Discrimination against seafarers post 11th September 2001 (United States) and post 7th July 2005 (United Kingdom)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significance of this study derives from the fact that the United States, with the support of the United Kingdom approached the IMO with new domestic legislation for the US maritime industry. This legislation, the MTSA, was to be introduced to regulate the maritime industry for fear that if the aviation industry has been compromised for acts of terror to be committed (11th September), it must be assumed that the maritime sector may be used by terrorists for the same ends It is an established fact that shipping is the oldest transport industry, in \nexistence long before the invention of aircraft. The modern maritime sector is the most highly regulated industry by the IMO and ILO, and has, to date, not been compromised by terrorists to launch an attack on any sovereign State. \nThe thesis addresses the violation of seafarer’s human rights in post- 11th September 2001 (USA), and post-7th July 2005 (UK). The research identifies the problems that affect seafarers’ rights, welfare and well-being which are embedded in the US Homeland Security Act, Patriot Act, and UK Home Office Anti-terrorism Act respectively. The most influential Resolution which gave the US and the UK the all clear to override international law is the United Nation’s Security Council \nResolution (UNSCR) 1373. UNSCR 1373 is a mandatory order with no time limit, and it is not confined to a particular conflict but rather aimed at an undefined, yet expected, threat of global terrorism. The US and the UK declared seafarers potential terrorists in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. However, the importance of maintaining strong respect for human rights while ensuring national security was \nmissing in the content of the UNSCR 1373 after 9/11. The UNSCR 1373 paved the way for the US to introduce their domestic legislation, \nMTSA, to the IMO which overrides seafarers’ Treaties, Conventions, State sovereignty and freedom of movement. The thesis investigated the denial of seafarers’ shore leave to seek welfare support as the central focus of the research to determine if a powerful State can override other sovereign States’ domestic law without considering the effect it will have on the rights of people. The US and the UK are sovereign States where terrorists used aviation and terrestrial transport \nobjects to attack their infrastructures and kill civilians. However, both transport sectors have no common grounds with the maritime transport sector and yet seafarers are the group being victimised for the failings of the aviation and terrestrial transport industries. The author dentified the security Code which saw seafarers being declared as potential terrorists by the US and the UK. It has to be understood that there must be a proper balance struck between the needs of maritime security, and the protection of seafarers’ rights to maintain the safety \nand operations of the ship. The research demonstrated how the domestic legislations contained within the MTSA 2002, the HSA 2002 and the UKBA (Home Office) conflict with the ILO’s Convention No.185 post- 11th September 2001 and 7th July 2005, hence delaying the ratification of the latter by the US and the UK.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it