209
1 INTRODUCTION
The global economy and international trade are highly
dependent on maritime transport, with over 50 % of the
value and 80 % of the volume of world trade being
carried by sea [1]. Seafarers are the backbone of the
maritime industry and it is thanks to them that the
industry continues to operate. Unfortunately, the
industry does not look after them as much, which can
lead seafarers to abandonment. The abandonment of
seafarers is a persistent and deeply concerning issue in
the global maritime industry and is a significant
human rights challenge. In such cases, seafarers are
often deprived of wages, food, water, medical care or
other vital resources, leaving them in vulnerable and
desperate situations.
Despite international conventions such as the
Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006, which sets
out rights and social standards for seafarers, cases of
abandonment continue to occur worldwide. An
important factor contributing to this crisis is the use of
the Flags of Convenience (FOC) system. This is a
system whereby shipowners register their ships under
the flag of a country other than their own. They do this
to take advantage of a weak regulatory environment,
lower taxes and limited labour protection. According
to the International Transport Workers' Federation
Abandoned at Sea and Stranded in Port: Analysis
of Abandonment of Seafarers and Measures
for Prevention
L. Simic, M. Hess, V. Francic & B. Rukavina
University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
ABSTRACT: Abandonment of seafarers is one of the most severe challenges faced by maritime workers and is
defined in the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC 2006). It refers to a situation where shipowners fail to
meet their obligations, such as wages, repatriation or essential resources such as food, water and medical care,
leaving seafarers stranded and without necessary support for an extended period. This paper analyses the cases
of abandonment available in the joint International Labour Organisation (ILO) / International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) database on abandonment of seafarers from 2019 to the end of 2024. The analysis focuses on
the different roles of flag state, port state and International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). The most
frequently abandoned ship flags were compared with the white, grey and black list of the Paris Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) and the MLC 2006 detention database. Despite international conventions, there are still
cases of abandonment worldwide, and they have a constant upward trend. In the analysed period, 795 cases of
abandonment were registered. 72,45% of all cases reported in the analysed period, occurred within the last three
years. 75,47% of all abandonment incidents involved ships registered under the Flag of Convenience. In resolving
abandonment cases, all entities involved, such as the ILO, IMO, ITF, flag state and port state need to work together
to resolve abandonment cases as quickly as possible, considering the mental health and well-being of seafarers.
The paper proposes measures to strengthen the protection of seafarers and ensure accountability in the maritime
industry.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 20
Number 1
March 2026
DOI: 10.12716/1001.20.01.22
210
(ITF), there are currently 43 FOC states [2]. Some FOC
states do not enforce international maritime standards,
making it easier for unscrupulous shipowners to evade
their responsibilities. This practise worsens the
condition of seafarers as they are often left without
effective legal recourse in countries where maritime
labour laws are not effective or inadequately enforced.
For seafarers, FOC means poor conditions on board,
unsafe working environment, very low wages,
inadequate food and drinking water supplies, and long
working hours without adequate rest which can lead to
stress and fatigue [2].
The ITF, a global union federation representing the
interests of maritime workers, has been at the forefront
of the fight against abandonment of seafarers. They are
also dealing with the problems associated with flags of
convenience. It has its international inspectorate,
which plays an important role in monitoring
conditions on board and compliance with collective
labour agreements and other important standards [3].
The ITF works to ensure that shipowners are held
accountable, fights for fair treatment of seafarers and
provides direct support in abandonment cases. The
Federation works with other stakeholders, including
governments, port authorities and international
organisations such as the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) and the International Labour
Organization (ILO), to ensure that seafarers' rights are
respected and that abandoned crews receive the
support and repatriation they need.
International instruments such as the MLC 2006,
often referred to as the „ Seafarers' Bill of Rights “,
provide a framework for the protection of seafarers'
welfare, including requirements for financial security
in the event of seafarers' abandonment. The financial
security system may be in the form of a social security
scheme, an insurance scheme, a national fund or other
similar arrangements [4]. Financial security can be
provided by Protection & Indemnity (P&I) clubs, but
states can also issue a list of institutions that can act as
providers of financial security. In practise, it has been
shown that the requirements of the MLC 2006 can best
be met by issuing a certificate of financial security
through the P&I club [5]. The financial security system
must provide direct access, adequate coverage and
prompt financial assistance to all abandoned seafarers
[6]. The assistance provided by the financial security
system shall be granted immediately upon request of
the seafarer or his nominated representative,
accompanied by the necessary justification of
abandonment. However, the effectiveness of these
measures is often undermined by inadequate
enforcement, particularly in countries with insufficient
maritime surveillance, and a lack of activity by P&I
clubs.
