scholarly journals Criminalisation of seafarers - A New Zealand perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Miranda Grange
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Employee Rights ◽  
Maritime Security ◽  
Maritime Transport ◽  
Maritime Industry ◽  
International Transport ◽  
Transport Workers ◽  
International Obligations

<p>Participants and observers of the maritime industry have been claiming a trend internationally towards criminalising the actions of seafarers in modern years. This trend has been apparent since the mid-20th century and has many vocal industry participants declaring that it is disturbing and negatively impacts the maritime industry as a whole, particularly when the blame of large-scale pollution events are placed on seafarers themselves. The International Transport Workers’ Federation (“ITWF”) highlights these industry concerns:¹  "In the modern maritime industry, reduced crews are expected to affect fast turnarounds and take ever greater responsibility for maritime security and pollution prevention. On the one hand they are subject to pressure from the company to remain economically competitive at all costs. On the other hand they face the threat of heavy-handed sanctions by States eager to find scapegoats for politically sensitive cases involving environmental damage."  This paper looks at international discourse on this trend and examines whether it is reflected in New Zealand (“NZ”) by focusing on the statutory reality of the increasing criminalisation thesis. This maritime industry is largely regulated by the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (“MTA”). However, as with all jurisdictions, maritime specific laws do not exist in a vacuum. The MTA operates alongside maritime rules; the Crimes Act 1961; the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”); anti-terrorism measures; health and safety legislation; employee rights; human rights; and international obligations.  This research paper analyses the NZ dimension in the context of this international discussion. This paper has four main aims:  1) To isolate the areas where industry participants believe there is a trend towards greater criminalisation;   2) To analyse legislative and policy developments in NZ, focusing on the MTA and earlier legislation;  3) Determine whether NZ is following the international trend towards increased criminalisation of seafarers; and  4) Highlight infamous cases giving rise to liability in this area and hypothetically applies them to the NZ context.  The bulk of this paper focuses on the second aim above: Part IV identifies five areas of criminal responsibility. Every maritime offence and crime in NZ legislation has been examined.² Part V is a forecasting exercise where I apply the facts of four international cases into the NZ framework and examine a ‘worse case’ scenario.  This paper focuses on offences applicable only to seafarers (including masters) of merchant ships, in the course of their professional duties. There are sundry offences in NZ law which apply to “every person” but this paper only examines these in the context of seafarers’ professional duties. For example, offences under the recent legislation to combat piracy and terrorism through policing and border control – Maritime Crimes Act 1999 and Maritime Security Act 2004 – are outside the scope of this paper though both Acts are important pieces of legislation for NZ international obligations.³ I do not examine offences relating to harbour-masters; owners or employers of seafarers; warships or defence force members; port operators or facilities; pleasure craft; fishing boats; search and rescue operators; wrecks; nor marine structures and operations.⁴ Further, the paper does not look at the civil penalties for the same activities as examined in the criminal context, liability under the Maritime Insurance Act 1908, or the delegated authority of Maritime New Zealand (“MNZ”).⁵ This scope has been chosen due to the parallel international discussion and concerns with this subject.  ¹ International Transport Workers’ Federation “Out of sight, out of mind: Seafarers, Fishers and Human Rights” June 2006 at 29. Challengers assert is that the “criminalisation of accidental pollution may discourage feedback regarding incidents, failures, and even accidents and so inhibit their prevention” as well as the increasingly employment costs that such criminal sanctions trigger: see Kyriaki Mitroussi “Employment of seafarers in the EU context: Challenges and opportunities” (2008) 32 Marine Policy at 1047.  ² For ease of discussion, Part IV divides these areas into (1) health and safety offences (including pollution and hazardous cargo situations); (2) emergency situations, collisions or accidents; (3) employment rights and obligations; (4) financial and regulatory responsibilities; and (5) obligations involving the administration of justice.  ³ See International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1184 UNTS 1185 (opened for signature 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980).  ⁴ See sections 31(4) and 71(1) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 [hereinafter referred to as the “MTA”]; Maritime New Zealand v Page [2013] DCR 102; and Sellers v Maritime Safety (5 November 1998) CA104/98.  ⁵ See Part 25 of the MTA.</p>

scholarly journals Criminalisation of seafarers - A New Zealand perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Miranda Grange
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Employee Rights ◽  
Maritime Security ◽  
Maritime Transport ◽  
Maritime Industry ◽  
International Transport ◽  
Transport Workers ◽  
International Obligations

