The International Conference on Salvage 1989 adopted inter alia a resolution on international cooperation for implementation paragraph II(a) of which so provides:

Member States are requested to transmit to the Organization the text of the laws, orders, decrees, regulations and other instruments that they promulgate concerning the various matters falling within the scope of application of the Convention.

Since it appeared that none of the 36 States Parties to the Convention had made any communication to the Secretary General of IMO, as requested by such Resolution, and since the knowledge of the action taken by them in order to implement the provisions of the Convention is of great importance in order to ascertain the actual degree of uniformity, the Executive Council of the CMI resolved to offer to IMO its services with a view to obtaining from the States Parties all relevant information in that respect.
The CMI suggested to IMO to carry out en enquiry about the manner in which the Convention had been implemented by State Parties and, in agreement with IMO, prepared a questionnaire that was circulated by IMO to the competent Authorities of all States Parties. The questionnaire was also circulated by the CMI to all its Member Associations in States Parties.
As of the end of November 2004 19 responses to the Questionnaire were received from Governments and Maritime Law Associations of States Parties. A list of the States Parties is annexed. In such list the States from which responses have been received are shown in bold type.
A synopsis of the responses received in respect of each question as of the end of November 2004, prepered by Francesco Berlingieri, is enclosed.
It is hoped that responses will also be received from other States Parties to the Salvage Convention or from the relevant CMI National Associations.

States Parties to the Salvage Convention

Synopsis of the responses to the Questionnaire

Ratification or accession has been authorized by a law in Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands and Russian Federation.
In Australia ratification of or accession to a convention does not, in itself, require the authority of the Parliament. An Act of Parliament is, however, required in order that the provisions of a convention become binding on individuals and it has been the practice of Australian governments to ensure that any necessary legislation is in place before ratification or accession. In New Zealand the provisions of the Convention were incorporated into national law by the Maritime Transport Act 1994 which provided for such provisions to be brought into force by Order in Council. This was done on 16 October 2003, the date of entry into force of the Convention for New Zealand, the instrument of accession having been deposited on 16 October 2002.
In China accession to the Convention has been authorized in the Fifth Session of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China.
In Latvia ratification has been authorized by an Ordinance of the Cabinet of Ministers.
In Norway ratification has been authorized by a Royal Decree; prior to the governmental authorization, the Parliament had approved ratification by Act of 2 August 1996, No. 61 amending the Norwegian Maritime Code of 24 June 1994.
The United Kingdom government acceded to the Convention on 29th September 1994. In the United Kingdom the power to make or ratify such international conventions belongs to the Crown and for that reason the acts of accession and ratification did not require authorisation. Legislation was, however, required subsequently to ensure that the Convention was enforceable in the English courts, and the effect of an order made pursuant to section 1 of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994 (now section 224 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995) was that the Convention became part of English law on 1st January 1995, prior to the Convention coming into force internationally.
In the United States ratification has been authorized by resolution of advice and consent by the Senate agreed to on 29 October 1991.

The following States have reserved not to apply the Convention in one or more of the circumstances mentioned in article 30:

No reservation was made by New Zealand.
It is questionable that the formula "reserve the right not to apply …" entails the automatic exclusion of the relevant provision in respect of the State that has made the reservation.
In France it has been held that this is not so in respect of the LLMC Convention 1976 by the Cour d'Appel of Bordeaux with judgment of 5 September 1997 (1998 DMF 591) and by the Cour d'Appel of Rouen with judgment 5 September 2002 (2003 DMF 55).
In Australia the decision not to apply the provisions of the Salvage Convention in the cases mentioned in article 30(1) is the responsibility of the State and Territory governments. The reservations have been made to ensure that, in the event of a State or Territory governments electing not to apply the Convention in these circumstances, Australia would not be in breach of its Convention obligations.
In the United Kingdom the right not to apply the provision of the Convention has actually been exercised only in respect of article 30(1)(a) and (b) while it has not been exercised (at least so far) in respect of article 30(1)(d).