Following aforementioned, the aim of this paper is
to analyse the important issue of seafarers’
abandonment, focusing on flags of convenience and
the efforts of the ITF. By analysing the reported cases
of abandonment using data from the joint ILO/IMO
database on abandonment of seafarers, the paper seeks
to propose measures to strengthen the protection of
seafarers and ensure accountability in the maritime
industry.
2 METHODS
This study uses a quantitative research approach to
examine abandonment of seafarers, focusing on case
reports, international legal frameworks and industry
data. Data was collected from the joint ILO/IMO
database on abandonment of seafarers and from
detailed ITF case reports. The joint ILO/IMO database
contains various data such as ship type, reporting
entity, crew nationality, port of abandonment, etc. The
period analysed is from 01 January 2019 to 31
December 2024 and the analysis focuses on the
different roles of flag state, port state and ITF.
A content analysis was conducted to determine the
frequency of abandonment incidents per year, the flag
states involved, the port states where the abandonment
took place, the total number of seafarers involved in the
abandonment and the reporting entity.
Once the content analysis was completed, a
comparative analysis was carried out to determine in
which part of the world the most cases of abandonment
occur, under which ship flag the most cases of
abandonment are recorded and seafarers of which
nationality are most frequently abandoned. In
addition, the most frequently abandoned ship flags
were compared with the white, grey and black list of
the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The
Paris MoU and Riyadh MoU database was used to
compare the MLC 2006 deficiencies between the MoUs.
3 RESULTS
With the support of the International Ship Suppliers’
Association (ISSA), the ILO and the IMO established a
joint database in 2004 to record reported incidents of
abandonment of seafarers [7]. This section presents the
results of the analysis of data from the joint ILO/IMO
database on abandonment of seafarers. The main
results come from the analysis of the abandonment
cases, the reporting entity, the flag states of the
abandoned ships, the ports where the ships were
abandoned and the nationality of the abandoned
seafarers.
MLC 2006 prescribes precise conditions when
seafarers are deemed to be abandoned. There are three
criteria for abandonment:
1. shipowner fails to cover the cost of the seafarer’s
repatriation; or
2. has left the seafarer without necessary maintenance
and support; or
3. has otherwise unilaterally severed their ties with
the seafarer including failure to pay contractual
wages for a period of at least two months [6].
If one of the three conditions for abandonment is
met, the seafarer will be considered abandoned.
Between 2004 and the end of 2024, the database
documented a total of 1229 cases of abandonment [8].
In the analysed period from 2019 to 2024, 854 [8] cases
were recorded, which corresponds to 69,49% of all
reported incidents since the database was set up.
Abandonment incidents may be reported to the
database by a Member State or an organisation
accredited by the ILO or the IMO. Flag states, port
211
states, labour-supplying states and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) are entitled to report as well [7].
Each entity has its own role in reporting and resolving
abandonment cases. Most of these cases (802) were
reported by the ITF, followed by 29 cases reported by
flag states, 14 by the International Chamber of
Shipping (ICS), 8 by other NGOs and 1 by the IMO. It
is noteworthy that not a single case was reported by a
port state or labour-supply states.
Among flag states, only 8 states were active in
reporting abandonment cases during analysed period.
These are Belize, Greece, Liberia, Mexico, Denmark, the
United Kingdom, Namibia and Kenya. Of these, six are
considered national flags and two, Belize and Liberia,
are FOCs. The contribution of these flag states was
limited: Belize reported only three cases, Liberia 16
cases, Greece 5 cases and Mexico, Denmark, the UK,
Namibia and Kenya reporting one case each. Overall,
the flag states reported only 3,40% of the total cases of
abandonment during the period under review.
The ICS is a global trade organisation for
shipowners and operators, representing national
shipowners' associations worldwide and covering over
80 % of the world's merchant fleet [9]. Despite its
extensive influence and responsibility in the maritime
industry, the ICS has reported only 14 cases of seafarers
being abandoned in the last six years, representing
only 1,64% of all cases recorded cases during this
period.
