Tokyo MoU: Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific

The Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region (Tokyo MoU) is the administrative arrangement under which 22 maritime Authorities around the Pacific and East Asia inspect foreign merchant ships in their ports against the IMO and ILO conventions, detain those that are substandard, and share every result through one database. Sixteen Authorities signed it in Tokyo on 1 December 1993, China and Vanuatu signed in Beijing on 11 April 1994, and it came into operation on 1 April 1994. The current text includes the 23rd amendments, adopted on 14 November 2024 and in effect since 1 July 2025.

The Tokyo MoU carries out more than twice as many inspections as the Paris MoU. The Tokyo MoU 2025 Annual Report records 35,546 initial inspections of 19,980 individual ships in 2025 and 1,255 detentions, a detention rate of 3.53 percent, against 16,474 inspections by the Paris MoU in the same year. Targeting is set by the New Inspection Regime (NIR), applied since 1 January 2014, whose Ship Risk Profile decides how soon each ship falls due. The results feed public performance lists for flags, recognized organizations and ISM companies.

What the Tokyo MoU is and how it takes effect

The Tokyo MoU is a regional form of port State control : the inspection of foreign ships in a State’s ports for compliance with the conventions that State is party to. Its preamble states that the Memorandum is “not a legally binding document”. It commits the member Authorities to a common procedure: the same targeting rules, the same inspection and detention practice, and one shared record.

The detention itself rests on national law. Each port State gives effect to the conventions it has ratified, and the inspector’s power to stop a ship comes from that legislation, not from the Memorandum. There is no Asia-Pacific counterpart to the EU Port State Control Directive , which in Europe turns the Paris regime into binding law for EU Member States, so every Tokyo MoU member applies the arrangement through its own statutes.

Section 1.3 applies the regime to foreign merchant ships “calling at a port of its Authority, or anchored off such a port”. An anchorage call is inside scope. A ship under the port State’s own flag is not a Tokyo MoU inspection; it is checked through flag State survey.

Section 1.4 sets the regional target: the Committee “will endeavour to attain a regional annual inspection rate of 80% of the total number of ships operating in the region.” In 2025 the rate reached 66 percent of 30,046 individual ships, according to the 2025 annual report.

Tokyo MoU signing and entry into operation, 1993 and 1994

The Memorandum was signed at Tokyo on 1 December 1993 by the maritime Authorities of 16 States and territories: Australia, Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Thailand and Viet Nam. China and Vanuatu signed at Beijing on 11 April 1994, bringing the signatories to 18.

Signature and membership are separate steps. Under Section 8.7 the Memorandum was open for acceptance from 1 April 1994, and it takes effect for each Authority on the date that Authority notifies its acceptance. The earliest acceptances were dated 1 April 1994 (Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea), which is the date the Tokyo MoU gives as its start of operation.

The other founding signatories followed over five years:

Solomon Islands is the exception. It signed in 1993 and, in the Memorandum’s footnote, has “Not yet accepted the Memorandum”. It participates as an observer, which is why a count of signatories (18) and a count of founding members differ by one.

The Paris MoU had been running for almost 12 years when the Tokyo text was agreed: it was signed on 26 January 1982 and took effect on 1 July 1982. The Asia-Pacific Memorandum follows the same architecture of a committee, a secretariat, a shared database and a list of relevant instruments.

Tokyo MoU member Authorities, observers and geographic scope

The Tokyo MoU has 22 member Authorities in 2026. Five joined after the founding signatories, by Committee decision under Section 8.2: Chile on 10 June 2002, the Marshall Islands on 28 October 2013, Peru on 5 October 2015, Panama on 14 October 2019 and Mexico on 30 October 2023.

The members span four continents and some of the largest flag registries. Panama and the Marshall Islands are both member Authorities and flags that the other members inspect and score on the performance list.

Initial inspections by Authority in 2025, from Table 2 of the 2025 annual report:

China alone carried out 28 percent of the regional total. Four members report only part of their coastline: for Canada, Mexico, Panama and the Russian Federation the data covers “only the Pacific ports”. Australia’s inspection data is also provided to the Indian Ocean MoU.

Observers

Seven Authorities hold observer status: Cambodia, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Macao (China), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and the United States Coast Guard . Ten organizations also observe: the IMO, the ILO, the Abuja, Black Sea, Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, Paris and Riyadh MoUs, and the Viña del Mar Agreement.

