363
1 INTRODUCTION
AfterthenotoriousterrorattackintheUnitedStates
of America (U.S.) on September 11th, 2001, the
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
developed a set of maritime security regulations for
managingtheriskofmaritimeterrorismwiththeaim
to improve maritime and port security. These
provisions were established
in Chapter XI‐2 of the
Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1974, (SOLAS
Convention), containing the new International Ship
andPortFacilitySecurityCode(ISPSCode).PartAof
thisCodeestablishesthemandatoryprovisions,while
the non‐mandatory (“recommended”) part B
encompasses guidelines about how to comply with
themandatoryrequirementsofpartA(IMO,Official
website,2017).
Implementation and Compliance of the International
Ship and Port Facility Security Code in Mexico: A
literature Review and Selected Issues
A.Ávila‐Zúñiga‐Nordfjeld&D.Dalaklis
WorldMaritimeUniversity,Malmö,Sweden
ABSTRACT:Thispaperprovidesaliteraturereviewofthestateoftheartonimplementationandcomplianceof
theInternationalShipandPortFacilitySecurityCode(ISPSCode),forthecaseofMexico.Thisinvestigation
was initially oriented solely towards Mexico, but due to the absence
of research within this subject for the
referredcountrythereviewhadtobedonethroughsubcategorieswiththeconditionalconnectionofMexico
andrelevantissueswereselected.Theprimarydataconfirmedtheabsenceofresearchwithinthissubjectin
Mexico.Thesecondarydata,wereotherwordsrelatedtothe
ISPSCodewereusedforthesearch,allowedfora
widergeographicalcoverageandanexpandedongeneralbasesthescopeofanalysis,sinceten(10)different
academic databases were exploited. The literature review from an author‐centric approach is initially
presented;then,itisusedasthebasistofurther
develop(andexamine)theconcept‐centricapproach,through
eight selected categories. The careful screening of literature, constructed on specific concepts, allowed the
identification of cross fertilization of such concepts in the respective fields. It is observed that the research
effortsfocusedontheISPSCodeandthedevelopmentofa
PortFacilitySecurityPlan(PFSP)haveanintegrated
perspective,wherethecategoriesofterrorismandcounterterrorism,aswellasmaritimesecuritymanagement
and the issue of port security have a strong interaction and dominant status. The results demonstrate the
limitednumberofacademiccontributionsintheseareasfromAmericaCentraland
SouthAmericainrelationto
otherpartsoftheglobe,aswellasthetotalabsenceofresearcheffortsabouttheISPSCodeinMexico.Inthe
scientific contributions on the subject were Mexico is included; it is in reference to isolated cases of armed
robbery,drugsorganizationsorproliferation
ofcrimeongeneralbases,butnotregardingtheISPSCodeitself.
Theabsence of scientificresearchon thisareaforthespecific country might alsoberelatedtothelackofa
nationalmaritimesecuritypolicyandapoormaritimesecuritycultureastheauthorshavepointedoutinother
contributions.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 12
Number 2
June 2018
DOI:10.12716/1001.12.02.18
364
The IMO establishes that the ISPS Code is “the
comprehensive set of measures to enhance the
security of ships and port facilities, developed in
response to the perceived threats to ships and port
facilitiesinthewakeofthe9/11attacksintheUnited
States”(IMO,Officialwebsite,2017).As
explainedby
Nordfjeld&Dalaklis(2016),compliancewiththeISPS
CodeandsubmissionofrelatedinformationtoIMOis
onlymandatoryfor Contracting Governments to the
SOLAS1974Convention.Theyhavealsopointedout
that currently “there is not a penalty‐mechanism in
placeforstatesthatdon’teffectivelycomply
withthe
ISPSCode”,sincetheoverallconceptisnottoimpose
penalties,buttorelyonmarketforcesandeconomic
factorstoensurecompliance.
The development of Port Facility Security Plans
(PFSPs) has been discussed within the context of
maritime security management systems in several
researcheffortsaftertheapproval
oftheISPSCodeby
the IMO; it has been viewed as the most important
instrument to cope with potential security risks at
ports and associated infrastructure‐installations.
Mexico implemented the ISPS Code in 2004 yet, the
development/establishment of PFSPs has not been
fully effective, especially regarding security incident
reporting
and investigation. Incident record keeping
and the consequent investigation are crucial for the
performance and applicability of PFSPs, since these
Plans must be amended attending the causes of the
investigatedevent.
As discussed by Webster & Watson (2002), an
effectiveliterature reviewisa crucialfoundation for
advancing knowledge, because it
defines the key
sources for a topicunder research and uncoversthe
areas where (more) research is necessary, giving a
clear contribution to science. Additionally, an
effective literature review must follow academic
guidelines to rigorously document the process of
literaturesearchasdiscussedbyBrocke,etal.(2009);
theliterature
reviewinhandsstrictlyfollowsalinear
andsimpleapproachthatensuresacademicintegrity.
Thefoundationofthemethodologyusedispresented
in the next section; subsequently, the results are
discussed,followedbythenecessaryconclusions.
2 OBJECTIVES
Theobjectiveofthispaperistoexaminethestateof
theart
relatedtotheimplementationandcompliance
of the International Ship and Port Facility Security
Code(ISPSCode)withinthecontextofportsecurity
in Mexico, based on a cross‐disciplinary approach
amongeightselectedcategories.
3 METHODOLOGY
Webster&Watson(2002,p.xiv)explainedthatahigh
quality review must
cover all relevant literature on
thetopicandshouldnotbeconfinedtoalimitedset
ofjournals. Therefore,athorough search by topic in
different databases across all relevant journals and
across all disciplines must be performed. The
contextual boundary is within the scope of the
development of the PFSP
for port oil terminals in
Mexico,undertheframeworkoftheopeningoftheoil
industry in that country; the respective time‐based
boundarycoversallarticlespublishedinjournalsand
conference proceedings until the indicated dates for
searchatthedatabasesgiven intable1thatfollows.
Thistable
describestheconsidereddatabasesforthis
literaturereviewandtheparametersforquerying.
The literature search method encompassed
querying ten (10) different scientific databases as
proposed by Webster & Watson (2002, p. xvi). The
firsttestwasmadebackinJune2015,withthesearch
queriesfor“ISPSCodeMexico”.This
resultedinonly
onebookreviewaboutmilitary law.Newtests with
otherwords weretried.Thekeywords used for the
search criteria, excluding the Google Scholar
Database, were “offshore, terrorism, Mexico”.
Furthermore, since probably there are thousands of
articles related to each of these concepts, testing
different combination
of them was required. Other
combinationofwordsweretestedfirst,like“offshore,
terrorism, resilience” and “offshore, terrorism,
resilience,securitymanagementsystems,ISPSCode”.
Itwasdiscoveredthatthesesearchenquiriescovered
averyfewitems.Additionally, thesearch“offshore,
terrorism,ISPSCode,Mexico”wastried.Atthe end
ofthe
successivetestqueries,thekeywords“offshore,
terrorism,Mexico”wastested.Thisoneprovidedthe
largestnumber of items; it was also noted thatwith
thissearchqueryseveralarticlesincludedintheother
tests were also included in the results (largest data
sample). It is important to recall that the
search for
“ISPS Code Mexico” resulted in zero items and
therefore, the words “offshore, terrorism, Mexico”
wereusedwithreasoningthatISPSCodefocuseson
terrorismandprovidesmaritimesecuritymeasuresto
counter terrorism both at ports and at sea and the
condition that we were searching for results in
Mexico.
