Subject:
Athens Correspondence Group (IMO Legal Committee): Terrorism and
Date:
From:
"GRAHAM BARNES" <GRAHAM.BARNES@bmsgroup.com>
To: Erik Røsæg <erik.rosag@jus.uio.no>
Cc: <nifs-athens@jus.uio.no>
Erik,
I wholly
agree with your recommendation of Option C which will add prominence to the
ISPS Code, particularly on the ports. This is probably not so necessary for the
ferries but will force the cruise ships to ensure ISPS is obtained by the many
small ports they stop over in throughout the world.
Better
still, it's the most simple solution particularly should liabilities arising
from biological and chemical weapons be deemed to be War and/or Terrorism risks
and therefore within the ambit of ISPS.
For
clarification purposes it might be helpful to explain why War and associated
Terrorism Risks are excluded from marine hull policies and how War Risks
insurance is underwritten and rated.
War is a
man made peril, wholly different from marine policies covering "perils of
the seas". War risks are localised and often
temporary varying risks. For this reason premiums for War Risk insurance are
low but are subject to the stated exclusions and termination of cover
provisions. Where underwriters are prepared to extend cover to include an
"excluded area", for an additional premium, they have the option to
limit the period, say 7 days, and impose an aggregate limitation on all risks
in a certain location or port. Such aggregate limitation for War Risks applied
to the aircraft destroyed by Iraq forces at Kuwait airport during Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait.
I
understand the concern that any amendment should not dilute CLC but, in this
context, you haven't mentioned the LLMC Protocol.
Graham
Barnes
BankServe
Insurance Services Ltd
We are
pleased to announce that our new website has now been launched.
For
further information about the BMS group please visit www.bmsgroup.com