Joining, co-operating status and withdrawal

Annex 1 of the Memorandum sets the membership route. An Authority normally spends at least 3 years as a co-operating member, without a vote and with read-only access to the inspection database, before the Committee admits it as a full member. No Authority holds co-operating status at present.

Membership can be reviewed. Annex 1 lists the triggers for an assessment, among them failure to attend three consecutive Committee meetings. An Authority may withdraw on 60 days’ notice (Section 8.4), and the Committee may revoke membership by unanimity, excluding the Authority concerned (Section 8.5).

Instruments enforced by Tokyo MoU inspection

A Tokyo MoU inspector checks a ship against the relevant instruments in Section 2.1 of the Memorandum, and only those in force and binding on the inspecting Authority’s State (Section 2.4). The list has 15 entries. The entry-into-force dates below are those tabulated in the Tokyo MoU 2025 annual report.

The ISM and ISPS Codes are not separate entries. The ISM Code is SOLAS Chapter IX and the ISPS Code is enforced through SOLAS Chapter XI-2, so both are inspected under SOLAS; the 2025 annual report counts 1,061 ISPS deficiencies separately from the 90,168 safety and pollution deficiencies.

Two instruments on the Paris MoU list are absent here: the Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention 2007 and the Hong Kong Convention on ship recycling. Neither is a Tokyo MoU inspection item.

No more favourable treatment and structural limits

Three rules in Section 2 shape what an inspector may demand. Section 2.5 applies the no more favourable treatment principle: a ship flying the flag of a State that is not party to a convention is inspected so that it receives no advantage from that. Section 2.6 bars an Authority from applying higher standards to a foreign ship than it applies to its own flag.

Section 2.2 limits retroactive structural demands. Under ILO Convention 147 no structural change is required for a ship whose keel was laid before 1 April 1994, and under MLC 2006 none for a keel laid before 20 August 2013. The bar covers structural change only, so a ship with a keel laid before 20 August 2013 is still inspected for seafarer employment agreements, wages and the other MLC 2006 conditions.

Tokyo MoU New Inspection Regime and the Ship Risk Profile

The New Inspection Regime is the targeting system of the Tokyo MoU, applied since 1 January 2014 and set out in Annex 2 of the Memorandum. It gives every ship in the Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS) a Ship Risk Profile of High, Standard or Low Risk, and that profile sets the window after which the ship falls due for inspection.

A ship is a High Risk Ship with 4 or more weighting points. The Annex 2 table:

Two readings of the table recur in practice. Container ships score 2 as a type in Tokyo, so a container ship over 12 years old with a Low-performing company already reaches 5 points. And a single detention adds nothing on its own; the detention parameter scores only at three detentions in 36 months, while each dirty inspection (more than 5 deficiencies) scores a point.

A Low Risk Ship must meet all of the following: a flag on the High performance list; an RO recognized by at least one Tokyo MoU Authority and of High performance; a company of High performance; every inspection in the last 36 months with 5 or fewer deficiencies, and at least one inspection in that period; and no detention in 36 months. Every ship that is neither High nor Low Risk is a Standard Risk Ship. The 2025 inspections split 40.84 percent High Risk, 45.59 percent Standard Risk and 13.37 percent Low Risk.

The IMO audit parameter was deleted from the profile by the amendments adopted at PSCC35 in November 2024, effective 1 July 2025, which leaves the seven parameters above.

Company performance

The ISM company performance is computed daily over a rolling 36 months from two indices: a detention index and a deficiency index, each compared with the Tokyo MoU average. Deficiencies relating to the ISM Code weigh 5 points each and all others 1 point. The averages in use are a Detention Index of 3.84 and a Deficiency Index of 2.64, effective until 30 June 2027. Unlike the RO list, company performance has no minimum number of inspections.

A company with no inspection in 36 months is treated like a Low performer for the Ship Risk Profile and scores 2 points. A newly acquired ship in a company new to the region therefore enters the profile with a penalty.

Tokyo MoU inspection windows and priority

Annex 2 Table 2 turns the Ship Risk Profile into an inspection window counted from the ship’s last inspection in the region:

Inside the window a ship is Priority II: it “may be inspected … if no higher priority ship … is available”. Once the window closes it is Priority I, and “Where practical, ships are to be inspected when the time window has closed.” A Tokyo MoU Low Risk Ship can be due after 9 months, which is shorter than the 10 to 12 months the Paris MoU sets for its Standard Risk Ships.

