Note on the use of the word “ship” or “vessel”

1.11. At the resumed ninth session (1980), the Drafting Committee reported that in the English and Russian versions of the Convention a provision be added that “ships” and “vessels” have the same meaning.¹

Subsequently, in an informal paper, the Drafting Committee considered the addition of the following paragraphs to article 1;

(6) A ship or vessel “flying the flag” of a State means a ship or vessel authorized to fly the flag of that State;

(7) “International organization” means an intergovernmental organization;

(8) “Ships” and “vessels” have the same meaning.²

(In a footnote to that text, it was noted that the form of article 1 was modeled on article 1 of the 1975 Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal Character.³ It was also noted that subparagraph (8) applied only to me English text).

Those changes were not accepted by the Conference, and the ICNT/ Rev.3 (Source 15) repeated the previous text, as did the Draft Convention (Source 16).

1.28. The English text of the Convention uses the words “ship” and “vessel” interchangeably (see further para. 1.11 above).

The Second Committee showed a preference for “ship” (except in articles 42 and 73) and the Third Committee opted for “vessel” (except in article 233).

The Chairman of the Third Committee, in a report at the eleventh session (1982), gave an explanation for this difference, noting that after consultations with the IMO and others it was the understanding of the Third Committee that the broader term “vessel” was more appropriate, for it would cover not only ships but also other floating structures whose use or operation might cause pollution of the marine environment.⁴

The representative of Italy, referring to that report, stated that there was no basis for the assumption that the expressions “ship” and “vessel” meant different things in the Convention.⁵

There was no reaction to that remark.

This distinction is not found in the other authentic texts of the Convention (although a similar application was thought to exist in earlier versions of the Russian text). In its early work the Drafting Committee examined the matter to see whether the expressions could be harmonized. It reported mat:

This problem affects only the English and Russian versions since only one word is used in the other languages, e.g. buque in Spanish and navire in French. The words “ship” and “vessel” are not interpreted as meaning different things in the text.

The English Language Group, on the basis of statute and case law in various English-speaking countries, indicated that it could not determine the legal distinction, if any, between the two words. It was also noted that there is no consistency in the different international conventions dealing with maritime matters.

The Drafting Committee later recommended that a provision be added in the English and Russian versions of article 1 to the effect that the two words have the same meaning, but this was not accepted.⁶

Another suggestion that the English and Russian Language Groups should attempt to resolve the issue also led to no common result, although harmonization was achieved in the Russian text with a general preference for the word sudno, the expression voyenniy korabl being used for “warship.” Accordingly, as far as concerns this Convention there is no difference in meaning between the two English words.

The reasons for this distinction in this Convention are probably historical. The Third Committee drew much of its inspiration from the work of the International Maritime Organization (IMO, formerly the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO)). This Organization often uses the word “vessel,” although many of the IMO Conventions the me word “ship” the meaning of which is then carefully explained in relation to the subject matter of the instrument, and indeed varies from instrument to instrument.

There is thus no definition in the Convention of me term “ship” or “vessel,” and its precise significance will depend on the circumstances and the context in this regard, it has been observed that:

[I]t would seem that “ship”/”vessel” may be taken to mean any object or device found in the seas and connected to a State by a link such that that State can claim to exclude interference by other States. Such a link is provided by the flying of a flag, for example, but also by the fact of registration in the case of seaplanes, and even situations of actual control such as those which may exist in the case of platforms and other installations. Thus, the concept may take on a different hue according to the zone of the sea concerned by reason of the acknowledged rights of the State to which the “ship”/”vessel” belongs.⁷

The International Law Commission, in its work on the jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, has commented in connection with article 16 (Ships owned or operated by a State) that “the expression “ship” in thus context should be interpreted as covering all types of seagoing vessels, whatever their nomenclature and even if they are engaged only partially in seagoing traffic.”⁸

Следует добавить, что “ship”, “for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894” – “any vessel used in navigation and not propelled by oars”.

[См.: A Dictionary of Law. Third edition. Edited by Elizabeth A. Martin.-Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.–Р. 372.]