thoroughly understood by all parties before the PCASPs embark.

The role and responsibility of the Master in an actual engagement has yet to be clearly defined by the IMO, and will doubtless be the subject of intense discussion. However, it is vital that any set of rules on the use of force must establish the respective roles of the Master and the team leader. BIMCO recommends that it is made clear in the RUF that the Master has overall control of the vessel. The chain of command in the event of ar* engagement is as follows:

  • Security Team Leader makes the decision to invoke the RUF, and informs the Master where possible or responsible officer if not;
  • Once the RUF have been invoked, the security team leader is responsible for all decisions on the use of force. This includes the decision to open fire;
  • The Master may order a ceasefire at any time.

Under the terms of Guardcon, the Master clearly cannot order a guard to shoot. While it is BIMCO’s intention that in this way, the Master is unlikely to be exposed to any criminal action at a later date, and the contract has been drafted with legal advice from the UK Crown Prosecution Service, this point has yet to be tested in law.

Sample copies of GUARDCON and the Guidance on Rules for the Use of Force can be downloaded free of charge from www.bimco.org

Источник: Seaways. – 2012. – June. – P. 6

Добавить комментарий

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *