A just culture for the seafarer

The Master is the Leader in the Marine Adventure, with the Flag State’s responsibility for the safety of life at sea and the protection of the marine environment. But they are also the Company’s Representative whose purpose is to make the voyage a commercial success. They have always been accountable for their risks; the difference now is that they are being criminalised for what previously had been activity that, at worst, merited nothing more than a civil claim in negligence. As a result, a maritime casualty that results in collision, death and personal injury has become the basis for establishing crime and punishment without having to rely on the burden of proving the criminal element in a maritime context – and the target of that blame is the seafarer, who has to do their job in conditions far removed from the landward contexts for which the criminal law was originally intended. In this paper, we shall discuss some of the essential features which define the phenomenon of criminalisation from the global perspective, so that we have a common understanding of what criminalisation means. Then we can apply it in the context of the seafarer’s accountability for the risks which accompany their professional judgement. Upon that foundation we must then build a clear understanding of where the seafarer stands in the prosecution of the criminal law. By comparing cases such as the Kota Nebula and Dongfang zhi Xing with the Pride of Bilbao and the Zim Mexico III, we can develop a strategy for a future maritime policy in criminal accountability that balances Justice for the seafarer with the demands which meet the cultural priorities of Chinese society – which, ultimately, must drive maritime policy. We are entering a new generation in which the jurisdiction of Chinese maritime criminal law must reach out to other peoples in the initiative of ‘One Belt, One Road’; in this paper we are opening a debate that will shape maritime policy for fairer accountability of the seafarer