The incorporation technique entails of course certain changes in the wording of the national rules, so that such rules differ to some extent from those of the Convention, and this in turn may entail a greater difficulty of ensuring a uniform interpretation. It is not possible in this synopsis to compare for each Contracting State that has followed this technique the text of the national provisions with those of the Convention. As an example, however, such comparison is made for Australia. From section 315 of the Navigation Act it appears that Australia has given the force of law only to some (albeit the more important) provisions of the Convention but that articles 1 to 5, 9 to 11, 20, 24, 25 and 27 have not been given the force of law. In respect of some of such provisions it must be considered that since the ratification of or accession to a convention is regarded as binding Australia under international law, the obligations of the government itself do not require legislation. This is the case for article 11 of the Convention. From the review of the Navigation Act 1912 it further appears that:

• the definitions in art. 1 from (a) to (e) are reproduced verbatim (except a minor change relating to "payment") in section 294(1);
• art. 2 is reproduced in section 316(1) save the exclusions set out in section 316(2) and (3);
• art. 3 is reproduced, albeit with a slightly different language, in section 316(2);
• art. 4 is replaced by section 329(B) of the Act;
• art. 5 is replaced by section 329(C) of the Act;
• art. 9 consists in a clarification relating to the rights of Coastal States and therefore its enforcement does not seem to be necessary;
  
• art. 10(1) is replaced, with not significant changes in the wording, by section 317(A)(1) of the Act;
• art. 10(2) is complied with by section 317(A)(2) of the Act and art. 10(3) is given effect to by art. 317(A)(3);
• art. 23 is given effect by section 396 of the Navigation Act which provides in its paragraph (1), that: "No action shall be maintainable to enforce any claim or lien against a ship or its owner in respect of … any salvage services, unless proceedings therein are commenced within 2 years from the date when … the salvage services rendered were terminated".

The provisions of the Convention have been given the force of law in Croatia, France, Greece (law 2391/1966), Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States.
They have been incorporated, in whole or in part, in an existing Code or Act in Australia (section 315-329 of the Navigation Act 1912, as amended), China (articles 171-192 of the Maritime Code), Denmark (Chapter 16, Sections 441 to 454 of the Danish Maritime Act; the incorporation was made pursuant to statute no. 205 of 29 March 1995), Germany (articles 740 to 753 HGB as amended by Gesetz zur Neuregelung des Bergungsrechts in der See-und Binnenschiffhart (Drittes Seerechtsänderungsgesetz) of 16 May 2001), Latvia (Maritime Code adopted on 29.05.2003 and Maritime Administration and Safety Law adopted on 30.10.2002), Mexico (art. 125 of the 1994 Navigation Act so provides: "All salvage operations and the rights and responsibilities of the parties shall be governed by the International Convention on Salvage"), Norway (Chapter 16 of the Norwegian Maritime Code of 24 June 1994, as amended by Act of 2 August 1996, No. 64) and the Russian Federation (Chapter XX of the Merchant Shipping Code). Poland, whose ratification is still pending, has already incorporated in its Maritime Code most of the provisions of the Convention.
The Convention has not been implemented yet by Nigeria. A Maritime Law Reform Committee was established in 1999 by the Federal Minister of Transport with the task to update the entire corpus of Nigerian maritime legislation, including a new Merchant Shipping Act which incorporates the Salvage Convention. The draft prepared by such Committee is being considered by the National Assembly. Until the enactment of the new Merchant Shipping Act, salvage will remain governed, in Nigeria, by the 1910 Convention.

