Academic Research Poster Design

Safety and Security at Sea

(Integrated Legal, Operational, and Humanitarian Architecture)

CENTRAL THEME

Safety & Security at Sea — the fusion of prevention, protection, prosecution, and rescue forming the backbone of international maritime governance.
At the centre lies the principle that no vessel or crew should operate without accountability, protection, and aid.

[place central circle: “Safety & Security at Sea” — surrounded by four outer circles below]

⚖️ UNCLOS (1982) – Legal Foundation

Purpose: Defines jurisdictional zones, sets the duty to assist, and empowers universal piracy suppression.
Core Principles:

Universal jurisdiction over piracy (Arts. 100–107).

Flag-State responsibility for ship safety, manning, and environmental standards (Art. 94).

Coastal vs. high-seas balance: EEZ remains non-territorial for enforcement.
Case Reference:

M/V Saiga (No. 2) (1999, ITLOS) — clarified flag-State jurisdiction and rights in EEZ enforcement.
Limitation:

“Two-ship” rule and “private ends” clause exclude armed robbery and internal hijacking.
Future Direction:

Define maritime terrorism and armed robbery in a supplemental protocol.

[place image bubble: Jurisdiction Map – Territorial Sea / EEZ / High Seas]

⚔️ SUA Convention (1988 & 2005 Protocol) – Criminal Accountability

Purpose: Addresses maritime terrorism and unlawful acts that UNCLOS overlooks.
Key Provisions:

Extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare).

2005 Protocol criminalises BCN weapon transport and terrorist intent use of vessels.

Introduces Article 8 bis — cooperative boarding with flag-State consent.
Cases:

Achille Lauro (1985) — catalyst for the Convention.

USS Cole (2000) — demonstrated emerging terrorist tactics at sea.
Limitation:

Reactive focus—boarding depends on consent; no pre-emptive authority.
Future Direction:

Develop real-time consent registries and broaden scope for autonomous and cyber incidents.

[place image bubble: Timeline — Achille Lauro → SUA 1988 → 2005 Protocol]

ISPS Code (2003, SOLAS XI-2) – Operational Security Regime

Purpose: Post-9/11 system integrating risk management, surveillance, and accountability across ships and ports.
Core Mechanisms:

AIS, SSAS, CSR tracking systems; mandatory security drills; defined security levels (1–3).

Establishes CSO, SSO, PFSO roles linking flag, company, and port governance.

Embedded synergy with ISM Code—safety + security unified in one management system.
Case:

Limburg (2002) tanker bombing—demonstrated ISPS relevance before implementation.
Limitation:

Uneven global compliance; smaller states struggle with audits and cyber readiness.
Future Direction:

Add ISPS Part C covering cyber, AI, and autonomous vessel threats.

[place image bubble: Role Lattice — Flag → Company → Ship → Port]

SAR Convention (1979) – Humanitarian Response Framework

Purpose: Institutionalises rescue coordination and information-sharing across oceans.
Key Elements:

13 SAR Regions (SRRs); Rescue Coordination Centres (RCCs) and IAMSAR Manual.

Mandates cooperation and rapid entry of foreign rescue assets.

Legal link: UNCLOS Art. 98 + SOLAS V/33 = “Duty to Render Assistance.”
Case:

Tampa Affair (2001) — highlighted legal vacuum on post-rescue reception.
Limitation:

No duty for states to receive rescued persons; only to coordinate.
Future Direction:

Draft IMO–UNHCR “Place of Safety” Protocol aligning SAR and refugee law.

[place image bubble: Global SAR Network & Tampa Incident Pathway]

LIMITATIONS (Cross-Cutting)

Legal: Piracy definition outdated; EEZ jurisdiction ambiguous.

Operational: Limited flag-consent agility under SUA; uneven ISPS audits.

Humanitarian: No binding reception obligation post-rescue.

Technological: Cyber and autonomous threats unregulated.

[place image ring: Limitations Grid—Legal • Operational • Humanitarian • Technological]

FUTURE DIRECTIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Update UNCLOS definitions to encompass political and hybrid violence.

Expand SUA Protocol to pre-authorised boarding + digital interdiction.

Implement ISPS Part C — mandatory cyber-security and data integrity audits.

Institutionalise global rescue reception framework via IMO–UNHCR accord.

Create unified maritime audit regime merging ISM, ISPS, and SAR verification.

Support capacity-building for coastal states with limited resources (ITCP model).

[place image outer arc: IMO capacity pyramid / collaborative map]

References (APA 7 Abridged)

Beckman, R. (2014). Jurisdiction over Pirates and Maritime Terrorists. Brill.
Fernández-Sánchez, P. A. (2009). International Legal Dimension of Terrorism. Brill.
Mensah, T. A. (2003). Suppression of Terrorism at Sea.
White, M. (2002). M/V Tampa Incident and Australia’s Obligations. Maritime Studies, 122.
IMO (2004). SOLAS XI-2 & ISPS Code Implementation Guide.
IMO–ICAO (2019). IAMSAR Manual Vols I–III.

Design Guidance (for Canva / Illustrator)

Center: “Safety & Security at Sea”

First ring: UNCLOS · SUA · ISPS · SAR (four quadrants)

Outer ring: Case studies, Limitations, Future Recommendations.

Colour code: Blue (Safety) · Teal (Security) · Orange (Humanitarian) · Violet (Technology)