Overriding priority

Section 3.3.2 of the Memorandum lists eight grounds that make a ship an overriding priority, regardless of its window:

1. a report or notification from another Authority;
2. a report or complaint by the master, a crew member or any person or organization with a legitimate interest in the safe operation of the ship, shipboard living and working conditions or the prevention of pollution, unless the Authority considers it manifestly unfounded;
3. a ship allowed to leave on condition that deficiencies are rectified, on expiry of the period set;
4. a ship reported by pilots or port authorities;
5. a ship carrying dangerous or polluting goods that has failed to report the required information;
6. a ship that left without complying with detention conditions (Section 3.9);
7. a ship “intentionally choosing a particular port for inspection in order to obtain a favourable inspection result”;
8. categories of ship identified by the Committee.

The seventh ground addresses port shopping. A ship that calls at a quieter port to collect a clean inspection record is itself a reason to inspect it.

Inspection conduct

The Memorandum sets the general framework and leaves the procedural detail to the IMO standard. IMO resolution A.1206(34), Procedures for Port State Control, 2025 , adopted on 3 December 2025, sets out how a port State control officer conducts the initial inspection, the clear grounds test for a more detailed inspection, and the detention criteria that regional regimes build on. Under Section 3.6 of the Memorandum an inspection may be suspended where the ship is found to be substandard overall. Section 3.13 requires Authorities to avoid undue delay to the ship.

Follow-up inspections check rectification of earlier deficiencies. In 2025 Tokyo MoU Authorities carried out 12,607 follow-ups on top of the 35,546 initial inspections, for 48,153 inspections in all, and 1,383 follow-ups (10.97 percent) were done remotely.

Tokyo MoU detention, repair port and appeal

A Tokyo MoU Authority detains a ship when inspection finds deficiencies that are “clearly hazardous”, under Section 3.7 of the Memorandum. The flag State is notified of every detention, and where the grounds include MLC 2006 deficiencies the Authority also notifies the appropriate shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations.

The detention holds until the deficiencies are rectified. Section 3.8 lets the ship proceed to the nearest appropriate repair port where rectification is impossible in the port of inspection, on conditions agreed with the flag State. If the ship sails without meeting the conditions, Section 3.9 applies: it is detained at any port of a member Authority until the company proves full compliance.

Where detainable deficiencies were found in 2025

The 2025 annual report ranks the detainable deficiencies. Fixed fire-extinguishing installations led with 215 detainable deficiencies, followed by ISM (200) and lifeboats (152). All three are core SOLAS items: fire protection under SOLAS Chapter II-2 , the ISM Code under Chapter IX, and life-saving appliances under Chapter III .

Across all deficiencies, not only detainable ones, four categories accounted for 53 percent of the 90,168 recorded in 2025:

Deficiencies are recorded against five-digit deficiency codes grouped under two-digit main categories, among them 01 Certificates and documentation, 07 Fire safety, 10 Safety of navigation, 11 Life saving appliances, 14 Pollution prevention (ballast water at 148xx), 15 ISM and 18 Labour conditions. The current code list is dated 25 December 2025. Safety of navigation findings are checked against SOLAS Chapter V , including the ECDIS and AIS carriage rules.

Appeal and the detention review panel

Section 3.15 preserves the shipowner’s right of appeal under the port State’s national law, and an appeal does not suspend the detention. Complainants are protected: Section 3.14 keeps the identity of a person who reports a deficiency confidential.

The Tokyo MoU also runs a detention review . A flag State, or the RO acting on its behalf, may ask the Secretariat to review a detention “within either 120 days or 4 months (whichever is longer) from the date of release”. The request is not available where the national appeal has been used. A panel of three Authorities, chosen in alphabetical order and excluding the port State and the flag State, considers the case. Its findings are “not binding” and cannot ground a claim for compensation. The PSCC37 press release reports one review case since the previous Committee, in which the detention was upheld.

Tokyo MoU refusal of access and banning

The Tokyo MoU has no banning regime. The Memorandum contains no refusal-of-access provision, which is a difference from the Paris MoU, whose Section 4 refuses access to ships detained repeatedly under Grey or Black flags and to ships that skip a directed repair yard.