In all States where the provisions of the Convention have been incorporated into an existing Code or Act, this has been done by an act.
In Australia the legislation necessary to implement its obligations under the Convention was contained in the Transport Legislation Amendment Act 1995, which amended Part VII of the Navigation Act 1912 to incorporate the terms and principles of the Convention. The legislation received Royal Assent on 27 July 1995.
In China accession to the Convention has been authorized in the Fifth Session of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China.
In Croatia the force of law has been given by the law enacted by the House of Representatives of the Croatian Parliament of 5 June 1998, published in the People's Gazette, International Treaties, No. 9/1998.
In France the force of law has been given to the provisions of the Convention by the law of 30 January 2001 that authorized the ratification, and they became effective on December 20, 2002, the instrument of ratification having been deposited on December 20, 2001 with the Depositary, and the Convention published in the Journal Officiel de la République Française dated April 30, 2002, as requested by article 55 of the French Constitution.
In Germany the legislation necessary to implement its obligations under the Convention was contained in the "Drittes Seerechtsänderungsgesetz".
In Greece force of law has been given by law no. 2391/1966.
In Italy the force of law has been given by law 12 April 1995, No. 129 that authorized the ratification, which became effective upon the instrument of ratification having been deposited with the Depositary, the Convention becoming effective pursuant to its article 29.
In Lithuania the force of law has been given by the Act by which the Parliament authorized the ratification of the Convention.
In New Zealand section 216 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 provides that the Convention (which is set out in the Sixth Schedule to the Act) has the force of law.
In Norway the amendments to the Maritime Code required in order to give effect to the Convention were made by Act of 2 August 1996, No. 61.
In the United Kingdom section 224 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
In the United States Section 40, Amendments to Implement International Salvage Convention, 1989, of Public Law 102-241, Dec. 19, 1991, amending 46 App. USC 729 and 731.

The pre-existing rules have not been expressly abrogated in France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation and the United Kingdom but the general rule seems to be that in case of conflict the provisions of the Convention shall prevail.
They have been replaced by those of the Convention in Australia, where reference to the Salvage Convention in the Navigation Act 1912 have been replaced by references to the Salvage Convention 1989, in China (article 268 of the Maritime Code so provides: "If any international treaty concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China contains provisions differing from those contained in this Code, the provisions of the relevant international treaty shall apply, unless the provisions are these on which the People's Republic of China has announced reservations", in Denmark and in Poland.
In Croatia the provisions on salvage existing at the time the Convention was given the force of law (contained in the Maritime Code of 1994 in respect of salvage at sea and in the Inland Waters Navigation Act of 1998 in respect of salvage in inland water have not been expressly abrogated and are still in force in respect of areas to which the Convention does not apply. It is important to note however that the national rules on salvage accept certain important features of the 1989 Salvage Convention. With effect from 16 March 2001, Croatia denounced the 1910 Salvage Convention.
In Greece the International Convention of 1910 which was ratified has not been denounced. The relevant provisions of the Greek Code of Private Maritime Law, which were formerly in force, have not been repealed; therefore they still remain in force in respect of areas, if any, to which the Convention does not apply.
In Lithuania salvage in inland waters continues to be governed by the Inland Waters Transport Code.
In Norway some provisions are still in force, for instance Act of 20 July 1893 No. 2 on Stranded Ships and Wrecks and Act of 3 of June 1983 No. 40 Articles 29-32 on Salt Water Fisheries. These provisions partly deal with the same issues as the Convention. However, all provisions on salvage in the Maritime Code that previously regulated this field have been amended after the ratification. In case of conflict between the different set of rules, the provisions in the Maritime Code would probably prevail.
In the United States the pre-existing rules remain in force with respect to those substantive areas to which the Convention may not apply.

The provisions of the Convention apply also when the salvage operation takes place in inland waters and all vessels involved are vessels of inland navigation and/or when salvage operations take place in inland waters and no vessel is involved in Denmark (provided the operations take place in navigable waters), Germany, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands and the Russian Federation.
In Croatia the reservation under Article 30(1)(a) has not been made, and therefore the Convention presumably applies when the salvage operation takes place in inland waters and all vessels involved are vessels of inland navigation. Croatia made instead the reservation under Article 30(1)(b). However, certain Convention principles should apply through the national law.
In Greece this question has never been considered because the country has very limited inland navigation.
In New Zealand application to inland waters with or without vessels has been accepted by full text incorporation of the text of the Convention and by virtue of the definition of "Coast or inland waters" in section 215 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994.
In Norway no reservation has been made in respect of these articles. The Maritime Code Section 441 a) defines salvage as "any act the purpose of which is to render assistance to a ship or other object which has been wrecked or is in danger in any waters". According to the wording, the provisions apply to in any waters. Letter d) of the same section includes inland waters in the scope of potential environmental damage. Consequently, the provisions in the Maritime Code seem to apply to inland waters. This question has not yet been considered in Norwegian case law.
In Poland the provisions of the Convention, as incorporated in the Maritime Code, apply to salvage operations performed in inland waters only if a seagoing vessel is involved.
In the United States presumably, the provisions of the Convention do apply when salvage operations take place in inland "navigable waters of the United States" (as defined for determining admiralty jurisdiction), whether all the vessels involved are vessels of inland navigation or even when no vessel is involved.
Reservation has been made by China and article 171 of the Maritime Code so provides: "The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to salvage operations rendered at sea or any other navigable waters adjacent thereto to ships and other property in distress".