During the analysed six-year period, ships
registered under 81 different flag states were
documented as abandoned. Among these, 33 were
FOC flags. While FOC flags constitute a relatively
modest 40,74% of the total flag states involved in
abandonment cases, the proportion of abandoned
vessels operating under FOC flags is significantly
higher. Specifically, 75,47% of all reported
abandonment cases occurred on ships flying FOC
flags. Given the extensive number of flag states
involved, a more detailed analysis was conducted,
focusing on those with over 30 registered
abandonment cases during the period.
The distribution of abandonment cases by flag state
with more than 30 registered abandonment cases
during the six-year period is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Flag states with over 30 registered abandonment
cases
The ILO/IMO joint database on abandonment of
seafarers includes a dedicated section addressing the
port states, who are the states where ports involved in
abandonment incidents are located. During the six-
year period, cases of abandonment were reported in
100 different countries around the world. However, in
18 cases the port state was not specified, leaving 836
cases available for detailed analysis. The data shows
that the highest number of abandonment cases, 251,
occurred in Middle Eastern countries, followed by 181
cases in Asia, 169 in Africa, 166 in Europe, 68 in the
Americas and 1 in Australia. This indicates that the
Middle East is a critical hotspot for abandonment cases.
The MLC 2006 contains a clear definition of the term
"abandonment" and specifies who seafarers are . There
are 193 countries worldwide [10] and during the six-
year period analysed in the joint ILO/IMO database on
abandonment of seafarers, cases of abandonment were
reported involving seafarers from 84 different
countries. The total number of abandoned seafarers
during this period reached 12437. The most affected
seafarers by abandonment are coming from India,
Ukraine, the Philippines, Syria and Indonesia. Of the
seafarers of these nationalities, over 600 seafarers per
nation were recorded as abandoned. The Philippines,
recognised as the world’s largest supplying country of
seafarers [11], is not the country with the highest
number of abandoned seafarers in the world. Instead,
Indian seafarers represent the largest proportion of
abandoned crew members, accounting for 21,82% of
the total reported cases. Syrian seafarers are in second
place with 10,93% of abandonment cases, followed by
Ukrainian seafarers with 8,69%, making them the third
most affected group of seafarers. Philippine seafarers
are in fourth place with 8,64% of cases, while
Indonesian seafarers are in fifth place with 5,66%.
4 DISCUSSION
Entities that can report cases of abandonment include
flag states, port states, labour- supplying states and
NGOs [7].
NGOs with consultative or observer status with the
IMO or ILO are authorised to report abandonment
incidents. Currently, 11 NGOs have consultative status
with the IMO and 20 are recognised by the ILO as
consultative or observer [7]. Among these
organisations, the ITF, an important organisation with
consultative status with the IMO, plays an active role
in monitoring and addressing abandonment cases,
further strengthening global efforts to protect
seafarers’ rights.
According to data from the joint ILO/IMO database
on abandonment of seafarers, the number of
abandonment cases has shown a steady upward trend,
as shown in Figure 2. In particular, 630 cases, or 73,77%
of all cases reported in the six-year period, have been
reported in the last three years.
In 2019, a year before the pandemic, 53 cases of
seafarer abandonment were reported. By 2024, this
number had risen to 323 cases [8], a significant increase
of 609,43% in six years. With the official declaration of
the end of the COVID-19 pandemic on 5 May 2023,
most port and ship restrictions were lifted, allowing
ITF inspectors to carry out inspections again
unhindered. This facilitated access contributed to the
sharp increase in reported abandonment cases in 2023.
Over the years, the ITF has become more and more
effective in detecting, reporting and resolving
abandonment cases.
212
Figure 2 Reported abandonment cases from 2014. till 2024.
The resolution of an abandonment case is defined
by strict criteria set by the ILO [4]. These strict
conditions ensure that the resolution process takes full
account of both the logistical and financial
consequences of abandonment and protects the rights
and welfare of seafarers.
The distribution of abandonment cases by year and
reporting entity is visible in Figure 3, which illustrates
the dominant role of the ITF in identifying and
reporting incidents.