<p>Participants and observers of the maritime industry have been claiming a trend internationally towards criminalising the actions of seafarers in modern years. This trend has been apparent since the mid-20th century and has many vocal industry participants declaring that it is disturbing and negatively impacts the maritime industry as a whole, particularly when the blame of large-scale pollution events are placed on seafarers themselves. The International Transport Workers’ Federation (“ITWF”) highlights these industry concerns:¹  "In the modern maritime industry, reduced crews are expected to affect fast turnarounds and take ever greater responsibility for maritime security and pollution prevention. On the one hand they are subject to pressure from the company to remain economically competitive at all costs. On the other hand they face the threat of heavy-handed sanctions by States eager to find scapegoats for politically sensitive cases involving environmental damage."  This paper looks at international discourse on this trend and examines whether it is reflected in New Zealand (“NZ”) by focusing on the statutory reality of the increasing criminalisation thesis. This maritime industry is largely regulated by the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (“MTA”). However, as with all jurisdictions, maritime specific laws do not exist in a vacuum. The MTA operates alongside maritime rules; the Crimes Act 1961; the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”); anti-terrorism measures; health and safety legislation; employee rights; human rights; and international obligations.  This research paper analyses the NZ dimension in the context of this international discussion. This paper has four main aims:  1) To isolate the areas where industry participants believe there is a trend towards greater criminalisation;   2) To analyse legislative and policy developments in NZ, focusing on the MTA and earlier legislation;  3) Determine whether NZ is following the international trend towards increased criminalisation of seafarers; and  4) Highlight infamous cases giving rise to liability in this area and hypothetically applies them to the NZ context.  The bulk of this paper focuses on the second aim above: Part IV identifies five areas of criminal responsibility. Every maritime offence and crime in NZ legislation has been examined.² Part V is a forecasting exercise where I apply the facts of four international cases into the NZ framework and examine a ‘worse case’ scenario.  This paper focuses on offences applicable only to seafarers (including masters) of merchant ships, in the course of their professional duties. There are sundry offences in NZ law which apply to “every person” but this paper only examines these in the context of seafarers’ professional duties. For example, offences under the recent legislation to combat piracy and terrorism through policing and border control – Maritime Crimes Act 1999 and Maritime Security Act 2004 – are outside the scope of this paper though both Acts are important pieces of legislation for NZ international obligations.³ I do not examine offences relating to harbour-masters; owners or employers of seafarers; warships or defence force members; port operators or facilities; pleasure craft; fishing boats; search and rescue operators; wrecks; nor marine structures and operations.⁴ Further, the paper does not look at the civil penalties for the same activities as examined in the criminal context, liability under the Maritime Insurance Act 1908, or the delegated authority of Maritime New Zealand (“MNZ”).⁵ This scope has been chosen due to the parallel international discussion and concerns with this subject.  ¹ International Transport Workers’ Federation “Out of sight, out of mind: Seafarers, Fishers and Human Rights” June 2006 at 29. Challengers assert is that the “criminalisation of accidental pollution may discourage feedback regarding incidents, failures, and even accidents and so inhibit their prevention” as well as the increasingly employment costs that such criminal sanctions trigger: see Kyriaki Mitroussi “Employment of seafarers in the EU context: Challenges and opportunities” (2008) 32 Marine Policy at 1047.  ² For ease of discussion, Part IV divides these areas into (1) health and safety offences (including pollution and hazardous cargo situations); (2) emergency situations, collisions or accidents; (3) employment rights and obligations; (4) financial and regulatory responsibilities; and (5) obligations involving the administration of justice.  ³ See International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1184 UNTS 1185 (opened for signature 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980).  ⁴ See sections 31(4) and 71(1) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 [hereinafter referred to as the “MTA”]; Maritime New Zealand v Page [2013] DCR 102; and Sellers v Maritime Safety (5 November 1998) CA104/98.  ⁵ See Part 25 of the MTA.</p>

scholarly journals Humanitarian Concerns and Deportation Orders Under the Immigration Act 2009: Are International Obligations Enough Protection for the Immigrant with Mental Illness?

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 423
Author(s):  
Timothy P Fadgen ◽  
Guy Charlton
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
International Community ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Legislative Change ◽  
Immigration Laws ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
International Human ◽  
Meaningful Role

New Zealand has long prided itself as a champion for human rights within the international community. At the same time, local immigration laws have been tightened and long-standing recognition of the rights of migrants has been eroded. One sub-class of migrants, and the focus of this article, are migrants suffering from a mental illness. This article addresses the narrow question of rights accorded these individuals under the Immigration Act 2009 in light of New Zealand's long-standing international human rights obligations. The article questions the protection afforded an individual facing deportation under this Act in light of statutory changes that no longer require an immigration officer to issue a justification for issuing an order of deportation and argues, in light of this legislative change, that a "hard look" standard of review is required if the judiciary is to continue to have any meaningful role in ensuring executive compliance with international obligations.

scholarly journals Making equal rights to health an election issue in NZ local body elections

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Stone ◽  
D e b Leyland
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Social Determinants Of Health ◽  
Social Determinants ◽  
Health Inequity ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Local Body

