Date of Award
Master of Science in Maritime Affairs
Maritime Law & Policy
The dissertation is an analytical study on international and Ukrainian perspective of the ship arrest, examining the rights and interests of claimants such as mortgagees and holders of maritime liens, but also those of shipowners and ship operators. The purpose of this research is to compare two Arrest Conventions of 1952 and 1999, taking into consideration their historical and theoretical development, problems of implementation and interpretation, differences in the list of individual maritime claims, procedures and rules regarding arrest, rearrest, release and counter security. The associated object is to carry out an assessment of the law of Ukraine on ship arrest. The new Arrest Convention of 1999 has clarified many provisions of the older Convention and expanded the list of maritime claims. However, it has still left room for discussion and freedom for national legislation to fill the gaps. Both Conventions allow ship arrest for security and in some jurisdictions the concept is used for the founding of jurisdiction. However, no convention has ever addressed the questions of arrest of cargo/bunkers and caveat against arrest and/or release. The author is of the opinion that the 1999 Arrest Convention is more favourable to developing countries whereas the 1952 Convention meets the needs of the traditional maritime states in a manner more acceptable to them. In a somewhat similar vein, the writer is of the opinion that the 1952 Arrest Convention is more “pro-shipping”, while the 1999 Convention brings more benefits to port countries. Ukraine has already shown an intention to comply with provisions of the 1999 Convention in articulating the list of maritime claims in the Merchant Shipping Code. However, it ratified the 1952 Arrest Convention, with a view to restrict the numbers of arrests of Ukrainian vessels in other jurisdictions, allowing arrest only for maritime claims.