Other type of maritime security threats like
piracy;armedrobbery;stowaways;illegalmigration;
anddrugsmuggling,arenotdirectlycoveredbythe
ISPS Code, since it leaves up to the discretion of
contracting governments to SOLAS, its extension of
applicationtothesetypeofsubjects(IMO,2012),and
hencethey
werenotconsideredforthesearchquery.
Since the words used for querying the different
databases were in English, the search included only
academic journal articles written in English.
However, for the Google Scholar Database another
combinationofwordsinSpanishwasused;“Mexico,
terrorismo, instalaciones portuarias petroleras, plan
deprotección”
11
.Thetimeboundarywasspecifiedto
2004‐2015 (after the ISPFS Code was introduced).
Even if the words were in Spanish, some articles in
English were also captured by this search. It was
decidedtoalsouseGoogleScholarbecauseseveralof
theleadingscientificjournalsinSpanishareindexed
there. The considered databases for this literature
reviewandtheparametersforqueryingarealllisted
inTable1.
11
Mexico,terrorism,oilportinstallations,securityplan.
365
Table1.Databasesandparametersforsearchenquiry
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
DatabaseWordsDateof Period Nr.Articles RelevantarticlesRelevantarticles
ofsearchsearch &Language /Books aftertitle afterAbstract/
ofsearchPreface/Contents
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1)CRC‐net‐Base Offshoreterrorism 03.06.2015 Nonspecified 1904021
Mexico(OTM)
(2)ProQuest(OTM)05.06.2015 Nonspecified 281510
12
(3)Science‐Direct (OTM)06.06.2015279365
(4)AcademicSearch (OTM)06.06.2015 Nonspecified 100
CompleteWMU
(5)Ingenta‐Connect (OTM)06.06.2015 Nonspecified 000
Database
(6)Springer(OTM)06.06.2015Nonspecified 110
(7)EmeraldInsight (OTM)21.08.2015 Nonspecified 82126
(8)IEEEXploreDigital(OTM)21.08.2015 Nonspecified 134213
Library
(9)WileyOnline (OTM)21.08.2015 Nonspecified 6143517
Library
(10)GoogleScholarMexicoterrorismoinst. 22.08.2015 2004‐2015 4723411
Port.petrolerasplan
deseguridad
13
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
180119473
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
12
InadditiontotwocountedandrepeatedinCRC‐netdatabase.
13
Mexico,terrorismo,instalacionesportuariaspetroleras,plandeprotección.
On 2
nd
of March, 2018 and with an effort to re‐
evaluatethestateoftheartandupdatetheresults,a
newtestwiththesearchquery“ISPSCode,Mexico”
wasconducted.ThistimeitwasmadeonlyinEBSCO
since this scientific search instrument covers all the
databasesabove,theresults
showedonlyoneitem.To
ensure that it was the right search query and avoid
human bias; the words “ISPS Code” but in
combinationwithseveralothercountrieswerefurther
tested.TheseresultsareprovidedinTable2.
Table2. Number of research contributions by the
combinationofISPSCodeandthecountry
_______________________________________________
ISPSCODE+COUNTRY
_______________________________________________
COUNTRYNR.OFCONTRIBUTIONS/
ARTICLES
_______________________________________________
UnitedStates29,107
Europe15,276
UnitedKingdom27,442
Greece12,809
Turkey12,721
Sweden13,447
Norway12,915
Canada4
Mexico1
Brazil13,015
Argentina12,641
Chile12,645
Peru12,529
Panama12,648
_______________________________________________
Basedonthisoutcome,theresultsfromthesearch
of2015wereused.However,itwasdiscoveredlater
that the contributions were not directly related to
Mexico concerning the ISPS Code, but rather
connectingthecountrytoisolatedcrimecasesordrug
organizations.
4 RESULTS
As shown in Table
1, the search from June 2015
resultedinto1,801articles/books,whichwasreduced
to only 194 after examining the titles; these were
furtherreducedto75afterconsiderationofabstracts
orprefacesummary,aswellasintroductionandtable
ofcontentsinthecaseofbooks.Thosethatwerenot
included
in the next stage were clearly related to
concepts that had a better fit with a different
discipline‐oradifferentcontext‐anddidnotcomply
with the specific combination. The literature review
fromanauthor‐centricapproachispresentedinTable
IIIwhichfollowsnext.Inaccordancewiththe
typeof
contributions from the results, eight categories were
selected to further study the topic and used for
developingtheliteraturereview.Thesecategoriesare
thefollowing:
Concept 1= Terrorism (at sea or maritime
terrorism).
Concept2=Counterterrorism
Concept3=PortFacilitySecurityPlan
Concept 4= International
Ship and Port Facility
SecurityCode
Concept5=MaritimeSecurity
Concept6=Safety
Concept7=OilSpill&EnvironmentalProtection
Concept 8= Resilience plan –In the sense of
prevention & response & to emergencies
(preventiveandreactivemeasurestoemergencies)
Asitcanbeobserved in
table III that follows, in
various research efforts (mostly books), the focus
includestheanalysisofdifferentconceptsinrelation
to the eight categories selected above. A significant
number of books focused on port and maritime
security, addressing the ISPS Code and PFSP.
However, it is noteworthy that safety issues, as
a
result of security incidents were also addressed in
these books. Within this category, the issue most
commonlyidentifiedwasmarinepollutioncausedby
366
oil spill associated with security incidents. The
complete list of the references related to these
researchitemsispresentedinAppendixI.
Table3.Author‐centricliteraturereview
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
AuthorType Methods1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
1
14
(Schulz,2011)
15
CH Bookx x x x x
1(Pilewsk&Pilewski,2012)CH Bookx
1(Norman,2012)CH Bookxx x
1(Bolz,Dudonis,&Schulz,2012)CH Bookxx
1(Hesterman,2013)Pages295‐300CH Bookxx
1(Doro‐on,2014)CH Bookx
1(Perdikaris,2014)CH Bookx x x x
1(Kenneth,2009)
16
Book Bookx x x x x x x x
1(T.&Tweedy,2014)Book Bookx
1(Espin‐Digon,Burns‐Herbert,&Bateman,2008)
17
Book Bookx x x x x x x x
1(Badiru&Racz,2013)Book Bookx
1(Rogers,2007)Book Bookx
1(Neumann,2013)Book Bookx
1(Pinkowski,2008)Bookx
1(Mythen,2014)CH Bookx x
1(Lutchman,Maharaj,&Waddah,2012)Book Book
x x
1(Bahr,2014)Book Bookx
1(Park,2013)Book Bookx
1(Theodore&Dupont,2012)Book Bookx x
1(Spurgin,2009)Book Bookx
2(Cullen&Berube,2012)Book Bookx x x
2(Klein,Rothwell,&Mossop,2009)Book Bookx x x
2
(Tuerk,2012)Book Bookx
2(Weintrit&Neumann,2013)Book Bookx
2(Bragdon,2008)Book Bookxx x
2(Tanaka,2012)Book Bookx xx x
2(MartínezGutiérrez,2009)Book Bookx
2(Weintrit&Adam,2009)Book Bookx x x x x x
2(Tan,2005)Book Bookx
2(Ringbom,2007)Book Bookx
3(Papa,July)Article ComparativeApproach/Doc.Analysis xx
3(Safford,Ulrich,&Hamilton,2012)Article Empirical.Tele‐phoneSurveysx
&Interviews
3(Jaradat&Keating,2014)
18
Article Literaturereviewandconceptualx
analysisof“criticalinfrastructure”
3(Lichterman,1999)Article Reflectiveanalysisxx
3(Piètre‐Cambacédès&Bouissou,2013)
19
Article LiteratureReviewCrossconceptualx x
analysis
7(Phillips,2008)CH TerrorAttackIdentification&Analysis x x
7(Aronica,Mukhtyar,&Coon,2001)Article Analysisofcaselaw.x
7(Mugarura,2014)Article Qualitative.SecondaryDataAnalysis. x
Doc.Analysis
7(Goede,2013)
20
Article Qualitative.Exploratorycomparative x
caseanalysis
7(Haynes,2000)Article QualitativeComparativecaseanalysis x
7(Hoti&McAleer,2005)CH ApplyRiskAssessmentmodeltoxx
evaluatesecurityof120countries
8(Singha,Bellerby,&Trieschmann,2012)Article Sensitivityanalysisofoilspill.x
8(Middleton,
GlosecLtd.,Day,& Lallie,2012) Article UseNmapandNessustotestnetworkx
vulnerabilitiesinoffshoreIn7countries.
