MRIC6021 Individual Case-Study & Policy Brief

Bibliography Sources

• Psarros, G., Skjong, R. and Eide, M.S. (2011). Under-reporting of maritime accidents: A literature review. Marine Policy, 35(5), pp. 658–670. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.02.001]
  ➤ Explores how risk data gaps and reporting failures affect maritime safety governance and compliance oversight — valuable for root-cause or compliance-failure analysis.

• Bergqvist, R. and Monios, J. (2019). Green Ports: Inland and Seaside Sustainable Transportation Strategies. Routledge, London.
  ➤ Examines how port operators integrate environmental compliance, insurance implications, and operational risk management — ideal for environmental or port-related case studies.

• Cheng, L. and Yip, T.L. (2021). Maritime safety and risk management: A systematic review of recent research. Safety Science, 142, 105356. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105356]
  ➤ Provides a comprehensive review of modern maritime risk assessment methods (bow-tie, fault tree, etc.) applicable for your analytical section (root-cause / mitigation).

• Tan, A.K.J. (2006). Vessel-source Marine Pollution: The Law and Politics of International Regulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  ➤ Discusses international conventions (MARPOL, UNCLOS, CLC, FUND) governing pollution, liability, and insurance frameworks — essential for your legal/regulatory mapping section.

• Hodges, S. and Hill, R. (2020). Marine Insurance: Law and Practice (3rd ed.). Informa Law from Routledge, London.
  ➤ Authoritative text on marine insurance contracts, risk transfer mechanisms, and claims — crucial for the insurance dimension of your case study and stakeholder recommendations.

Module: Maritime Risk, Compliance & Insurance
Module code: MRIC6021
Credit value: 15
Level: 6 / Master’s semester
Semester: Spring 2025

Assessment Title: Individual Case-Study & Policy Brief
Weighting: 50%
Word limit: 2,800 words ±10% (excluding appendices, tables, figures, references)
Submission: Online via VLE (Turnitin) by 13:00, Week 9

Purpose & Learning Outcomes

This assessment tests your ability to:

Analyse risk, compliance, and insurance dimensions in maritime operations or projects.

Apply legal, regulatory, technical, and commercial perspectives in integrated fashion.

Prepare policy-oriented advice for maritime stakeholders under uncertainty.

Demonstrate critical argument, structured reasoning, and professional presentation.

Linked module learning outcomes:

LO1: Evaluate maritime risk frameworks, insurance regimes, and compliance regimes.

LO2: Critically analyse how regulatory instruments influence maritime operations under risk.

LO3: Synthesize technical, legal and commercial factors into coherent policy or operational advice.

LO4: Present a well-structured, evidence-based brief in professional format.

Task Description

Select one real maritime incident or risk scenario (past 10 years) involving insurance, compliance failure, regulatory breach or environmental harm—for example, an oil spill, port terminal accident, ship fire, cargo loss, or navigational incident with regulatory consequences.

Produce a case-study + policy brief comprising:

Executive summary (200–250 words) — summarise key issues, findings, and recommended actions for a stakeholder (e.g. port operator, shipowner, regulator).

Incident background & risk description (ca. 500–600 words) — detail the factual sequence, actors, vessel/asset specs, environmental, navigational, regulatory context, and the loss or breach event.

Legal / regulatory / insurance framework (ca. 600–700 words) — map out relevant laws, conventions, insurance cover types, compliance obligations, liabilities, and gaps.

Root-cause / contributory analysis (ca. 600–700 words) — identify technical, human, systemic or organisational causal factors; use risk analysis methods (e.g. bow-tie, fault tree, scenario analysis).

Recommendations & mitigation strategy (ca. 400–500 words) — for the principal stakeholder, propose compliance measures, insurance adjustments, operational changes, monitoring and governance.

Conclusion & further considerations (ca. 150–200 words) — reflect on limitations, trade-offs, and areas for further monitoring or research.

Appendices may include diagrams, risk maps, timeline tables, or insurance policy extracts (these do not count toward the word limit).

Assessment Criteria

You will be assessed on:

Criterion High-quality (70–100) Good (60–69) Satisfactory (50–59) Below standard (<50) Choice & relevance of case Highly pertinent, well documented, illustrative of multi-dimensional risk Good choice, reasonably documented, covers main risk dimensions Acceptable case, but limited complexity or data Inappropriate or poorly documented case Understanding of frameworks Thorough, current, precise mapping of law, regulation, insurance regimes Good coverage with minor gaps or superficial parts Basic mapping, occasional errors or omissions Misunderstanding, incorrect application, serious gaps Analytical depth Insightful, multi-layer root cause, systemic thinking, awareness of trade-offs Solid analysis with clear logic and acknowledgement of limits Basic causal factors, limited depth or nuance Weak or incoherent analysis, lacking logic or depth Recommendation quality Highly practical, evidence-based, aware of constraints, innovative where applicable Good, well tied to analysis, plausible, some caveats Reasonable but generic, sometimes weakly linked to analysis Impractical, generic, poorly justified or disconnected Structure, clarity & professionalism Excellent organisation, uniform style, polished presentation Clear structure, occasional lapses, minor styling issues Adequate structure, some disjointedness, moderate errors Poor structure, confusing flow, many errors Referencing & integrity Accurate, extensive, consistent Harvard style; good source selection Largely correct referencing, minor inconsistencies Some referencing errors, occasional missing citations Major referencing problems, poor scholarly discipline Late submissions lose 5% per calendar day (unless extension granted), up to 7 days; beyond that, zero unless agreed in advance. You are encouraged to submit a 500-word outline (case selection, preliminary sources, key issues) at Week 5 for formative comment.