Figure 3. Distribution of abandonment cases by year and
reporting entity
During the six-year period under review, the ITF
was responsible for reporting 93,91% of all
documented cases, demonstrating its critical role in
identifying, reporting and resolving abandonment
incidents. The ITF has made great efforts to make
international maritime organisations aware of
abandonment cases and the importance of resolving
them. Within its inspectorate, the ITF has developed
effective procedures to identify, report and resolve
abandonment cases. They have also developed an
effective system for training their inspectors.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS), flag states are obliged to
implement and enforce international maritime
regulations for all ships registered under their flag.
Flag states are responsible for controlling the activities
of ships, including national and international labour
regulations. As all flag states try to attract shipowners
to register their ships under their flag, there is a lot of
competition between flag states [12]. Flag states
delegate their responsibility to Recognised
Organisations (ROs) and this relationship is regulated
by the Code for Recognized Organizations (RO Code)
adopted by the IMO. All this affects the performance of
many registers in the application of international
standards [12-16]. The IMO is responsible for
developing and adopting these regulations, primarily
through international conventions such as SOLAS
(International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea),
MARPOL (International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships), STCW
(International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers) and the
MLC 2006. Responsibility to verify the enforcement of
these regulations lies with the flag states, often in co-
operation with classification societies and through
inspections carried out by the Port State Control (PSC).
However, the IMO uses the IMO Member State Audit
Scheme (IMSAS) to check whether the flag states are
implementing the rules and regulations prescribed in
the conventions. The limited involvement of flag states
in reporting and resolving abandonment cases is a
significant concern. During the period analysed, only
26 cases were reported by flag states. A more proactive
and determined commitment by flag states is essential
to address the systematic problems of abandonment
and to honour their obligations under international
maritime conventions. If the flag state is vigilant and
properly fulfils its obligation to carry out regular
inspections, the cases of abandonment can be
prevented or detected in time and the shipowner can
be requested by the flag state to take appropriate
measures to resolve the abandonment [5]. Flag states
can force P&I clubs to play a more active role in
providing financial security to seafarers through their
legal framework and enforcement practises [17].
Naming and shaming is often presented as an
alternative when enforcement is ineffective [18]. The
IMO and the ILO apply this policy, but it may have
limited effectiveness when it comes to taking action
against inactive flag states [19]. The IMO and the ILO
should adopt regulations requiring all flag states to
initiate appropriate proceedings against any
shipowner or P&I club suspected of having violated its
obligations under the MLC 2006. Similar is already
implemented in MARPOL convention [20].
Furthermore, all parties that do not comply with
international rules and regulations should face the
consequences such as:
− Financial penalties,
− A blacklist of shipowners and P&I clubs who have
failed to meet their obligations under the MLC 2006,
− Withdrawal of the right of flag states to participate
in the governing bodies of international
organizations,
− Revocation of the license of crewing agencies
working with shipowners who are known to have
abandoned their crews in the past.
As already mentioned, the ICS represents national
shipowners' associations worldwide, and as they
represent the majority of the world's merchant fleet, a
proactive and systematic approach by the ICS in
reporting and resolving cases of abandonment is
crucial. The ICS may establish a blacklist of shipowners
who have abandoned their seafarers and a blacklist of
P&I clubs who have failed to meet their obligations
under the MLC 2006. This list could be publicly
available so that all interested parties, such as
charterers, flags and others, can see how certain
shipowners treat their crew. Increased ICS engagement
would go a long way towards protecting the welfare of
seafarers and ensuring that shipowners fully comply
213
with international maritime conventions and
standards.
With a fleet of 8662 registered ships and a total gross
tonnage of 249,8 million, Panama is the largest flag
state in the world [21]. This extensive ship Register
correlates with its high proportion of abandonment
cases. In the last six years, Panama has recorded 160
cases of abandonment, representing 18,74% of all
reported abandonment cases during this period. After
Panama, several other flag states reported more than
30 cases of abandonment. These include Palau,
Tanzania, Comoros, Togo, Saint Kitts and Nevis (St. K
& N), Liberia and Cameroon. These figures illustrate
that certain flag states play a prominent role in the
abandonment of seafarers and highlight the need for
increased monitoring and enforcement in their
jurisdictions. The ratio of registered to abandoned
ships for certain flag states is shown in Figure 4. The
flag states with the highest percentage of abandoned
cases are Togo, Cameroon, Tanzania, Comoros and
Palau. In an interview conducted with ITF inspectors
who are dealing with abandonment cases, they also
highlight four of five flags with the highest
percentage of abandonment cases. They also confirm
that these flags are among the most uncooperative flags
when it comes to resolving abandonment cases. If we
compare their registry with some other registries like
Panama, we see that the number of registered vessels
is not that high. To increase their revenue and the
number of registered ships, they accept all kinds of
ships, but unfortunately, most of them are very old,
substandard ships with questionable ownership. In
some cases, it has been noted that some flags simply
withdraw their flag when abandonment happens. In
this way, they are escaping from their obligations
under international conventions. It is important to
emphasise that six of the eight analysed flag States
have ratified the MLC 2006 [22]. As most FOC flags are
inactive in resolving abandonment cases, this has led
to the PSC becoming the main mechanism for
enforcing international maritime standards. The IMO
and the ILO have developed comprehensive guidelines
and procedures to assist flag state inspectors and PSC
inspectors in effectively dealing with deficiencies and
abandonment cases [4] [23-25].