As regards the question whether the States that have not made the reservation permitted by article 30(1)(d) would apply the provision of the Salvage Convention to maritime cultural property, this seems to be the case for Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, United Kingdom.
In Greece (by which a reservation has been made in respect of article 30(1)(d)) there are special provisions in respect of salvage of ancient ships and their cargo both inside or outside the ship.
The position is not settled in Italy.
In New Zealand reservations exist as to whether the salvage convention is applicable to wrecks that have been on the seabed for many years, given the reference to "assist a vessel or any other property in danger in navigable waters" in the definition of salvage operations. However this possibility is not ruled out.
In Norway pursuant to section 442 of the Maritime Code the provisions of the Convention, as enacted in the Maritime Code, do not apply to ships or objects covered by section 14 of Act 9 June 1978, No. 50 concerning Cultural Heritage.
In the United States the answer to this question may be either yes or no depending upon a number of factors such as the identity of the owner, the kind and location of the property, and whether the general federal maritime law of salvage applies.
In Poland, the provisions of the Convention, as incorporated in the Maritime Code, do not apply to maritime cultural property situated on the sea bed because a requisite of salvage is an existing danger.

None of the States in respect of which responses to the Questionnaire have been given has ratified the UNESCO 2001 Convention. While Denmark and France have a "positive view" on that Convention, Norway and the United States seem to have no intention to ratify the UNESCO Convention.
The convention is not ratified by Norway. Norway has previously expressed concerns regarding the relationship between the UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage and UNCLOS Convention. At present, Norway has no intention to ratify the UNESCO Convention.

The answer is affirmative in respect of Australia, Denmark (except perhaps property that has no relation with shipping), Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, United Kingdom and United States.
In Croatia under national rules, removal of sunken objects is expressly distinguished from salvage and is subject to a special set of rules. Sunken objects (whether or not inside a sunken ship) are covered by the rules on salvage only if they sank during the salvage operations or during the period of danger that existed immediately prior to the commencement of the salvage operations.
In France the Convention would apply if the sunken property is in danger. If it is not in danger, the domestic provisions on salvage of wrecks would apply.
In Greece it has been argued that the term "property" (1(c)) includes sunken ships, shipwrecks or cargo wrecks, lying either within or outside a shipwreck.
In Russia there are special provisions on raising, removal and destruction of sunken property in Chapter VII of the Merchant Shipping Code. If, however, the raising, removal or destruction is considered to be a salvage operation, the rules that implemented the Convention would apply.

The scope of application of the Convention has been extended to platforms and drilling rigs by Norway. The Norwegian Maritime Code Section 442 paragraph 4 states that the provisions do not apply to permanent platforms and pipelines for the petroleum industry. However, the scope of application includes movable installations for the petroleum industry.
In China article 173 of the Maritime Code so provides: "The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to fixed or floating platforms or mobile offshore drilling units when such platforms or units are on location engaged in the exploration, exploitation or production of sea-bed mineral resources".
In Croatia the issue seems to depend on whether a platform or a drilling unit is capable of navigation (in which case it is considered as "technical vessel" and is covered by the rules on salvage) or not (in which case it is considered as "floating object" and is not covered by the rules on salvage).
The position is the same in Greece and Lithuania.
In New Zealand the Convention has not been extended to platforms and drilling units.
In Poland the provisions of the Convention, as incorporated in the Maritime Code, do not apply to platforms and drilling units. They instead apply, pursuant to article 249 of the Maritime Code, to ships of the Navy, Coast Guard and Police.

