Assessment 6: Comparative Maritime Law Essay on Enforcement Regimes and Regulatory Approaches (3,000 words)

Module and Assessment Overview

Module title: Comparative Maritime Law and Enforcement

Assessment type: Individual comparative law essay

Weighting: 30–40% of module grade (see programme handbook)

Length: 3,000 words (±10%, excluding references and footnotes)

Submission format: Word-processed essay (DOCX or PDF) via the VLE or learning portal

Level: Final-year undergraduate / postgraduate taught (Level 6/7 equivalent)

Assessment Context

Maritime law is implemented through diverse national enforcement architectures that reflect differing histories, institutional capacities and strategic priorities, yet these systems must all operate within the shared framework of UNCLOS, IMO conventions and, increasingly, regional arrangements. Coastal states structure authority among navies, coast guards, port state authorities and specialised agencies in different ways, which affects their ability to respond to pollution, safety violations, illegal fishing, security threats and insolvency-related claims such as maritime liens. Comparative analysis of enforcement regimes and remedies is central to understanding how international rules function in practice and how shipowners, cargo interests and seafarers experience the law when disputes arise or when states act against vessels in their waters.

Assessment Task

Task Description

Write a 3,000-word comparative law essay that critically examines how maritime law is enforced in at least two jurisdictions or regional regimes, focusing on either:

• (a) Public-law maritime enforcement (for example safety, security, fisheries or pollution control)

• (b) Private-law enforcement of maritime claims (for example maritime liens, ship arrest, limitation of liability)

You must adopt a clearly articulated comparative method and use it consistently to identify similarities, differences and underlying explanations across the selected systems.

Topic Options (Illustrative)

Select one of the following or agree an equivalent with your tutor:

1. Maritime security and fisheries enforcement at sea

   • Compare the allocation of enforcement powers and operational models in two or more states (for example United States, Indonesia, India, Malaysia) in relation to IUU fishing and maritime security, and assess how effectively they implement international obligations.

2. Enforcement of maritime liens and ship arrest

   • Compare the recognition and enforcement of maritime liens and arrest procedures in two jurisdictions (for example England & Wales and a civil law state) and analyse implications for creditors and shipowners in cross-border disputes.

3. Environmental and safety compliance enforcement

   • Examine how two regions (for example EU and a selected Asia-Pacific state) enforce pollution and safety rules, including port state control, sanctions and interaction with international liability regimes.

4. Regional vs. national approaches to maritime security

   • Compare regional arrangements for maritime security and law of the sea implementation in East Asia or another region with a selected national enforcement model, focusing on coordination and jurisdictional design.

Core Requirements

Your comparative essay must:

i. Define the research question and jurisdictions

• Formulate a precise comparative question (for example “How do X and Y differ in their enforcement of maritime liens arising from crew wage claims?” or “How do A and B organise at-sea enforcement of IUU fishing?”)

• Explain why these jurisdictions or regimes provide a meaningful comparison (for example common challenges, contrasting legal traditions, shared regional context)

ii. Describe the legal and institutional frameworks

• Summarise relevant international and regional law, then outline key national legislation, institutions and procedures for each jurisdiction

• Distinguish clearly between primary rules (substantive obligations) and secondary rules (enforcement, jurisdiction, remedies)

iii. Explain the comparative method used

• Briefly state how you are comparing (for example functional comparison of how similar problems are addressed; doctrinal comparison of specific concepts; institutional comparison of enforcement architectures)

• Apply this method consistently across your analysis

iv. Conduct structured comparison and analysis

• Identify concrete similarities and differences in rules, institutions and practices, supported by sources and, where available, case examples

• Analyse underlying reasons (for example legal tradition, political priorities, economic structure, regional integration) rather than simply listing features

v. Evaluate effectiveness and implications

• Assess strengths and weaknesses of each model in terms of legal certainty, access to justice, deterrence, efficiency and compliance with international obligations

• Discuss practical implications for shipowners, seafarers, cargo interests and coastal communities

vi. Consider prospects for convergence or reform

• Discuss whether convergence or mutual learning between the systems is desirable or likely, and suggest specific areas where one system could learn from the other

Indicative Structure

• Title page (module, student ID, word count, comparative question)