Figure 4. The ratio between registered and abandoned
vessels
The purpose of the PSC is to protect coastal areas
and the economic activities of their country from the
risks posed by substandard vessels. The PSC does not
check whether the ship complies with national flag
regulations. It only checks whether the ship complies
with international rules and regulations. To streamline
PSC efforts, regional MoUs have been established to
harmonise inspection systems, improve operational
capacity, and reduce competitive differences between
ports in the same geographic region [26-31]. There are
9 MoU agreements worldwide , but only the Paris and
Riyadh MoU databases were analysed for this study.
The Paris MoU facilitates over 17000 inspections of
foreign-flagged ships in its member states [32]. These
inspections ensure compliance with international
standards in terms of safety, security and
environmental protection, as well as ensuring decent
living and working conditions for seafarers. Given the
robust inspection framework, the Paris MoU database
was used to assess the compliance status of eight flag
states with more than 30 recorded abandonment cases.
The analysis correlated the performance of these flag
states with their classification on the Paris MoU’s
white, grey and black lists, which indicates their
compliance with international maritime standards.
Their status is shown in Table 1 .
Table 1 Movement of flag States on Paris MoU White, Grey
and Black list over the last five years
2021
WHITE
LIST
LIBERIA
PANAMA
GREY
LIST
ST. K & N
PALAU
TANZANIA
BLACK
LIST
COMOROS
TOGO
CAMEROON
The analysis shows that some flags were constantly
on the Paris MoU’s blacklist during the period under
review, demonstrating their poor performance in
implementing international rules and regulations.
The years 2022 and 2023 were crucial for the flag
states, as their status on the Paris MoU lists changed
significantly during these years, with several moving
from the white to the grey or from the grey to the black
list. There is an obvious correlation between these
status changes and the increase in abandonment cases
reported in the same years. Flag states that experienced
a downgrading of their Paris MoU classification also
reported a significant increase in abandonment cases,
as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Number of reported abandonment cases per flag
per year
The database with the inspection results of the Paris
MoU allows us to review all the deficiencies related to
the MLC 2006 and detainable deficiencies . A
214
comparison shows that there is a direct correlation
between the increase in detainable deficiencies of the
MLC 2006 and the increase in cases where the vessels
were abandoned, as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Comparison of MLC 2006 detainable deficiencies
from Paris MoU database and abandonment cases that
occurred in Paris MoU states
The analysis confirms that Middle Eastern ports are
becoming a “hotspot” for abandonment cases. The
ports of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), one of the
richest countries in the world, has the highest number
of reported abandonment cases, not only in the Middle
East but also worldwide. Of the total reported cases,
15,34% (131 cases) were in UAE ports. After the UAE,
Iran ranks second in the region and globally with 5,97%
(51 cases) of abandonment incidents taking place in its
ports. Saudi Arabia, another wealthy nation, reported
38 cases at its ports, while all other Middle Eastern
countries combined recorded 31 cases. In the oil
monarchies, international pressure, particularly
through trade agreement negotiations with the USA,
has triggered a trend towards higher labour standards
[33]. It is noteworthy that only Cyprus, Syria, Oman
and Iran ratified the MLC 2006 [22], while other
countries in the region, including the UAE and Saudi
Arabia, have not. As non-signatories, these countries
are not legally bound by the rules and regulations
established under the MLC 2006. Consequently, this
regulatory gap may contribute to their ports becoming
“hotspots” for cases of abandonment. Only one
member of the Riyadh MoU, Oman, has ratified the
MLC 2006. All other members have not ratified the
MLC 2006, but they have ratified some other ILO
conventions [34] whose standards may be subject to
PSC inspections. Since all member states of the Paris
MoU have ratified the MLC 2006 [22] and the Riyadh
MoU region is the region with the highest number of
abandonment cases, Figure 7 shows a comparison
between the deficiencies identified in the Paris and
Riyadh MoUs with respect to the MLC 2006 and other
ILO conventions ratified by the Riyadh MoU states.