8(Crook,2010)Article Magazinearticlex
9(Giroux,2010)Article RiskAnalysisonNaturalandx
Human‐causedThreats
9(Ibrahim&Allen,2012)Article Qualitative,interpretativemethodology
x x
withActivityTheoryasaconceptual
framework
9(Gregory,2011)Article Qualitativeliteraturereviewwitha xx
comparativeapproachforthreeborderlands
9(Fabiano,2012)CH AnalysisonInternationalThreatsxx
9(Haimes&Yacob,2011)Article MultidimensionalRiskAnalysisx
onTerrorism
14
Numbercorrespondingtodatabase
15
Pages:4,164,307,311,323.
16
RepeatedinProQuest
17
RepeatedandfullyavailableatProQuest
18
Criticaloilinfrastructure.
19
Safetyandsecurityinseveraldisciplines
20
OrganizedCrime.
367
9(Brown,Coté,Lynn‐Jones,&Miller,2010) Book Bookx xx
9(Vlcek,2013)Article ProcedureAnalysisx x
9(Crenshaw,2010)Book Bookx x
9(Zabyelina,2013)ArticleBookx
9(Stoney&Scanlon,2014)Article Reflective/exploratoryanalysisxx
9(Weinberg,2008)Book Book
xx x
9(Burgherr&Hirschberg,2009)Book Book.x x x x x x
9(Lewis,2006)CH Bookx x x x
9(Woodward&Pitbaldo,2010)Book Bookx x x
9(Bekefi&Epstein,2011)Article Descriptive/Narrativeofbestpractice&x
suggest
ariskassessmentmethodto
integrateriskintothefinancialanalysis
9(Speight,2011)Book Book(Describealltheprocessofx x
petroleumproductionandrespective
problemsandsecuritychallenges)
9(Vaggelas&Ng,2012)CH CHinabookx x x x
10(Maldonado,2009)Article
Essayx x x x
10(Garcia,Monosalva,Rezende,&Sgut,2004) Book Multi‐methodologyfordifferentstage x x x x x
analysis.ISPSCodeImplementation
inSouthAmericafromCEPAL
10(Enríquez,2007)Article AnalysisoftheSUAconventionxx x
10(Sgut,2006)Book Book
x
10(Preciado,2009)Article ReflectiveAnalysisoftheSecurity x x x
andProsperityPartnershipofNorth
America(SPPNA)
10(Arias,20014)Thesis Casestudyx
10(Zamora,2008)Doc.Thesis ConceptualAnalysisx
10(Castán,2008)Article EssayHistoricalanalysisofliteraturex
10(Elizalde,2012)Doc.Thesis
Analysisofdocuments,concepts x x x x x x x x
andliterature
10(Taylor,2009)Book Bookxx
10(Ferreirós,2011)Article ReflectiveAnalysisxx
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table4.ConceptMatrix
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
ConceptMatrix
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
ConceptArticlesincludedintheanalysis Booksincludedintheanalysis Total
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.Terrorism(atseaormaritimeterrorism)142741
2.Counterterrorism21517
3.PortFacilitySecurityPlan246
4.InternationalShipandPortFacilitySecurityCode246
5.MaritimeSecurity161935
6.Safety11718
7.OilSpill&EnvironmentalProtection
4913
8.Resilienceplan52025
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table5.Geographicdimensionofselectedliterature
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Book/Article
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Kenneth(2009).ThisbookismainlyaboutmaritimesecurityintheUS,howevertheauthoralsoanalysesseveralmaritime
securityincidentsinothercountriesanddevotedsomechapterstothestudyofmaritimesecurityworldwidefroma
historicalperspective,writteninEnglish. North‐America:UnitedStates,Mexico.CentralandSouthAmerica:
Brazil,Peru,
Ecuador,Chile.Europe:UnitedKingdom,Greek,Portugal,Spain,Denmark,Germany,Italy,MediterraneanSea,Greece,
France,Turkey.Asia:Indonesia,MalaccaStrait,Bangladesh,India,Pakistan,SriLanka,Yemen,Iran,Iraq,theRed Seaand
ArabianSea,SuezCanal,Singapore,Thailand,Malaysia,India,Japan.Africa:Nigeria,Somalia,Egypt,Eritrea,Namibia,
Senegal,
Liberia,Guinea,Angola,SierraLeone,SouthAfrica
Espin‐Digon,Burns‐Herbert,&Bateman(2008).Editorsofabookthatencompassesseveralscientificarticlesrelatedto
maritimesecurity&implementationandcomplianceoftheISPSCodefrom31authors.Note:Itdoesnotnecessarilymeans
thateachofthecountrieslistedarerelatedtoaspecificstudy,butoften
securityincidentsatsomecountriesarereferredto
inthestudyofanotherone,writteninEnglish. North‐America: UnitedStates,Canada&Mexico,(Thislastonewasbriefly
commentedinanarticleaddressingdrugtrafficking).CentralandSouthAmerica: Argentina,Venezuela,Colombia&the
CaribbeanSea.Europe:England,Germany,
France&Italy,Spain,Italy,United Kingdom,NetherlandsandMediterranean
Sea,Asia:NorthIndianSea,RedSea,ArabianSea,ArabianGulfandMalaccaStraitSingapore,Indonesia,Philippines,
Myanmar,Bangladesh,ThailandJapan,China,SouthKorea,India,Bangladesh,Pakistan,SriLanka,Malaysia,Laos,
Vietnam,Kuwait,Yemen,Iraq,EastTimor,SuezCanal.Africa:Somalia,
Morocco,Egypt,Nigeria&Algeria.Oceania:
Australia&NewZealand
Vaggelas&N(2012).ArticlewithacomparativestudyabouttheimplementationoftheISPSCodebetweenthePiraeusand
HongKongports.North‐America:UnitedStates.Europe:Piraeus,Greece.EuropeanUnion’simplementationofIMO
instruments.Asia:HongKong,China
Maldonado(2009).ThisisanarticleonoperativesafetyandsecurityrelatedtoforeigntradeinMexico,writteninSpanish.