  1. Introduction and research question

  2. Method and case selection (jurisdictions/regions)

  3. Legal and institutional framework in jurisdiction/region A

  4. Legal and institutional framework in jurisdiction/region B

  5. Comparative analysis and discussion

  6. Evaluation of effectiveness and implications

  7. Prospects for reform or convergence

  8. Conclusion

• References (Harvard style; legal footnotes permitted if programme allows, but maintain consistency)

Formatting and Submission Requirements

• Word count: 3,000 words (±10%, excluding references and footnotes). State word count on the title page

• Font and spacing: 11- or 12-point font, 1.5 spacing, standard margins

• Citation style: Harvard as default; mixed text-and-footnote style permitted where consistent with programme guidance

• Sources: Minimum of 12–15 substantive sources, including international instruments, national legislation, cases and peer-reviewed or authoritative commentary

• Academic integrity: Individual work only; comply with institutional guidance on the use of AI and electronic research tools

Learning Outcomes Assessed

• LO1: Demonstrate detailed knowledge of maritime law enforcement frameworks in selected jurisdictions or regions

• LO2: Apply comparative legal methods to maritime enforcement or remedies

• LO3: Critically evaluate the effectiveness and implications of different enforcement models

• LO4: Develop clear, well-supported comparative legal arguments in writing

• LO5: Identify realistic avenues for mutual learning or reform in maritime enforcement and dispute resolution

Marking Criteria and Scoring Rubric

The comparative law essay will be marked out of 100 and normally contributes 30–40% of the module grade.

Public-law enforcement models in Indonesia and the United States reveal contrasting approaches to organising authority at sea even though both states rely on broadly similar UNCLOS jurisdictional categories. The United States has consolidated most day-to-day maritime safety, security and environmental enforcement in the US Coast Guard, which operates across maritime zones and combines military capabilities with law enforcement powers, while Indonesia has historically distributed overlapping mandates among the Navy, the Maritime Security Agency (BAKAMLA) and other agencies, leading to coordination challenges and jurisdictional ambiguity. Dewi’s comparative study argues that the US model illustrates the benefits of a single, clearly empowered coast guard for addressing IUU fishing and other offences in the EEZ, whereas Indonesia’s gradual consolidation of functions within BAKAMLA reflects an attempt to move away from a fragmented system that produced inefficiencies and uncertainty for both domestic and foreign vessels. These institutional choices influence not only operational effectiveness but also perceptions of predictability and fairness among shipowners, which in turn shape compliance behaviour and the willingness of foreign operators to cooperate with coastal state enforcement actions.

Comparative essays on maritime enforcement demonstrate that differences in enforcement architecture often reflect deeper socio-political priorities and legal culture, which influence the efficiency of implementation and the predictability of remedies for maritime claims. Understanding these systemic factors helps legal practitioners and policymakers anticipate obstacles to compliance and identify practical avenues for cross-jurisdictional learning (Wanjohi, 2019).

Learning Resources (Harvard Style)

• Dewi, Y.K., Afriansyah, A. and Darmawan, R. (2020) ‘Comparative law enforcement model at sea: Indonesia, the United States, India and Malaysia’, Indonesian Journal of International Law, 17(1), pp. 85–112. Available at: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1193&context=ijil

• Wanjohi, J. (2019) Maritime liens and their enforcement from international and comparative perspectives. Master’s dissertation, World Maritime University. Available at: https://commons.wmu.se/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2758&context=all_dissertations

• United Nations (2020) The law of the sea: Practice of states at the regional level. UN publication, Law of the Sea Bulletin. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3829245/files/%5EST_LEG_%5ELOS_LIB_28–LOS_LIB_28-EN.pdf

• ColaPapers (2024) ‘MAR5074 Admiralty law vessel arrest problem question’. Available at: https://www.colapapers.com/mar5074-admiralty-law-vessel-arrest-problem-question/

• ColaPapers (2023) ‘Maritime law and environmental compliance assignment’. Available at: https://www.colapapers.com/maritime-law-and-environmental-compliance-assignment/

•  (2021) Enforcement challenges and regulatory approaches in maritime law: a comparative study. London: Legal Maritime Press.