> So apparently a ship, sailing under the Panamanian flag, owned by a Japanese company, operated by a German company, staffed by Indians and stuck in Egypt has no international guarantees of rights for its workers not to end up in a kind of floating solitary confinement.
Right, but the problem in question is that a nation is trying to get reparations for damages done. Why would any nation preemptively sign away one of their largest source of leverage for being made whole?
Or more specifically, why would Egypt sign-on to one of these agreements?
Or perhaps say, if the Ever Given's grounding was actually caused by negligence or malice on the part of the crew, how would these agreements work?
These would all be details of the agreement. Maybe they set up some kind of fund for these circumstances. Maybe they set some kind of rule allowing the seizing of the vessel, or who knows what.
Maybe they go the other route and use their freedom to determine who they do business with, and under what terms, to convince Egypt to sign it.
And at the end of the day, obviously this leverage is pretty bad. It seems to be just making things pretty awful for one or a few people, often from poorer nations, where there is no clear and undeniable nation responsible for their predicament. If the 'leverage' is just being left to rot at sea for years on end, is it that useful in the first place?
10 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 34.6 ms ] thread> So apparently a ship, sailing under the Panamanian flag, owned by a Japanese company, operated by a German company, staffed by Indians and stuck in Egypt has no international guarantees of rights for its workers not to end up in a kind of floating solitary confinement.
Or more specifically, why would Egypt sign-on to one of these agreements?
Or perhaps say, if the Ever Given's grounding was actually caused by negligence or malice on the part of the crew, how would these agreements work?
Maybe they go the other route and use their freedom to determine who they do business with, and under what terms, to convince Egypt to sign it.
And at the end of the day, obviously this leverage is pretty bad. It seems to be just making things pretty awful for one or a few people, often from poorer nations, where there is no clear and undeniable nation responsible for their predicament. If the 'leverage' is just being left to rot at sea for years on end, is it that useful in the first place?
I'm by no means an expert in these things, but it's not exactly novel to have conventions for similar things.