The issue is on the Committee’s agenda. At PSCC35 in November 2024 the Committee “agreed to explore the possibility for banning under-performing ships”. At PSCC37 in September 2026 it discussed “a common framework to support Member Authorities that are considering national legislation to prohibit certain ships from entering their ports”. That framework would support national bans, not create an MoU-wide one, and neither step has produced an adopted text.

Under-performing ships

What the regime has instead is a published list. A ship detained three or more times by Tokyo MoU Authorities in the previous 12 months is an under-performing ship. The list is published monthly, and listed ships are subject to more frequent inspection. In 2025 there were 222 listings involving 52 ships, according to the 2025 annual report. The same three-detention count, measured over 36 months, adds one point to the Ship Risk Profile.

Tokyo MoU flag performance list

The Tokyo MoU flag performance list ranks flags into High, Medium and Low performance on three years of inspection and detention data. The list valid from 1 July 2026 to 30 June 2027 uses 2023 to 2025 data and ranks 66 flags: 32 High, 19 Medium and 15 Low.

The tier names changed on 1 July 2025. Amendments adopted at PSCC35 renamed the White, Grey and Black lists High, Medium and Low performance. The list published in the 2024 annual report, on 2022 to 2024 data, was the last under the colour names, so an older document that refers to the Tokyo MoU Black List now points to the Low performance list.

How the tiers are calculated

The method is the binomial calculation also used by the Paris MoU for its White, Grey and Black List . The detention count of each flag is compared with a limit derived from an allowable detention rate of 7 percent at a significance level of z = 1.645, and the distance from that limit is expressed as an excess factor, moving in 3 percent steps. A flag needs at least 30 inspections over the three years to be listed. A negative excess factor is better than the limit; a positive one is worse.

The spread in the 2026 list runs from Gambia at the bottom, excess factor 6.57, to China at the top, -2.41. The other flags on the Low performance list are Saint Kitts and Nevis, Cameroon, Togo, Tanzania, Sao Tome and Principe, Palau, Iran, the Cook Islands, Sierra Leone, the Comoros, Mongolia, Sint Maarten, Djibouti and Belize. The report annotates Sint Maarten with a reference to IMO Circular Letter No.5019 of 20 May 2025 on fraudulent registration .

Among the large open registries, Panama sits on the High performance list on 26,416 inspections over the period, excess factor -0.75, with Liberia at -1.08 and the Marshall Islands at -1.36. The Russian flag is on the Medium performance list at 0.03.

A Low performance flag adds 1 point to every ship’s risk profile. It does not make a ship High Risk alone: a ship of a non-risk type under 12 years old, with good company and RO ratings, stays Standard Risk under a Low flag.

Recognized organization performance list

The recognized organization list rates the class societies and other bodies that issue statutory certificates on behalf of flag States. The list valid from 1 July 2026 rates 30 ROs: 16 High, 11 Medium and 3 Low performance. The three Low performers are Cosmos Marine Bureau, Union Bureau of Shipping and Asia Shipping Certification Services. The calculation uses P = 2 percent and Q = 1 percent and needs more than 60 inspections in the period.

The ROs on the list include the classification societies of the International Association of Classification Societies and smaller non-IACS bodies. For a shipowner the practical point is Annex 2: a Low or Very low performance RO costs 1 point on the Ship Risk Profile, and an RO not recognized by any Tokyo MoU Authority removes the ship from Low Risk eligibility.

The RO method is being replaced. PSCC35 approved a “deterministic method” for flag and RO performance, and PSCC36 decided to harmonize both methods with the Paris MoU from 1 January 2028. Data collection under the new RO method starts on 1 January 2027, and the first list calculated under it is used from 1 July 2028.

Company performance lists

The Tokyo MoU published company performance lists as a trial in 2025. From 1 January 2026, by decision of PSCC36, they are official and published quarterly.

APCIS and public Tokyo MoU inspection data

The Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS) is the Tokyo MoU inspection database. Section 6.6 of the Memorandum locates it “in the Russian Federation”, and the information centre runs in Moscow “under the auspices of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation”. Every inspection by a member Authority is entered in APCIS, and the system computes each ship’s risk profile and inspection window from that record.

APCIS plays the role that THETIS plays for the Paris MoU, and the two are separate systems.

Results are public. The Tokyo MoU publishes inspection and detention data on its website, including detention data and the monthly under-performing ships list, and supplies inspection data to IMO GISIS and to Equasis , the public ship safety database used by charterers and vetting departments. A co-operating member has read-only APCIS access and cannot enter inspections.