Even if there are no seafarers' unions in these
countries, the ITF should work with the countries that
have not ratified the MLC 2006 to train their PSC
inspectors and make them aware of abandonment
incidents and ensure that they are resolved as quickly
as possible. The absence of ITF inspectors in most
countries in the region, including the UAE and Saudi
Arabia, is likely to exacerbate the problem. The
analysis of all the above confirms that ITF inspectors
play a crucial role in monitoring shipowners’
compliance with international labour standards and in
protecting seafarers’ rights. Their presence could deter
shipowners from neglecting their obligations and
facilitate cooperation with local maritime authorities to
speed up the resolution of abandonment cases. The
absence of such monitoring mechanisms highlights a
significant gap in the protection of seafarers in the
Middle East.
Figure 7. Comparison between MLC 2006 related deficiencies
recorded in Paris and Riyadh MoU
In addition to the Middle Eastern countries, Egypt
(50 cases), India (35 cases) and Turkey (59 cases) are
other global ports with more than 30 reported cases of
abandonment. Both Egypt and Turkey have not
ratified the MLC 2006. Although Turkey has not
ratified the MLC 2006, but it has 3 ITF inspectors. Their
presence leads to a higher number of solved cases of
abandonment in this country. This is proof that ITF
inspectors can be a very important tool for resolving
abandonment cases, even in countries that have not
ratified the MLC 2006.
The most affected seafarers by abandonment are
coming from India, Ukraine, the Philippines, Syria and
Indonesia. If we compare the number of abandoned
seafarers with the total number of registered seafarers
in these countries [35], it can be seen that the number is
negligible. Even if the number is negligible, as shown
in Figure 8, it is unacceptable that abandonment of
seafarers still occurs in the 21st century.
Figure 8. Comparison of registered and abandoned seafarers
During analysed period, 1359 Syrian seafarers were
registered as abandoned, which corresponds to 10,93%
of all abandoned seafarers. Since the number of
registered Syrian seafarers is 323 [35] and the number
of abandoned seafarers is 1359, it can be concluded that
some seafarers were abandoned more than once, or
that the Syrian Maritime Administration does not keep
adequate records of Syrian seafarers.
215
Figure 9. Abandoned seafarers over six-year period by nation
The number of abandoned Indian seafarers has
increased year on year, as shown in Figure 9, indicating
an upward trend. Unfortunately, this pattern suggests
that the number of abandoned Indian seafarers is likely
to increase further unless significant measures, such as
better monitoring of crewing agencies and the
shipowners who use their services, are taken to address
the underlying causes of abandonment. All
governments should improve monitoring capabilities
and strengthen mechanisms to implement the
provisions of the MLC 2006 convention, all with the
aim of protecting seafarers of their nationality. Local
unions affiliated to the ITF should also do more to
protect seafarers of their nationality by engaging in
open dialogue with government departments
responsible for seafarers. In this way, governments will
become aware about the abandonment issue and can
use their power to raise it in the IMO and ILO.
5 CONCLUSION
Analysis of seafarers’ abandonment cases over the last
six years shows a concerning and sustained increase in
cases, with a clear concentration in certain regions and
ships flying specific flag states. While international
regulations such as the MLC 2006 and the ILO and IMO
monitoring mechanisms aim to prevent and resolve
cases of abandonment, enforcement of these
regulations remains inconsistent. The ITF's central role
in reporting and addressing cases of abandonment
underscores the inadequate participation of flag states,
port states and labour-supplying states in fulfilling
their legal and ethical responsibilities. However,
insufficient actions of certain flag states and over-
reliance on third parties reveals critical deficiencies in
the existing system, such as a lack of control. The ITF's
strong efforts coping with abandonment cases need to
be followed up with stronger support from
international institutions and organisations such as the
IMO, ICS and the ILO to fight against abandonment.