The scope of application of the Convention has been extended to warships and other non-commercial vessels, owned or operated by the State, by Denmark (s. 454 of the Maritime Act), Latvia (art. 253 Maritime Code), Netherlands (in accordance with the provisions of article 554, Book 8, Civil Code), New Zealand (section 217 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994), Norway, Russian Federation (except for the provision on apportionment of the salvage reward) and the United Kingdom (pursuant to section 230 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, but subject to section 29 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947). They have not been so extended in China, Greece, Lithuania and in the United States. See for China the definition of ship in article 172(1) (" 'Ship' means any ship referred to in Article 3 of this Code and any other non-military, public service ship or craft that has been involved in a salvage operation therewith") and for the United States see Department of State Public Notice 4614, entitled "Office of Ocean Affairs; Protection of Sunken Warships, Military Aircraft and Other Sunken Government Property" [Federal Register: February 5, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 24, pages 5647-5648)].
In Croatia, under the national law, the rules on salvage apply to all vessels irrespective of type and purpose (including warships and state-owned vessels), with certain exceptions: (i) the rules dealing with the rights of the crew to participate in the salvage reward do not apply to warships; (ii) salvage of a Croatian warship shall not be performed if expressly prohibited by the master of that ship; (iii) the Minister of defence shall regulate in which circumstances the master of a Croatian warship is exempted from a duty to render salvage services.

Public Authorities that perform salvage operations may avail themselves of the rights and remedies provided for in the Convention in Australia, China (article 192 of the Maritime Code), Denmark, Germany, Italy, Lithuania (article 40 of the Law on Safe Navigation, 29 August 2000), Mexico, Norway (subject to the rules otherwise applicable; such rules being those contained in the Act of 13 March 1981, No. 6 relating to protection against pollution and relating to waste(1)), Netherlands, Poland, Russian Federation and United Kingdom.
In New Zealand no specific legislation has been made dealing with this issue. The view has been expressed, however, that the effect of incorporating article 5 directly in legislation is to permit public authorities to avail themselves of the rights and remedies under the Convention.
In the United States no provisions have been enacted that would specifically extend the rights and remedies of the Convention to public authorities performing salvage operations (e.g., Coast Guard, Navy); however, such public authorities have had, and still retain, analogous rights and remedies as salvors under the common maritime law of salvage; in addition, as a matter of internal U.S. government fiscal law, the provisions of 10 USC Sections 7363 & 7364 (which pre-date the Convention) recognize the right of the U.S. Navy to independently assert, receive and utilize salvage awards for salvage operations it has performed.
In Croatia since there are no specific provisions in this respect, public authorities should enjoy to the full extent the rights and remedies provided for in the Convention (except as stated in the response to question under 8(b) under (i)).
Also in Greece there are no specific provision, but it is unsettled whether the State is entitled to a reward for salvage, the prevailing view being negative.

Provisions to that effect exist in Australia (section 317A of the Navigation Act 1912), China, Croatia (where breach of this duty is considered a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment), Denmark (section 30 of the Act on Safety at Sea), France (law of 17 December 1926), Germany (the Penal Code considers a criminal offence not to assist any person in danger), Greece (the breach of this duty entails civil, penal and disciplinary consequences for the master), Italy (articles 490 and 1113 Code of Navigation and 450 Penal Code), Latvia (article 63 of the Maritime Code), Lithuania (article 41 of the Law on Safe Navigation), Mexico (the Federal Criminal Code considers a criminal offence not to assist any person in danger and article 121 of the Navigation Law requires Master and crew to assist persons in danger), Netherlands (pursuant to the 1910 Collision Convention and article 9-e and 9-f of the Dutch Shipping Act of 1909), New Zealand (section 32 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994: failure to do so is an offence against the Act), Norway (sections 314 and 387 of the General Civil Penal Code), Poland (article 60 of the Maritime Code), Russian Federation (Article 62 of the Merchant Shipping Code), Spain (Spain has not ratified the 1989 Salvage Convention, but the failure to assist a person in danger is a crime under its penal code as well as under law 27/1992 of 24 November 1992), the United Kingdom (section 93 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995) and the United States (46 USC 2304 (not applicable to public vessels); 46 USC 2109 applied to U.S. Navy ships by article 0925, U.S. Navy Regulations, 1990, and to U.S. Coast Guard ships by article 4.2.5, U.S. Coast Guard Regulations).

