Introduction

What is the scope of application of Maritime Labour Law, and particularly the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC 2006), the rights it provides to ship workers, and the binding nature of these rules for Turkey and the vessel’s flag state?

This study analyzes the scope of application of Maritime Labour Law, and particularly the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC 2006), the rights it provides to ship workers, and the binding nature of these rules for Turkey and the vessel’s flag state, within the framework of the presented literature. The analysis reveals the differences between the current status of Turkey’s 1967 Maritime Labour Law and international standards, and the innovations brought by MLC 2006.

1. Scope of Application of Maritime Labour Law and International Conventions

The scope of application of Maritime Labour Law is determined by both national legislation and international conventions. While the primary regulation in Turkey is the 1967 Maritime Labour Law (DİK), MLC 2006 is the most comprehensive and up-to-date document in the international arena.

Scope and Nature of MLC 2006: MLC 2006 is a fundamental document that brings together many previous International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions under one roof, and is therefore referred to as a “super international convention”. It is characterized as a “bill of human rights for seafarers” and, along with the SOLAS, STCW, and MARPOL conventions, forms the “fourth pillar” of international maritime trade.

Scope in Terms of Vessel and Location: International conventions maintain a broad scope of application. There is no provision in STCW-1978, the ILO Convention, EU directives 1999/63/EC and 1999/95/EC, or MLC-2006 stating that maritime activities in territorial waters and inland waters are outside the scope of the conventions. However, MLC 2006 allows for certain exceptions for signatory states:”In accordance with MLC-2006 Article II / f. 6, if the competent authority of a signatory State deems the application of the convention unreasonable for certain categories of ships, and after prior notification to the ILO Director-General, vessels under 200 GT and exclusively engaged in voyages in territorial and inland waters may be excluded from the scope of the convention through legislative regulations or collective bargaining agreements.

Scope Differences Between Turkish Law and International Law: A significant difference arises concerning vessels operating in inland waters. Generally, sea-going vessels are included in the scope of the International Labour Organization Conventions to which Turkey is a party, and inland water vessels are excluded from the Conventions’ scope. However, the Maritime Labour Law does not require a vessel to operate only at sea; vessels operating in lakes and rivers are also considered within the scope of the Law, provided other conditions are met. This situation will necessitate harmonization in national legislation after Turkey’s ratification of MLC 2006. Furthermore, fishing vessels are also outside the scope of MLC 2006, and a separate regulation is recommended for these vessels.

2. Rights and Guarantees Provided to Seafarers

MLC 2006 secures the rights of seafarers across a wide range. The Convention includes detailed rules concerning specific working and living conditions, in addition to fundamental rights and principles.

Fundamental Rights Provided by MLC 2006: The “Rules and Code” section regulates the following topics: “…provisions on minimum requirements for working on board, employment conditions, accommodation and recreation, catering, health and social security protection for seafarers, and provisions for compliance with and enforcement of the convention. Furthermore, a requirement has been introduced for every seafarer to have a written employment contract with their employer.

Working and Rest Hours: While international conventions set standards for working and rest hours without distinction among seafarers, there are deficiencies and ongoing discussions on this matter in Turkish law.

3. Binding Nature of Conventions: Situation Regarding the Flag State and Turkey

The binding nature of international conventions is ensured through the “flag state” principle and “port state control” mechanisms.

Flag State Responsibility: As a fundamental principle of international law, a vessel is subject to the laws of the state whose flag it flies. Considering valid international labor documents, it shall take the necessary measures to ensure safety at sea concerning the outfitting of ships and the working conditions of the crew. The failure of the flag state to fulfill these obligations, especially “flags of convenience” practices, is a problem that weakens the effectiveness of international standards.

Turkey’s Situation and the “Application of the More Favorable Provision”: Turkey has initiated the process of becoming a party to MLC 2006. The Law on the Approval of the Maritime Labour Convention was published in the Official Gazette dated 25.03.2017. This situation necessitates the updating of the 1967 Maritime Labour Code (DİK). However, becoming a party to an international convention does not mean that more protective provisions in national legislation will be abolished. In cases where national legislative norms are more favorable than the provisions of international conventions in terms of fundamental rights and freedoms, there is no obstacle to the application of national legislative regulations.