North‐America:Mexico,UnitedStates.
368
(Garcia,Monosalva,Rezende,&Sgut,2004)ThisisanarticlefromtheEconomicCommissionforLatinAmericaandthe
Caribbean(CEPAL;inSpanish),withaMulti‐methodologyfordifferentstageanalysisaboutImplementationoftheISPS
CodeinSouthAmerica,writteninSpanish.North‐America:Mexico.CentralandSouthAmerica:All
SouthAmerican
StatesandtheCaribbean.
Elizalde(2012).Doctoralthesisaboutthemaritimesecurityanditsnormativity.North‐America:Mexico,UnitedStates,
CentralandSouthAmerica:IMO&UNinstrumentsapplied intheCaribbeanRegion.InternationalAgreementsfromthe
OrganizationofAmericanStatesagainstmaritimedrugtrafficEurope:IMO&UNinstrumentsappliedintheEuropean
Union,
SpainAfrica:Somalia
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Inordertomaketheconversionfromtheauthor‐
centric approach towards the category‐centric
approachandsynthesizetherelevantliterature,table
4thatfollowsisprovidingasummaryof acategory
matrix in relation to the number of articles and/or
booksthatwereidentifiedduringthesearch.
Then,theitems
thatincludedintheiranalysisthe
categoriesthree,fourandfive“PortFacilitySecurity
Plan; International Ship and Port Facility Security
Code and; Maritime Security” were further studied
under a geographical dimension, including five
subcategories that covered North‐America,Central
and South America, Europe, Asia and Africa. The
complete details
of this analysis are illustrated in
Table5.
5 DISCUSSION
The original purpose of this review, which was to
examine the state of the art of implementation and
compliance of the ISPS Code in México, had to be
adjustedsincetherewasonlyonearticlethatmetthe
search criteria; and
which actually falls outside the
framework of this literature review, as it is about
militarylaw.Theresultsaboutthisobjectiveareclear:
the state of the art concerning implementation and
complianceofISPSCodeinMexicoisquitepoor.The
topicreallyneedtoberesearchedand,ingeneral,
itis
observedthatresearchwithinthemaritimedomainin
Mexico is limited. Even when it was used some
subcategories to get a wider number of research
items,itisdiscoveredthatthoseacademiceffortsthat
mentionMexico,theydoitinaconnectiontoisolated
cases of drug organization, proliferation
of crime or
smuggling of drugs and weapons, but not in direct
connectiontocomplianceoftheISPSCodeinMexico.
Yet,theresearchcontributionsweredeeperexplored
anddividedintogeographicalareastoexaminetheir
allusions to the country in the analysis and studied
accordingtoeightselectedcategories,
itmakeitmore
evidentthelackofresearchinthemaritimerealinthe
referrednation.InapreviousstudyNordfjeld‐Avila‐
Zúñiga&Dalaklis(2018)havealreadyaddressed“the
necessity of the inclusion of maritime security and
protection of critical oil infrastructure offshore [of
Mexico] in the national agenda
that would provide
forfutureresearchdirectionsinthemaritimesecurity
domain and contribute to the establishment of a
nationalmaritimesecuritypolicy”.
Therefore,atthisstageofthestudythescopegets
another dimension, since even the search queries
wereconditionedtothewordofMexico,theresearch
items
that have brought connections to this country
were for isolated cases, and the contributions that
werefoundaremainlyaddressedtootherpartsofthe
world. Thus, the discussion shifts focus to the eight
selected categories; based on the contributions on
generalbases,ratherthanthecountry.
Even though the concept
of “terrorism” has been
discussedbyseveralauthorsinthepast,thereisnota
soledefinition.Tuerk(2012)pointedoutthatthereis
notanauthoritativedefinitionofthisterm,butthatall
definitions have several features in common: “first,
there must be actual or threatened violence; second
a
political motive is necessary; finally, the acts must be
directedatandintendedtoinfluenceatargetedaudience”.
Toemphasizethis,theauthorcitestonote393,from
Power,MaritimeTerrorism:“AnewChallenge”and
furtherexplainsthatthe overall sideofthecommon
aspectisarguablythatan
actisnotterrorismunlessit
has a deliberate political motive. Kenneth (2009),
coincideswithTuerkthattherearemanydefinitions
ofterrorismandsaysthatitissimply“theuseofforce
orviolenceagainstpeopleandplacestointimidateand/or
coerce a government, its citizens, or any segment
thereof
for political or social goals”. The author expands his
explanationbyarguingthatterroriststrytocoercethe
adversarytoobtainagoalwithouthavingtofacethe
risk of a direct confrontation, fighting an
asymmetricalwar, which is an strategy used by the
weaker side in the conflict
to compensate for the
strengthsoftheenemy.
Espin‐Digon, Burns‐Herbert, & Bateman (2008),
have similar views to the above mentioned authors.
Theyfurtherdiscussmaritimeterrorism
21
,byarguing
that despite the hysteria surrounding, acts of
maritimeterrorismarebynomeansfrequent,because
maritime terrorism requires a certain degree of
familiaritywiththesea.Theseresearchersalsonoted
that“terroristswouldalsoneedakindofmaritimedomain
awareness(MDA)toeven thinkaboutincluding
maritime
attacksintotheirmodusoperandi–andtheavailabilityofa
special set of knowledge and skills”. Even so, they
correctlypointed out that acts of maritime terrorism
targetingships,portsandoilterminalsoccurandthat
therefore it is necessary to be prepared with
appropriatecountermeasures.Kenneth(2009)defines
“counterterrorism” in his glossary, as “offensive
strategies,tacticsandplansusedbygovernmentagencies,
military forces, law enforcement agencies, and private
sectororganizationstomitigatethethreatofterrorismby
reducing the chances that individuals or groups can
successfully wage campaigns of terror in pursuit of their
organizational goals”. Finally,
in the context of
maritime terrorism and maritimesecurity, discussed
by Klein, Rothwell, & Mossop, (2009),
counterterrorism may be understood as the capacity
of a state to respond to sudden and unanticipated
threats.
21
Terrorismatseaorterroractionsagainstvessels,portandoff‐
shoreinstallations.
369
Counterterrorismcapacityisoneoftheobjectives
of any PFSP, whichis an instrument embodied in
the ISPS Code to ensure the application of security
measures deliberated to protect the port facility and
its serving vessels, their cargoes, and persons on
board at the respective security levels. According to
Kenneth
(2009),aportfacilityisrequiredto“ planand
effectsecurityatthelevelsidentifiedintheriskassessment
process and as established by the governmental entities
withstatutoryresponsibilitiesforportsecurityoversight”.