This support can include engaging in dialogue with
countries that have not ratified the MLC 2006, as well
as the establishment of seafarers' unions and stricter
inspection procedures in these countries.
The Middle East, in particular the UAE, has become
a hotspot for cases of abandonment, mainly due to the
lack of ratification of MLC 2006 causing insufficient
enforcement of labour standards at sea. Furthermore,
the increasing number of abandoned seafarers
indicates a worrying trend that requires the
intervention of both national authorities and
international bodies. The relatively strong correlation
between flag state performance on the Paris MoU lists
and abandoned seafarer cases shows that there is a
need to strengthen regulatory oversight and
compliance monitoring, but also to introduce
additional measures and procedures. The PSCs as one
of the main instruments to eliminate substandard
shipowners should be accompanied by additional
measures, such as penalising shipowners or giving
more consideration to deficiencies under the MLC
2006. Flag States should also make more efforts to take
more responsibility and put the interests of seafarers
on an equal footing with the financial interests of
shipowners.
A more proactive approach is needed for the future,
including stricter enforcement of international
conventions, greater accountability of flag states and
stronger cooperation between maritime authorities,
trade unions and NGOs. Without decisive action, cases
of abandonment are likely to continue to increase and
further jeopardize the rights, welfare and livelihoods of
seafarers worldwide. All parties involved in
abandonment cases should start acting proactively and
not just talking about abandonment. One of the
effective proactive measures could be the
establishment of a special fund financed by fines from
inactive shipowners and the introduction of
mandatory requirements for P&I clubs and flag states
to cover the wages and repatriation costs of abandoned
seafarers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the ITF & PSC
inspectors who participated in the survey.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Ferrari, p. Christidis, P. Bolsi, The impact of rising
maritime transport costs on international trade:
Estimation using a multi-region general equilibrium
model, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary
Perspective 22 (2023),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100985
[2] ITF, What focs mean to seafarers.
https://www.itfseafarers.org/en/issues/flags-of-
convenience/current-registries-listed-focs , 2024
(Accessed 18 Nov. 2024).
[3] H. Sampson, ‘Beyond the State’: The limits of
international regulation and the example of abandoned
seafarers, Marine Policy, Volume 140, June 2022, 105046
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105046
[4] ILO & IMO, Guidelines on how to deal with seafarer
abandonment cases, TWGSHE/2022/7, Sectoral Policies
Department, Geneva, 2022.
[5] M. Gupta, S. Shanthakumar, Seafarer Abandonment and
Vessel’s Flag State Role Analysis, Transactions on
Maritime Science, vol.11, No. 01, 260-269, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.7225/toms.v11.n01.019
[6] ILO, Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended,
including 2018. Amendments., International Labour
Conference, ILO – Geneva 2006.
[7] IMO, Legal affairs, Seafarers abandonment.
https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/legal/pages/seafarer-
abandonment.aspx 2024 (Accessed 23 Nov. 2024).
[8] ILO/IMO joint database on abandonment of seafarers.
https://wwwex.ilo.org/dyn/f?p=63500:6::::6:: 2024
(Accessed 16 Feb.2024).
216
[9] Percentage of shipowners presented by ICS.
https://www.ics-shipping.org/about-ics/ , 2024 (Accessed
25 Nov. 2024).
[10] UN, Number of countries in the world,
https://www.un.org/en/about-us , 2024 (Accessed 14 Dec.
2024).
[11] UNCTAD, Press Release,
UNCTAD/PRESS/PR/2021/042, https://unctad.org/press-
material/asia-expands-its-lead-maritime-trade-and-
business , 2021 (Accessed 03 Dec. 2024).
[12] J.N.K. Mansell, Flag State Responsibility: Historical
Development and Contemporary Issues, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 91–115.
DOI:10.1007/978-3-540-92933-8
[13] T. Alderton, N. Winchester, Flag states and safety: 1997-
1999, Marit. Policy Manag. vol. 29 (2) (Apr. 2002) 151–162,
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03088830110090586
[14] A.A. Hebbar, S.J. Geymonat, Simple, intuitive key
performance indicators for flag state performance and its
pilot application in Latin-America, J. Saf. Sci. Resil. vol. 2
(3) (Sep. 2021) 101–110,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnlssr.2021.06.003
[15] A. Bergantino, P. Marlow, Factors influencing the choice
of flag: empirical evidence, Marit. Policy Manag. vol. 25
(2) (Jan. 1998) 157–174, https://doi.org/
10.1080/03088839800000026
[16] A.J.E. Corres, A.A. Pallis, Flag state performance: An
empirical analysis, WMU J. Marit. Aff. vol. 7 (1) (Apr.