4. Scope of Application and Application Cases: Port State Control

One of the strongest aspects of MLC 2006 is that it provides for a control mechanism not only for flag states that have ratified the convention, but also for ships flying the flag of non-party states. This is ensured through “Port State Control”.

Universal Application Effect: Even if ships flying the flag of a non-party state do not apply the convention as a flag state, if the port state where the ships call is a party to the convention, the provisions of the convention will also be applied to that ship. Thus, if a violation of the convention’s obligations is detected on a ship flying the flag of a non-party state, the sanctions stipulated in the convention and included in the port state’s laws will come into play.

This situation expands the de facto scope of application of MLC 2006 and makes a significant contribution to the establishment of minimum standards for seafarers worldwide. Therefore, a seafarer can make a claim based on the rights provided by this convention, regardless of whether the ship’s flag state is a party to the convention, if the port state where the ship calls is a party to MLC 2006.

Review and Evaluation

The presented literature indicates a tension and harmonization process between national and international law in the field of Maritime Labour Law. Turkey’s 1967 Maritime Labour Law has fallen behind modern maritime practices and international standards. MLC 2006, on the other hand, stands out as a comprehensive document with high potential for universal application, bringing together the rights of seafarers under a single umbrella.

Despite the primary responsibility of the flag state, it is observed that inspections can be insufficient due to practices such as “flags of convenience.” At this point, the Port State Control mechanism plays a critical role in ensuring that the standards of MLC 2006 can be implemented on a global scale. Turkey’s ratification process of the convention presents a significant opportunity to align national legislation with these universal standards.

Conclusion

Scope of Application: Maritime Labour Law and MLC 2006 have a broad scope of application, covering not only the flag state but also vessels flying the flag of non-contracting states through port state control.

Guaranteed Rights: MLC 2006 guarantees fundamental rights such as minimum employment conditions, a written employment contract, healthy and safe accommodation, working and rest hours, and social security.

Binding Nature: The convention is directly binding for signatory flag states. For Turkey, it will become binding upon completion of the ratification process and will require the updating of the existing Maritime Labour Law.

Application Scenarios: Seafarers can claim their rights based on the provisions of MLC 2006 if the flag state is a party to the convention, or if the port state where the vessel calls is a party to the convention, regardless of the flag state. This is one of the most effective enforcement mechanisms of the convention. A paper suggestion.

Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?

Since MLC 2006 encompasses multi-layered legal areas such as its scope, flag state responsibility, port state control, conflict between international and national legislation, seafarers’ employment contracts, the distinction between inland waters and sea, and the incompatibility of the 1967 Maritime Labor Law with international standards, the process must absolutely be carried out by an expert lawyer in maritime labor law.

Compliance with MLC 2006 is of great importance, especially for ship operating companies, shipowners, captains, and seafarers operating in Istanbul, Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Kadıköy, Ataşehir, Ümraniye, Gebze, and all coastal port regions. Otherwise;

issuance of reports during port state inspections,

voyage delays,

administrative fines,

2M Law Firm offers professional legal support in areas such as maritime labor law, MLC 2006 compliance processes, seafarer contracts, flag state–port state disputes, work accidents, overtime and compensation claims, PSC processes, and international legislation compliance.

Expert legal support is mandatory for the following reasons:

The binding nature of MLC 2006, and the relationship between the signatory state, port state, and flag state require expertise.

Seafarers’ internationally qualified rights contain technical details.

Conflicts of scope between the Turkish Maritime Labor Law and MLC 2006 require professional legal analysis.

Improper management of disputes arising during PSC inspections can lead to ship detention.

Incorrect arrangement of international employment contracts, shift/rest periods, and social security rights can lead to high-cost disputes for the enterprise.

For this reason, all processes and maritime labor law disputes under MLC 2006 should not be handled without the guidance of an experienced lawyer.