This author also emphasized the need of
standardizingthetermsusedintheplansince
aterm
like security, for instance, may have a different
meaning for different people in different
environments.Forthepurposesofdevelopingaport
facility security plan, he correctly identified that a
workingunderstandingofthesecurityshouldinclude
asetofmeasuresaimedto:
“Neutralizing vulnerabilities for criminal activity
withintheport,
Identifyingandrespondingtosafetyissues,
Minimizingthethreatofterrorism,
Reducing opportunities for internal criminal
conspiracies,
Disrupting links between corruption, terrorism
andorganizedcrime,
Sharingintelligenceandinvestigativeinformation,
withappropriatelawenforcementagencies,
Promoting opportunities for theexchange of
best
practicesinportsecurity”.
Kenneth(2009)criticisedthatveryoftenthePFSP
exists only in paper, but it is rarely tested for
effectiveness and emphasized that “the key to
successfulport security managementintermsof the
PFSP is to understand it as a living document”.
Vaggelas & Ng (2012),
noted that based on the
requirements of the PFSA (Port Facility Security
Assessment), a PFSP has to be developed for each
facilitywhichhasprovisionsforaddressingchanging
securitylevelsforeverysecurity operationandthata
PFSPmaycovermorethanonefacilityonlyprovided
thattheoperator,location,
operation,equipmentand
designofthosefacilitiesareverysimilartoeachother.
Asmentionedbefore,thePFSPisarequirementofthe
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code
(ISPS Code), which came into force on July 1st. of
2004and it is a partof theamendments tothe
1974
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
Kenneth(2009)definedtheISPSCodeinhisglossary,
as the “comprehensive set of measures implemented in
2004 to enhance the security of ships and port facilities,
developed and agreed to by member countries of the
International Maritime Organization in
response to the
perceived threats to ships and port facilities after the
September11,2001,terroristattacksintheUnitedStates”.
Vaggelas & Ng (2012) simplify that the Code has
mainlytwomajorcomponents;partAthatillustrates
the minimum mandatory requirements that ships
(representedbytheirfirms)andports
(representedby
thecontractinggovernment)mustfollow;while Part
B provides more detailed, but not compulsory,
guidelines for the implementation of security
assessmentsandplans.
For Espin‐Digon, Burns‐Herbert, & Bateman
(2008),theISPSCodeisasecurityregimeformulated
under the auspices of the IMO to strengthen the
maritime
securityingeneral,andpreventandsupress
acts of terrorism against the maritime realm. These
authors clarify thatpassenger ships, including high‐
speed passenger craft, cargo ships of 500 gross
tonnage and above, Mobile Offshore Drilling Units
(MODUs)andallportfacilitiesservingshipsengaged
ininternationalvoyagesarerequired
tocomplywith
the ISPS Code, according to the established in the
SOLAS Chapter XI‐2. They also correctly identified
that the ISPS aim is to provide a standardized
consistent framework for evaluating risk, enabling
governments to offset according to changes in
different threat levels affecting the vulnerability of
vessels,port
andoffshorefacilities.
Furthermore,inanarticlewrittenbyJ.Urbansky,
W. Morgas and M. Miesikowsky (2009) included in
the book edited by Weintrit A. (2009), the authors
stated that maritime security “is the security from the
terrorism, piracy and similar threats, as well as effective
interdiction of all the
illicit activities on sea, such as
pollutionofthemarineenvironment;illegalexploitationof
sea resources; illegal immigration; smuggling the drugs,
persons, weapons and other matters that can be used for
terrorist activities”. All the above also explain why
conceptsnumber1and5aretheonesmostcommonly
presentedin
theresearchitems,sinceinterestonthe
issue of terrorism and the respective maritime
security framework is high. On the other hand,
concepts3and4areratherlowinrepresentation.This
translatesintothefactthatimplementationissuesand
relatedpracticalitiesareclearlylaggingbehind.
On a different direction,
but in similarity to the
term of maritime security, there is not a sole and
universal definition for the concept of maritime
safety, although concepts such as protection of life
andproperty at sea, risk assessment and prevention
of hazards are standing out. Piètre‐Cambacédès &
Bouissou (2013, p.111‐112), analysed
the similarities
anddifferencesbetweenthetwodomains,safetyand
security.Theauthorspointedoutthatwhilesecurity
is connected to risks originated or exacerbated by a
malicious action, independently from the nature of
the related consequence, the concept of safety is
linked to accidental actions i.e. without a malicious
intention, but with potential impact to the related
environment.Theyfurtherclarifythatinthesecurity
discipline it is common the use of the term threat,
while in the safety discipline the tendency is to use
the term hazard, even though they are used to
describe identical concepts in several standards.
An
exampleprovided by these authorsistheuseofthe
termincident,asaneventwithminorconsequencesin
safety,whileitmeansaninfringementorbreachwith
regardstosecurity.
Onthiscontext,Kenneth(2009p.223‐224)citedthe
U.S. Department of Labor 2001 par.2, to emphasize
that:
“The core function of any work place safety and
healthprogram isto‘find andfix’ hazardsthat endanger
employees and to implement systems, procedures and
processes that prevent hazards from recurring or being
introduced into the work place. This element of a worker
protection program has the most immediate and
direct
effectoninjuryandillnessprevention”.Theauthoralso
noted that port facilities present some unique and
extraordinary challenges with respect to safety
management because of the variation of operations
and its interaction with the vessels, cargo and land‐
basedpeople,aswellasconveyances.
370
Theissueofmarineoilpollutionisalsoconsidered
apartofmaritimesafetyandmaritimesecurityandit
is included in the standards of training and
certification as an important part of oil spill
prevention.Itisaddressedasapossibleconsequence
ofsecurityincidents.Oilspillhasalso
beenaddressed
several times within maritime security regarding
possibleterrorscenarios.Espin‐Digon,Burns‐Herbert,
& Bateman (2008 p.57), argue that one of the
considered terror scenarios in United States is the
floating bomb scenario, “that is, a hijacked liquefied
petroleumgas(LPG)orliquefiednaturalgas(LNG)tanker
driven
intoamajorportandexplodedthere,withtheintent
of disrupting seaborne global trade”. The authors also
refertothe“momentumweapon”scenario,whichis
aboutalargeshipsuchasanultra‐largecrudecarrier
or a chemical tanker, where the terrorists would
attempttodrivethevessel
intotheharbouratahigh
speed to ram either other ships with vulnerable
cargoesoroilterminalsandsimilarandthendetonate
the ship. The last cited authors clarify that even if
such scenarios as the called “momentum weapon”
hasbeendeveloped,fortheportofSingapore,where
the
largestofSoutheastAsia’soilrefineriesislocated,
allofthembelongtotherealmoffiction.However,it
isnecessarytobepreparedtorespondtolargeterror
attacks at port and offshore installations and to
mitigate eventual oil spills, protecting the marine
environment. It is therefore no coincidence that
conceptsnumber6and7arerepresentedin18and13
occurrencesrespectively.Thefactthatthereisarather
closecorrelationinthesetwonumbersisa ttributedto
the fact that oil pollution is widely considered
nowadaysasthemainsafetyrisk.
Regarding resilience’s plans, also known as
emergency
managementplans,Kenneth(2009)refers
to the National Response Framework from the U.S.,
andaffirmsthatthisdocumentdefinestheprinciples,
roles,andstructuresthatframehowtheUnitedStates
will respond collectively in terms of a “national
response doctrine” of coordination, specific
authorities, and best practices.By citing to U.S.
