Athens Correspondence Group (IMO Legal Committee): Terrorism and
From: "GRAHAM BARNES" <GRAHAM.BARNES@bmsgroup.com>
To: Erik Røsæg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.
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