Potential Consequences of Imprecise Security Assessments

Abstract

The recently implemented International Shipboard and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code [1] requires security assessments for ships and port facilities. Although Part B provides elaborate guidance on issues to be observed and included into such risk assessments a generally accepted methodology to carry out such risk assessments is not prescribed in the Code. This allows for subjective expert judgement as the basis for security risk assessments. However, subjective risk assessment will vary in scope and results. This is a normal feature of any risk assessment involving opinions of different individuals. This would in principle not cause any harm if legal consequences would not be involved in case a ship or its cargo was subject to a security incident. Legal experts voiced opinions that in such a situation they would challenge the security risk assessment. In case that issues connected to the security incident in question that harmed ship or cargo was not addressed properly in the security assessment they would question the seaworthiness of the ship. This would of course have far reaching liability consequences for ship owners. The question therefore is how ship owners can be protected against uncertainty resulting from imprecise standards for security risk assessment of the ISPS Code.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.