DepartmentofHomelandSecurity(2008),theauthor
points out that the National Response Framework
establishes five key principles that reflect the
overarching approach to incident and emergency
response, which are: first, engaged partnerships;
second,atieredresponse;third,scalable,flexible,and
adaptable operational capabilities; fourth, unity of
effortthroughunified
command;andfifth,readiness
toact.Hefurtherexplainsthatwhendevelopingport
specific emergency operations and response policies
and procedures; port security managers must take
intoconsiderationthat eachfacilityplanwouldbe a
component of the larger national plan and stresses
that “planning for emergency must be managed
collaboratively with those port users and government
agenciesthathaveinterestsandconcernsinthestabilityof
the port environment”. He further added that it is
imperative to have a coordinated response to port
incidents (including hazardous materials incidents)
and emergencies; additionally, to ensure that these
events will be managed
competently and in concert
withnationalsecuritypriorities.Asaresult,thetotal
number of occurrences for concept 7 is convincing,
sincepotentialsafetyrisksmustbeaddressedviathe
“right”resilienceplans.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The results about the state of the art concerning
implementation and compliance of ISPS Code in
Mexicoareclearlypoor.Thesubjectshouldbefurther
studiedand,in general,itis observedthat academic
contributionswithinthemaritimedomaininMexico
arequitelimited.Thelackofresearchinthemaritime
realminthereferrednationmighthaveaconnection
totheconstrictedattentionofthe
issueinthenational
agenda, which then again, is possibly related to the
absence of a national maritime security policy in
Mexico.
Concerningthewiderdomainofmaritimesecurity
at ports and offshore installations encompasses
directlyorindirectlyalltheconceptsincludedoftable
IV.However,eveniftheyareconsidered
asdifferent
concepts,theycannotbeseenasisolated,because in
oneway or another they are interdependent of each
other.Furthermore,safetyandsecurityissuescanbe
highly interdependent and also influencing one the
otheratthesametime.Inasimilardirection,thesame
interdependency could be argued
between oil spill
and environmental protection; on the positive side,
resilience’splans(alsocalledemergencymanagement
plans)canprovidethenecessarymitigationtoolbox.
Likewise, the concepts of terrorism and
counterterrorismare(directlyorindirectly)relatedto
both the maritime safety and security domains,
becauseofthesevere consequencesthatareresulted
from a successful attack as well as the need the
necessary detailed preparation to avoid these
“unpleasant events”. In any case, these are various
important concepts addressed via the International
ShipandPortFacilitySecurityCode(theISPSCode),
which establishes guidelines and recommendations
forthedevelopmentofthePort
FacilitySecurityPlan
(PFSP).Inthelongrun,theISPSisatoolboxthatsets
outprocessesandprocedures to copewith therisks
withinthemaritimesecuritydomain.
As it can be seen in the concept matrix, the
category of “terrorism at sea or maritimeterrorism”
was the most studied
according to findings of this
literature review, with 41 different articles or books
examining this topic; the topic of maritime security
followedwith35instances.Thefactthat“terrorism”
and “maritime security” were most commonly
presentedintheresearchitemscouldbeattributedto
therecentterrorattackthreatsworldwide,
asituation
that has brought global interest on the issue of
terrorismatseaandtherespectivemaritimesecurity
framework for managing the risk of maritime
terrorismandimprovemaritimeandportsecurity.
Asalreadyhighlighted,themostimportantsetof
regulationsaddressingthatsubjectistheChapterXI‐2
of
theSafetyofLifeatSeaConvention1974(SOLAS
Convention),encompassingtheISPSCode;thisCode
requires the establishment of PFSPs at port facilities
withspecificcharacteristics.Itisalsonoteworthythat
studies approaching the categories concerning the
ISPS code and PFSPs were the lowest represented,
with only sixinstances.
This can be interpreted into
thenotionthatISPSCodeimplementationissuesand
related practicalities are still worldwide lagging
behindintermsofinvestigationandexamination.
371
As it has been demonstrated in this literature
review,researcheffortsfocusedontheISPSCodeand
the development of a Port Facility Security Plan
(PFSP) have an integrated perspective, where the
conceptsofterrorismandcounterterrorism,aswellas
maritimesecuritymanagementandtheissueof port
security have
a strong interaction and dominant
status. Additionally, the safety issue is quite often
addressed, with oil spill and environmental
protection being included in the consequences of
securityincidents.Closingwithapositivenote,aftera
total of fourteen (14) years after the approval and
implementation of the ISPS Code, there
have been
identifiedquitea fewdifferentapproachestosecurity
riskassessmentmethodologiesasitcanbe observed
through the currents literature review. On the other
hand,moreemphasisontheimplementationissuesof
theISPSCodeisevidentlyneededtoensurethatapart
from theory, field results are resulting into
an
acceptablesecurityrisklevel.
REFERENCES
Brocke,J.,Simons,A.,Niehaves,B.,Reimer,K.,&Plattfaut,
R.(2009).Reconstructingthegiant:Ontheimportanceof
rigour in documenting the literature search process.
ECIS.
Espin‐Digon, J., Burns‐Herbert, & Bateman, S. R. (Red.).
(2008). Lloydʹs MIU Handbook of Maritime Security.
AuerbachPublications.
IMO International Maritime
Organization. (Adoption: 1
November 1974; Entry into force: 25 May 1980).
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS). Consulted on June 03, 2015 from
http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConv
entions/Pages/International‐Convention‐for‐the‐Safety‐
of‐Life‐at‐Sea‐(SOLAS),‐1974.aspx
Kenneth,C.(2009).PortSecurityManagement.BocaRatonFl,
USA:AuerbachPublications.
Klein, N., Rothwell, D. R., & Mossop, J. (2009). Maritime
Security: International Law and Policy Perspectives from
AustraliaandNewZealand.Routledge.
Norfjeld‐Avila‐Zuniga, A., Dalaklis, D. (2017). Enhancing
Maritime Security in Mexico: Privatization,
Militarization,oracombinationofboth?Chaumette,P.,
Economic challenge and New maritime risks
management:
Whatbluegrowth?(ss.81‐101).
Piètre‐Cambacédès, L., & Bouissou, M. (2013, February).
Cross‐fertilization between safety and security
engineering. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, ss.
110‐126.
Tuerk,H.(2012).PublicationsonOceanDevelopment,Volume
71:ReflectionsontheContemporaryLawoftheSea.Chapter
6,Terrorismat
Sea.BRILL.
Vaggelas, G.K.,&Ng,A. K. (2012).CH 33.PortSecurity:
TheISPSCode.IW.K. Talley,TheBlackwellCompanionto
Maritime Economics (ss. 674‐700). Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Webster,J.,&Watson,R.T.(2002, June).Analizingthepast
to prepare for the future: Writing a
Literature Riview.
MISQuarterly(2),ss.xiii‐xxiii.
Weintrit, A. & Neumann T. (2015). Safety of Marine
Transport.CRCPress‐Taylor&FrancisGroup(ss.9‐10)
REFERENCESAPPENDIXI
Arias, J. F. (20014). Análisis para la aplicación de las
comunicaciones GMDSS (Global Maritime Distress
SecuritySystem)comoestrategiaenlaoptimizacióndel
proceso de seguridad logística para la navegación del
puerto de Tumaco–Colombia. Universidad Militar
NuevaGranada.