Abstract In New Zealand there are 20 district health boards (DHBs) with local elections every 3 years. There is low voter turnout for these, we suspect because the public has low cognizance of the role DHBs have in governing their health and disability system. Good governance ensures everyone whatever ethnicity, gender or sexual proclivity, from birth to old age, able or disabled, mentally well or unwell, drugfree or addicted, has equal rights of dignified access to healthcare. Without public engagement in DHB elections, the community risks having candidates elected that also don't understand their role through a preventative public health framework or human rights lens. The United Community Action Network (UCAN) developed a human rights framework and Health Charter for people driven into poverty by the costs of staying well in NZ. The framework outlines 6 social determinants of health needing protection through policy, to ensure all enjoy their rights to health. UCAN and the Public Health Association of New Zealand (PHA) partnered to raise public and the candidates' awareness during 2019 elections, of these social determinants causing inequity in health outcomes. A series of short explainer-videos were created for sharing through social media during the election build-up period, helping to promote PHA Branches' public Meet the Candidates events. Post-election, a longer film was produced to send to the elected DHB members. Our theory of change centred on spotlighting health inequity for voters, so that they would elect DHB members who had the greatest understanding and commitment to addressing this issue. With shareable videos we aimed to attract audience, raise awareness and debate the policy solutions to health inequity with candidates, enabling more informed choice amongst the voting public. Post-election, we maintain supportive relationships with the elected DHB members that promised their commitment to our Health Charter during their campaigns. Key messages Using videos and social media, local body elections provide an opportunity to promote everyone’s right to affordable healthcare, supporting and informing voter decision-making. UCAN's Health Charter is an advocacy resource for raising awareness of the social determinants of health inequity and poverty for people with mental illness, addiction and disability.

The Impact of Organisational, Social Environmental and Job Content Stressors on the Work Related Strains of Probation Officers

2001 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare O'donnell ◽  
Christine Stephens
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Workplace Stress ◽  
Probation Officers ◽  
Curvilinear Relationship ◽  
Work Stressors ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Job Content ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

In recent years workplace stress has been seen as an important occupational health and safety problem and probation officers in New Zealand have been identified as suffering from increasing perceptions of stress. Accordingly, the present study was undertaken with a sample of 50 New Zealand Probation Officers in three offices to examine the relationship of individual, organisational and work stressors with work related strains. It was predicted that work stressors would be positively related to strains and that individual differences (e.g., age or gender) would have a moderating effect on the relationship between stressors and strains. The results showed that stressors caused by organisational problems, such as role boundary and overload, were related to strains, more strongly than job content problems, such as difficult clients. Secondly, age may have a curvilinear relationship to strains. Thirdly, the office, or place of work, moderates the stressor strain relationship.

scholarly journals SECURING HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE FACE OF INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israel de Jesús Butler
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
The Face ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Increasing Risk

AbstractThe continuous transfer of authority from the national sphere to inter-governmental organizations gives rise to an increasing risk that States may be mandated by their obligations under these organizations to take measures that are inconsistent with their obligations under International Human Rights Law. Drawing on the approaches of various international, regional and national jurisdictions, this article explores two possible models for restructuring International Law that could ensure that human rights obligations remain effective. The ‘international constitutional’ approach would ensure that human rights are enshrined within the ‘constitutional’ instruments of IGOs, preventing incompatible rules from emerging. The ‘parochial’ approach would ensure that human rights as protected at the national or regional level would take precedence over conflicting international obligations.

The Politics of International Regime Complexity

2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen J. Alter ◽  
Sophie Meunier
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
International Regimes ◽  
International Regime ◽  
Introductory Essay ◽  
Election Monitoring ◽  
International Obligations

The increasing density of international regimes has contributed to the proliferation of overlap across agreements, conflicts among international obligations, and confusion regarding what international and bilateral obligations cover an issue. This symposium examines the consequences of this “international regime complexity” for subsequent politics. What analytical insights can be gained by thinking about any single agreement as being embedded in a larger web of international rules and regimes? Karen Alter and Sophie Meunier's introductory essay defines international regime complexity and identifies the mechanisms through which it may influence the politics of international cooperation. Short contributions analyze how international regime complexity affects politics in specific issue areas: trade (Christina Davis), linkages between human rights and trade (Emilie Hafner-Burton), intellectual property (Laurence Helfer), security politics (Stephanie Hofmann), refugee politics (Alexander Betts), and election monitoring (Judith Kelley). Daniel Drezner concludes by arguing that international regime complexity may well benefit the powerful more than others.

Human rights obligations of non-state actors in conflict situations

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (863) ◽  
pp. 491-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Clapham
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Conflict Situations ◽  
Private Military Companies ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Human Rights Norms

AbstractThe threat to human rights posed by non-state actors is of increasing concern. The author addresses the international obligations of belligerents, national liberation movements and insurgent entities, looks at the growing demands that such armed groups respect human rights norms and considers some of the options for holding private military companies accountable with regard to human rights abuses. The argument developed throughout this article is that all sorts of non-state actors are increasingly expected to comply with principles of international human rights law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document