No provisions affecting performance of salvage operations exist in France, Germany, Greece (where, as regards the protection of the environment the general provisions which permit the Authorities' intervention particularly when there exists a state of common danger or common need, would apply), Lithuania, Norway, Poland and the Russian Federation.
There are instead provisions that may have an adverse effect on the performance of the salvage operations in Australia (under the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981), China (article 71 of the China Marine Environment Law so provides: "If a vessel is involved in a maritime casualty which has caused, or is likely to cause, substantial pollution damage to the marine environment, the competent authorities of maritime administration shall have the power to take compulsory measures to prevent or minimize the pollution damage. If a vessel or installation is involved in a maritime casualty on the high seas, which has caused or threatened substantial pollution damage to the sea area over which the People's Republic of China has jurisdiction, the competent authorities of maritime administration shall have the power to take necessary measures proportionate to the actual or possible damage", Croatia (where amongst numerous anti-pollution laws and regulations in force, some of them may to a certain extent adversely affect the performance of salvage operations), Denmark (Marine Pollution Act, Section 43), Italy (Law 31 December 1982, No. 979, article 12), Latvia (article 54 of the Law on Maritime Administration and Safety), Mexico (Mexican Ecological Legislation and article 123 of the Navigation Law), Netherlands (Law Controlling Accidents Northsea of 12 March 1992), New Zealand (part 20 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 deals with the protection of marine environment from hazardous ships, structures, and offshore marine operations. The Director of Maritime Safety is empowered to give directions to a hazardous ship, structure or offshore marine operation to avoid, reduce or remedy pollution or a significant risk of pollution from ship sourced harmful substances in New Zealand continental waters), United Kingdom (Schedule 3A of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995; see also section 156(2)(d) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995) and the United States, where there are aspects of civil and criminal law, at both the federal and individual state levels, that can, under certain circumstances, serve to preclude, constrain, or delay the most effective salvage operations.
In Poland where if a ship is in distress it is obligatory pursuant to the SAR, to render assistance to her and direct it to a place of safety.

Provisions to this effect exist in Italy (Decree 18 April 2003 prohibiting access to ports of single hull tankers of over 15 years of age carrying heavy oil), Latvia (article 46 of the Law on Maritime Administration and Safety), Mexico (article 38 of the Navigation Act enumerates the types of arrivals and defines the forced arrivals as those that take place for order of law, fortuitous event or force majeure and that such arrivals must be justified with the maritime authority), Russian Federation (Article 9 of Federal Law 31 July 1998 on distress entry of foreign ships, foreign warships and other state-owned vessels to the territorial sea, internal seawaters and sea ports; Part IV on distress entry of Decree 2 October 1999, No. 1102).
In China article 11 of China Maritime Traffic Safety Law so provides: "Non-military vessel of foreign nationality may not enter the internal waters and harbours of the People's Republic of China without the approval of its competent authorities. However, under unexpected circumstances such as critical illness of personnel, engine breakdown or vessel being in distress or seeking shelter from weather when they do not have time to obtain approval, they may, while entering China's internal waters or harbours, make an emergency report to the competent authority and shall obey its directions. Military vessels of foreign nationality may not enter the territorial waters of the People's Republic of China without the Government of the Government of the People's Republic of China".
In Croatia there is no special regime specifying which locations may be used as places of refuge, and generally no restrictions to the admittance of vessels in distress to ports or other places of safety. Moreover, such vessels should be given priority in admittance to ports and berths. On the other hand, maritime authorities are under a general duty to deny access to a port or berth if a vessel constitutes a threat to the navigation or to the safety of life or to the marine environment. In some instances the above two rules may be in conflict, with the possible result that a vessel in distress is denied access to a port or a berth because it constitutes environmental hazard.
In Greece no specific provisions have been enacted.
In the Netherlands, pursuant to their competence based on the Law Controlling Accidents Northsea of 12 March 1992 and the Wrecks Law of 29 July 1934 as amended, the Dutch authorities made a contingency plan ("Rampenplan 2000") under which it is provided that vessels in distress may be admitted to a place of refuge; such admission in principle is permitted only upon consent (or even order) of the authorities; when deciding to such admission the authorities have to take a couple of factors into account, such as fairness and reasonableness, proportionality, provision of financial security and the like.
In New Zealand no specific provisions have been enacted. It is expected, however, that the Director's powers under Part 20 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 would be used to regulate admittance of vessels in distress to ports or places of safety in the territorial sea.
In Norway, according to Directive EC 2002/59 Article 20, the Government is obliged to draw up plans to accommodate, in the water under Norwegian jurisdiction, ships in distress. Regulation og 23 December 1994 No. 1130 on traffic of foreign non-military ships in Norwegian waters Section 12 grants a general entry into Norwegian internal waters.
In Spain article 20 and subsequent articles of Royal Decree 210/2004 of 6 February 2004 have implemented Directive 2002/159 of the European Parliament and of the Council and have established a system of control and information on maritime trade.
No provisions exist in the United States but, through the United States Coast Guard, the United States has a long and successful record of ensuring the safety of life and property at sea, including careful consideration of requests from vessels in distress to enter United States ports.
Generally in the European Union action should be taken in order to implement article 20 of Directive 2002/59/EC of 27 June 2002 that requires Member States to select places of refuge in accordance with the IMO Guidelines (such Guidelines are published in CMI Yearbook 2003-Vancouver I, p. 344).
In some countries places of refuge have been selected, but the list is confidential. This is the case in Germany. In other countries (e.g. Australia and United Kingdom) places may be selected in any specific case.
No provisions have been enacted in Lithuania.