Aronica, J. J., Mukhtyar, M., & Coon, J. E. (2001).
Globalisation of Law
Enforcement Efforts. Journal of
MoneyLaunderingControl(Vol.4),ss.320‐332.
Badiru, A. B., & Racz, L. (2013). Handbook of Emergency
Response: A Human Factors and Systems Engineering
Approach.CRCPress.
Bahr, N. J. (2014). System Safety Engineering and Risk
Assessment: A Practical Approach, (Second Edition.
utg.).CRCPress.
Bekefi, T., & Epstein, M. J. (2011). Integrating social and
political risk into ROI calculations. Environmental
QualityManagement(Vol.20),ss.11‐23.
Bolz,F.J.,Dudonis,K.J.,&Schulz,D.P.(2012).Terrorism:
AnOverview.IF.Harold,&T.a.Nozaki,Information
SecurityManagement Handbook(Sixth Editio. utg.,
ss.
417‐434).AuerbachPublications.
Bragdon, C. (2008). Transportation Security. Butterworth‐
Heinemann.
Brocke,J.,Simons,A.,Niehaves,B.,Reimer,K.,&Plattfaut,
R.(2009).Reconstructingthegiant:Ontheimportanceof
rigour in documenting the literature search process.
ECIS.
Brown,M.E.,Coté,O.R.,Lynn‐Jones,S.M.,
&Miller,S.E.
(2010).ContendingwithTerrorism:Roots,Strategies and
Responses.InternationalSecurityReaders.
Burgherr, P., & Hirschberg, S. (2009). Comparative Risk
Assessment for Energy Systems: A Tool for
Comprehensive Assessment of Energy Security. Wiley
Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland
Security.3:4:1.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
Castán,
F. M. (2008). Marco jurídico de la seguridad
marítima. Cuadernos de estrategia. Cuadernos de
Estrategia,ss.171‐242.
Crenshaw, M. (2010). The Consequences of
Counterterrorism.RussellSageFoundation.
Crook,J.(2010).Stoppingthespill[PowerOilExploration].
Engineering&Technology,ss.44‐47.
Cullen, P., & Berube, C. (2012). Maritime
Private Security:
MarketResponsestoPiracy,TerrorismandWaterborne
SecurityRisksinthe21stCentury.Routledge.
Doro‐on,A.M.(2014).Chapter3.IntroductiontoPipelines,
Tunnels, Underground Rail and Transit Operations,
Terrorism, and Disasters. I Risk Assessment and
Security for Pipelines, Tunnels and Underground Rail
andTransitOperations(ss.89
‐130).CRCPress.
Elizalde, P. A. (2012). La Incidencia de las Normas de
Protección Marítima en el Transporte Marítimo.
UniversitatAutònomadeBarcelona.
Enríquez, D. (2007). Terrorismo marítimo y libertad de
navegación. La actividad de la organización marítima
internacionalenmateriadeprotecciónylosclaroscuros
delConvenio SUA y
delProtocolo SUAde octubre de
2005.AnuarioMexicanodeDerechoInternacional.
Espin‐Digon, J., Burns‐Herbert, & Bateman, S. R. (Red.).
(2008). Lloydʹs MIU Handbook of Maritime Security.
AuerbachPublications.
Fabiano, P. (2012). CH 60. Compliance in Mexico: Trends,
Best Practices, and Challenges. I A. Tarantino,
Governance, Risk, and
Compliance Handbook:
Technology, Finance, Environmental, and International
Guidance and Best Practices (ss. 839‐854). Wiley, John
Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Ferreirós, A. M. (2011, April). Una Vision del Escenario
MarìtimoparalasPròximasDècadas.RevistaGeneralde
Marina(Issue3),ss.467‐478.
Frolov,K.v.,&Baecher,G.B.
(2006).ProtectionofCivilian
Infrastructure from Acts of Terrorism. NATO Security
trough Science Series‐C Environmental Security (Vol.
12).Netherlands:Springer.
Garcia, R. B., Monosalva, M. T., Rezende, S., & Sgut, M.
(2004).ProtecciónMarítimayPortuariaenAméricadel
372
Sur: Implementación de las Medidas y Estimación de
Gastos (Vol. 81. utg.). (R. J. Sanchez, Red.) United
NationsPublications.
Giroux,J.(2010).APortraitofComplexity:NewActorsand
ContemporaryChallengesintheGlobalEnergySystem
and the Role of Energy Infrastructure Security. Risk,
Hazards&CrisisinPublicPolicy(Vol.
1),ss.33‐56.
Goede,M.(2013).Transnationalorganizedcrime(TOC)and
the relationship to good governance in the Caribbean:
Transnational organized crime democracy (TOCD).
International Journal of Development Issues, ss. 253‐
270.
Gregory, D. (2011, September). The everywhere war. The
GeographicalJournal(Volume177),ss.238–250.
Haimes, V., &
Yacob, Y. (2011). On the Complex
Quantification of Risk: Systems ‐Based Perspective on
Terrorism.RiskAnalysis(Vol.31),ss.1175‐1186.
Haynes, A. (2000). The Struggle Against Corruption — A
Comparative Analysis. Journal of Financial Crime , ss.
123‐135.
Hesterman, J. L. (2013). The Terrorist‐Criminal Nexus. An
Allianceof
InternationalDrugCartels ,OrganizedCrime
andTerrorGroups.CRCPress.
Hoti,S.,&McAleer,M.(2005).AssessmentofRiskRatings
andRiskReturnsfor120RepresentativeCountries.IS.
Hoti,&M.McAleer,ModellingtheRiskinessinCountry
Risk Ratings (Contributions to Economic Analysis,
Volume 273. utg., ss. 111‐335).
Emerald Group
PublishingLimited.
Ibrahim, N. H., & Allen, D. (2012, October). Information
Sharing and Trust During Major Incidents: Findings
from the oil industry. Journal of the American Society
forInformationScienceandTechnology(Volume63),ss.
1916–1928.
Jaradat,R.M.,&Keating,C.B.(2014,June).Fragilityofoil
as
acriticalinfrastructureproblem.InternationalJournal
of Critical Infrastructure Protection (Volume 7), ss. 86‐
99.
Johnsen,S.,Lundteigen,M.,Fartum,H.,&Monsen,J.(u.d.).
Identification and reduction of risks in remote
operationsofoffshoreoilandgasinstallations.SINTEF.
Kenneth,C.(2009). PortSecurityManagement.BocaRaton
Fl,USA:
AuerbachPublications.
Klein, N., Rothwell, D. R., & Mossop, J. (2009). Maritime
Security: International Law and Policy Perspectives
fromAustraliaandNewZealand.Routledge.
Lewis, T. G. (2006). Critical Infrastructure Protection in
Homeland Security. I Critical Infrastructure Protection
inHomelandSecurity: Defendinga NetworkedNation
(ss.463‐474).JonWiley&
SonsInc.
Lichterman, J. D. (1999, August 6). Disasters to come.
Futures,ss.593‐607.
Lutchman, C., Maharaj, R., & Waddah, G. (Red.). (2012).
Safety Management:A Comprehensive Approach to
DevelopingaSustainableSystem.CRCPress.
Maldonado,A.G.(2009,July).Seguridadoperativaparael
transporte del comercio exterior de México
558.