2008) 241–261, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195134
[17] P. Bennett, Mutual risk: P&I insurance clubs and
maritime safety and environmental performance, Marine
Policy vol. 25 (Jan. 2001) 13-21, DOI:10.1016/S0308-
597X(00)00029-4
[18] J. van Erp, T. Spapens, K. van Wingerde, Legal and
Extralegal Enforcement of Pollution by Seagoing Vessels,
Hazardous Waste and Pollution (Jan. 2015) 163-176,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18081-6_10
[19] A. K. Tripathy, I. Shaikh, N. S. Bisht, Flag of convenience
and the tragedy of the commons in maritime
transportation, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 208
(Nov. 2024.), 117034,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.117034
[20] A. I. Bassey, P. C. Aloamaka, Implementation of
International Laws on Marine Pollution: Challenges and
Prospects, Journal of Legal Studies & Research vol. 5 (Oct.
2022) 146-163, ISSN: 2455-2437
[21] Consulat general de Panama, Marseille, Number of
registered ships. 2023.
https://www.consulatgeneraldepanamamarseille.com/pa
nama-continues-to-be-the-leader-in-ship-registrations-
with-8662-vessels/ , 2023 (Accessed 02 Nov. 2024).
[22] ILO, Ratification of MLC 2006 by country.
https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXP
UB:80001:0, 2024 (Accessed 12 Dec 2024).
[23] ILO, Guidelines for port State control officers carrying
out inspections under the Maritime Labour Convention,
2006, as amended. Second revised edition, ILO - Geneva,
2022.
[24] ILO, Guidelines for flag State inspections under the
Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, ILO – Geneva, 2006-
2009.
[25] IMO, Procedures for Port State Control, 2021. Paper
A32/Res.1155, IMO – London, 2022.
[26] K.X. Li, H. Zheng, Enforcement of law by the Port State
Control (PSC), Marit. Policy Manag. vol. 35 (1) (Feb. 2008)
61–71, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03088830701848912
[27] J. Hare, “Port state control: strong medicine to cure a sick
industry, Ga. J. Int’l Comp. L. vol. 26 (1996) 571 [Online].
Available, https://digitalcommons.law.uga.
edu/gjicl/vol26/iss3/3
[28] A. Graziano, P. Cariou, F.C. Wolff, M.Q. Mejia, J.-U. Schr¨
oder-Hinrichs, Port state control inspections in the
European Union: Do inspector’s number and background
matter? Mar. Policy vol. 88 (Feb. 2018) 230–241,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2017.11.031
[29] R. Yan, S. Wang, Ship Inspection by Port State Control—
Review of Current Research, Smart Transportation
Systems 2019, Springer, 233–241, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8683-1_24
[30] H. Karahalios, Contribution of PSC Authorities to Ship
Accident Prevention, Oper. Res. Forum vol. 2 (1) (2021)
11, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-021-00053-4
[31] P. Cariou, M.Q. Mejia, F.C. Wolff, On the effectiveness of
port state control inspections, Transp. Res. Part E Logist.
Transp. Rev. vol. 44 (3) (May 2008) 491–503,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2006.11.005
[32] Paris MoU, Details about organisation and data
collection for white, grey and black list.
https://parismou.org/about-us/organisation , 2024
(Accessed 18 Oct. 2024).
[33] M. Cammett, M. P. Posusney, Labor Standards and
Labor Market Flexibility in the Middle East: Free Trade
and Freer Unions?, Studies in Comparative International
Development vol. 45 (May 2010) 250-279,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-010-9062-z
[34] ILO, List of ILO conventions ratified by country,
https://www.ilo.org/regions-and
countries?regions%5B1666%5D=1666&search_api_fulltex
t=#sortedindex (Accessed 23 Feb.2025)
[35] UNCTAD, Number of registered seafarers in the world
https://unctadstat.unctad.org/datacentre/dataviewer/US.
Seafarers , 2021 (Accessed 28 Nov. 2024).