Such rules exist in Croatia (pursuant to article 796 of the Maritime Code "certain part of the net reward is payable to the crew, the assessment of such part being made by the Court; the same rule applies to salavage in inland waters), Denmark (article 451 of the Maritime Act), Germany (pursuant to section 747 HGB the owner receives two thirds, the master and the crew each one sixth), Greece (the shipowner is entitled to 50% of the reward, the master to 25% and the crewmembers to 25%; there exists a special procedure as regards the apportionment of the said 25% between the crewmembers), Italy (pursuant to article 496 of the Code of Navigation the owner receives one third and the crew two thirds), New Zealand section 219 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 deals with apportionment between salvors: "A payment in respect of a salvage operation that is due to more than one person shall, in the absence of agreement between those persons, be apportioned among those persons in such manner as the Court thinks fit, having regard to the terms of the Convention"), Norway (pursuant to section 451 of the Maritime Code the "reder" receives three fifths, the master one third of the residual two fifths and the crew two thirds, such latter share being apportioned in proportion of the wages), Poland (pursuant to article 244 of the Maritime Code the reward, after deduction of costs and damages, is divided equally between the owner and the crew, the master receiving at least 30% of such reward), Russian Federation (pursuant to article 345 of the Merchant Shipping Code the owner receives three fifths and the crew two fifths) and Spain (pursuant to article 7 of law 60/1962 of 24 December 1962 the owner receives one third, while the other two thirds are allocated amongst the crew of the salving vessel, other persons who cooperate to the salvage operations and the salvors of persons).
In Australia, Lithuania, Netherlands and the United Kingdom the apportionment, if not agreed, is a matter for the Court.
In the United States rules have been developed as a matter of General Maritime Law by cognizant U.S. Federal Courts: the allocation is based on the relative contributions of the parties to the salvage effort and on the relative risks incurred by them.

 

---

(1) Pursuant to s. 74, if the Pollution Control Authority has issued orders pursuant to Section 7 fourth paragraph or pursuant to Section 37 first or second paragraph, which are not complied with by the party responsible, the Pollution Control Authority may itself provide for the implementation of the measures. The pollution control authority may also provide for implementation of measures without prior instructions if such instructions may mean that implementation of the measures will be delayed or if it is not clear who is responsible. When implementing measures in accordance with the first paragraph the pollution control authority may make use of, and if necessary cause damage to, the property of the person responsible. The Pollution Control Authority may issue specific regulations concerning the implementation of measures in accordance with the first and second paragraphs. Intervention against acute pollution or danger of acute pollution on the open sea and in outer Norwegian sea territory shall take place in accordance with international agreements to which Norway has acceded. The pollution control authority may issue regulations concerning such intervention and concerning the implementation of such agreements in Norwegian law. The Pollution act is available in English full text at the following site: http://www.npd.no/regelverk/r2002/Forurensingsloven_e.htm

BACK