ComercioExterior,ss.558‐567.
Martínez Gutiérrez, N. A. (2009). Serving the Rule of
International Maritime Law: Essays in Honour of
ProfessorDavidJosephAttard.Routledge.
Middleton, R., Glosec Ltd., D. U., Day, D., & Lallie, H.
(2012). Global Network Security: A Vulnerability
Assessment of Seven Popular Outsourcing Countries.
Conference
onGreenComputingand Communications
(GreenCom), (ss. 102‐108 ). Besancon: IEEE
International.
Mugarura, N. (2014). Has globalisation rendered the state
paradigm in controlling crimes, anachronistic?: The
notion of borders, state and new crime typologies.
JournalofFinancialCrime(Vol.21),ss.381‐399.
Murphy,E.(1978).LegalAspectsof
InternationalTerrorism.
LexingtonBooks.
Mythen, G.(2014). Managing security underconditions of
highuncertainty:Institutionalstrategiesanddilemmas.I
G. Deodatis, R.Bruce, & E. a. Frangopol (Red.), Safety,
Reliability, Risk and Life‐Cycle Performance of
StructuresandInfrastructures.CRCPress.
Neumann,T.(Red.). (2013). MarineNavigationand Safety
ofSeaTransportation,
Maritime Transport &Shipping.
CRCPress.
Nordfjeld, A. & Dalaklis D. (2016). Enhancing maritime
security in Mexico: Privatization, militarization, or a
combination of both? Human Sea Marisk, Conference
paper.
Norman, T. L. (2012). Counter Measures, Goals and
Strategies. I H. F. Tipton, Information Security
Management Handbook. (Sixth Edition. utg., ss.
437‐
450).AuerbachPublications.
Papa, P. (July, 2013). US and EU strategies for maritime
transportsecurity:Acomparativeperspective.Transport
Policy,(Volume28),ss.75‐85.
Park, P. (2013). International Law for Energy and the
Environment(SecondEdition.utg.).CRCPress.
Perdikaris, J. (2014). Physical Security and Environmental
Protection.CRCPress.
Phillips,
D. E. (2008). Terrorism and security in the
caribbean before and after 9/11. I G. Caforio, G.
Kümmel,&B.Purkayastha,ArmedForcesandConflict
Resolution: Sociological Perspectives (Book Series:
Contributions to Conflict Management, Peace
Economics and Development, Volume 7. utg., ss. 97‐
138).EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited.
Piètre‐Cambacédès,
L., & Bouissou, M. (2013, February).
Cross‐fertilization between safety and security
engineering.ReliabilityEngineering& SystemSafety,ss.
110‐126.
Pilewsk, B. A., & Pilewski, P. C. (2012). CERT Resilience
Management Model. I H. F. Tipton, & M. K. Nozaki,
Information Security Management Handbook. (Sixth
Edition,Volume6.utg.,ss.
135‐152).
Pinkowski,J.(2008).DisasterManagementHandbook.CRC
Press.
Preciado, J. C. (2009, August). Agendas geoeconómicas y
geoestratégicas de la Alianza para la Seguridad y la
Prosperidad de Norteamérica (ASPAN)
cuestionamientos al modelo neoliberal. Investigaciones
geográficas.
Ringbom, H. (2007). Publications on Ocean Development:
The EU MaritimeSafety Policy and
International Law.
MartinusNijhoff.
Rogers, P. (2007). Global Security and the War on Terror,
ElitePowerandtheIllusionofControl.Routledge.
Safford, T. G., Ulrich, J. D., & Hamilton, L. C. (2012,
December30).Publicperceptionsoftheresponsetothe
Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Personal experiences,
information sources, and
social context. Journal of
EnvironmentalManagement(Volume113),ss.31‐39.
Schulz, D. P. (2011). The Counterterrorism Handbook:
Tactics, Procedures, and Techniques. (Fourth Edition.
utg.).CRCPress.
Sgut, M. (2006). Efectos Economicos De Las Nuevas
Medidas De Proteccion Maritima Y Portuaria. United
NationsPublications.
Singha,S.,Bellerby,T.,&Trieschmann,
O.(2012).Detection
and classification of oil spill and look‐alike spots from
SAR imagery using an Artificial Neural Network.
GeoscienceandRemoteSensingSymposium(IGARSS),
2012IEEEInternational,(ss.22‐27July).
Speight, J. G. (2011). An Introduction to Petroleum
Technology,Economics,andPolitics.Wiley.
Spurgin,A.J.(2009).Human
ReliabilityAssessmentTheory
andPractice.CRCPress.
Stoney, C., & Scanlon, J. (2014, December). Ad hoc Rules,
Rights,andRituals:ThePoliticsofMassDeath.Journal
ofContingenciesandCrisisManagement,ss.223–237.
T., J., & Tweedy, C. a. (2014). Healthcare Hazard Control
and Safety Management (Third Edition. utg.). CRC
Press.
373
Tan, A. K.‐J. (2005). Vessel‐Source Marine Pollution: The
LawandPoliticsofInternationalRegulation.Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Tanaka,Y.(2012).InternationalLawoftheSea.Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Taylor, P. D. (2009). Taylor, Paul D. (2009). Perspectivas
sobre estrategia maritima: ensayos de las Americas, la
nuevaestrategiamaritimade
EEUUycomentariosobre
una estrategia cooperativa para el poder naval en el
siglo XXI. Naval War College Press, Government
PrintingOffice.
Theodore, L., & Dupont, R. (2012). Environmental Health
and Hazard Risk Assessment: Principles and
Calculations.CRCPress.
Tuerk, H. (2012). Publications on Ocean Development,
Volume71:Reflections
ontheContemporaryLawofthe
Sea.Chapter6,TerrorismatSea.BRILL.
USA Government. (1997). Port Security: A National
PlanningGuide.
Vaggelas, G.K.,&Ng,A. K. (2012).CH 33.PortSecurity:
The ISPS Code. I W. K. Talley, The Blackwell
Companion to Maritime Economics (ss. 674‐700).
Blackwell
PublishingLtd.
Vlcek, W. (2013). Securitizing Money to Counter Terrorist
Finance: Some Unintended Consequences for
DevelopingEconomies.JournalofInternationalStudies
Perspectives.
Weinberg,D.M.(2008).HomelandSecurityPerspectiveon
ThreatsandChallenges.WileyHandbookofScienceand
TechnologyforHomelandSecurity.2:3:1.JohnWiley&
SonsInc.
Weintrit,&
Adam.(2009).MarineNavigationandSafetyof
SeaTransportation.CRCPress.
Weintrit,A.,&Neumann,T.(2013).MarineNavigationand
Safety of Sea Transportation: STCW, Maritime
Education andTraining (MET), Human Resources and
Crew Manning, Maritime Policy, Logistics and
EconomicMatters.CRCPress.
Woodward, J. L., & Pitbaldo, R. (2010). LNG
Risk Based
Safety:ModelingandConsequenceAnalysis.Wiley.
Zabyelina, Y. (2013, January). Multilateral Security and
ESDPOperations.(F.Attiná,&D.Irrera,Red.)Political
StudiesReview,ss.91–92.
Zamora,M.R.(2008).Laseguridadmarítima:problemática
yalternativasinstitucionales.UniversidaddeMálaga.
