Listeners of the hit podcast Casefile may recall last August’s episode dealing with the 1998 disappearance of Amy Lynn Bradley aboard a cruise ship owned by an American corporation but registered or “flagged” in Norway. The phenomenon of ships being registered in foreign countries has come to be known as the “flag of convenience” problem. Because a ship  primarily follows the laws and regulations of the country where it is flagged, there is an incentive for ship owners to register their craft in states with loose oversight of safety, security, and labor issues. The Bradley case, which made headlines around the world, proved vexing to American investigators as the Norwegian registry of the ship coupled with its port location when Bradley went missing (Curacao) dictated in large part the laws that had to be followed. While some steps have been taken since 1998 to address this problem, flags of convenience remain a common feature of the maritime industry.

Not so with airlines. When international commercial aviation began to appear a as a viable industry after World War II, countries moved quickly to ensure that airlines could only be registered in the home states of their owners and that those owners needed to substantially own and effectively control the air carrier. In fact, international transit rights are contingent on the “purity” of an airline’s ownership profile. For instance, under the air services agreement between the United States and Canada, if Air Canada were to be purchased by, say, British Airways, the U.S. could move to restrict or rescind Air Canada’s right to conduct service to and from the U.S. Moreover, international aviation law takes the further step of almost absolutely barring cabotage, that is, the transit of passengers and cargo within the territory of another country. Under current cabotage restrictions, British Airways, for example, is barred from boarding passengers in New York and deplaning them in Los Angeles.

While these restrictions are largely justified on the basis of national security, organized labor has long opposed flags of convenience on the grounds that it encourages owners to seek registering in states lacking strong minimum wage, work hour, and workplace safety rules. There is also a safety element in play. Although the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (“Chicago Convention”) and its regularly updated annexes impose a uniform set of minimum safety criteria for international air transport, the truth of the matter is that many poor countries lack the infrastructure to properly monitor their airlines and air transit systems. Understandably, critics of flags of convenience highlight the possibility that airlines will be flagged in poor, low-oversight states, leading to an increase in airline crashes and fatalities.

Whether that is true or not is debatable. As discussed previously, most international airlines are subject to the Montreal Convention, a treaty that maintains stringent civil liability for air carriers. Even if American air carriers such as United or Delta wanted to “flag” themselves in a foreign state in the hopes of reducing regulatory costs, the fact remains that both of them would be subject to hefty civil damages awards should they injure or kill passengers in the course of international transit. It is doubtful these and other major-market carriers would be able to compromise their safety standards without causing alarm among their insurance agents and investors.

None of this is to say that flags of convenience are nothing to worry about. In the realm of maritime law, this problem has been blamed for helping to shield vessel owners from civil liability to encouraging criminals to use both passenger and cargo maritime transit as a vehicle to move drugs, weapons, and even enslaved people around the world. Unfortunately, finding true transnational cooperation to address these and numerous other issues associated with flags of convenience is still proving elusive.

Proudly Serving West Michigan

Kent County, Allegan County, Ottawa County, Muskegon County, Calhoun County, Barry County. No matter the legal needs, you’ll benefit from a free consultation and assessment.

Contact Us

2401 Camelot Ct. SE, Suite M
Grand Rapids, MI 49546

3596 Green Pointe Center in Hamilton, Michigan 49419-9038

(616) 202-2505

Business Hours

}

Mon-Fri: 9am – 5pm
Weekends: By Appointment

Qualifications

Member, American Bar Association

Languages

English
Spanish

Latest News

No, Bedbugs Are Not like Mosquitos

While summer is winding down in West Michigan, many may have noticed an uptick in mosquitos in the area. Though annoying, these minor pests are not long for this world. Fall, then winter, will soon be upon us and many will be longing for the days when a mosquito bite...

Should I Add Someone To My Bank Account

Most people possess one or more bank accounts. Normally, we can handle our finances without assistance. However, there are times in our lives when age, illness, or other circumstances prevent us from managing our financial affairs. Generally, this affects us most when...

Brief Tips on Battling Debt Collectors

One thing I often find myself saying to clients is, “Don’t throw away anything!”, particularly if they are being pursued by a debt collector or collection attorney. Although people being sent threatening letters likely have little interest in reading them, those...

Defend Against a Debt Collection Suit

There is a common misconception among debtors, lawyers, and judges that when someone is sued on a debt, say medical or consumer debt, that they not only owe that debt, but they have no valid defenses or counterclaims against the party suing them. In today’s...

Help Save the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is under attack. Enacted in 1991 for the express purpose of protecting consumers from telemarketer harassment and so-called “robocalls,” the Act has become a powerful tool for consumer-protection attorneys to discipline...