Tokyo MoU Concentrated Inspection Campaigns

A concentrated inspection campaign (CIC) is a three-month focus on one area of compliance, run alongside normal port State control inspections with a standard questionnaire. Since 2021 every Tokyo MoU CIC has been run jointly with the Paris MoU.

No CIC is listed for 2020. The 2016 cargo securing campaign ran from 1 September to 30 November 2016 and was a Tokyo MoU campaign; the Paris MoU ran its MLC 2006 campaign that year.

Results of the 2024 and 2025 campaigns

In the 2025 campaign the 30 ballast water detentions sat among 184 detentions for all reasons in the period, a rate of 2.66 percent. The campaign covered ballast water management systems and the ballast water records required by the BWM Convention.

The 2026 cargo securing campaign

The 2026 CIC covers the securing of cargo units and cargo transport units and runs from 1 September to 30 November 2026 in both regions. The subject area is the ship’s Cargo Securing Manual and its cargo securing and lashing systems , checked under the same questionnaire in the Tokyo and Paris MoU regions for the three months.

Focused inspection campaigns

Alongside the CICs, the Tokyo MoU ran focused inspection campaign (FIC) trials in 2025 on fire safety, pilot transfer arrangements and the EPIRB, plus an FIC on CLC certificates. Pilot transfer arrangements are the subject of the pilot ladder rules in SOLAS Regulation V/23, and the EPIRB check sits under the GMDSS carriage rules.

Tokyo MoU in figures, 2015 to 2025

The inspection series in the 2025 annual report shows volume falling in 2020 and 2021 and exceeding the 2019 level from 2024:

Inspections fell 38 percent between 2019 and 2020, from 31,372 to 19,416, and the 30,887 of 2023 were still below 2019. The 2023 detention rate of 4.32 percent is the highest in the series, and 2025’s 35,546 inspections are the highest volume.

In 2025, 23,230 inspections recorded at least one deficiency, and the 1,255 detained ships flew 73 flags. The 2024 figures for comparison: 18,655 individual ships, 107 flags, 77,526 deficiencies and detentions under 67 flags.

Tokyo MoU and the Paris MoU compared

The Tokyo and Paris MoUs share a design and differ on four points that change what a shipowner experiences: legal force, the windows, the list method’s naming, and banning.

The two Secretariats attend each other’s Committees; the Tokyo MoU Secretariat attended Paris PSCC58 in Malmö from 26 to 30 May 2025. The two regimes held the 3rd Joint Ministerial Conference in Vancouver in May 2017, which adopted the declaration “Safeguard Responsible and Sustainable Shipping”. The CICs have run jointly every year since 2021, and the flag and RO methods converge from 1 January 2028.

Tokyo MoU and the other regional regimes

Port State control is organized in nine regional regimes, according to the Tokyo MoU 2025 annual report: the Tokyo and Paris MoUs, the Abuja, Black Sea, Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean and Riyadh MoUs, and the Viña del Mar Agreement for Latin America. All eight other regimes are Tokyo MoU observers. They are described together in the article on regional port State control memoranda .

Membership overlaps. Canada is a signatory of both the Tokyo and Paris MoUs, and so is the Russian Federation, which remains an active Tokyo MoU member while its Paris MoU membership has been suspended since 20 May 2022. Australia supplies its inspection data to the Indian Ocean MoU as well as to APCIS. The United States Coast Guard is a Tokyo MoU observer Authority.

IMO resolution A.1206(34) gives the common procedures, but each MoU sets its own targeting, lists and database.

Tokyo MoU governance: the Port State Control Committee and the Secretariat

The Port State Control Committee, made up of the member Authorities, is the Tokyo MoU’s governing body. It meets once a year (Section 6.2), adopts amendments, admits members and approves CICs. Amendments need a two-thirds majority and are deemed accepted after 6 months, taking effect 60 days later unless the Committee decides otherwise (Section 7.1).

Recent meetings have rotated among the members:

PSCC37 was chaired by Kenny Crawford of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. PSCC35 also raised concerns about improper extensions of certificates and about remote surveys.

The Secretariat is a non-profit body “located in Tokyo” and independent of any maritime administration (Section 6.5). Its Secretary since PSCC36 is Ishihara Akira. English is the official language of the Memorandum (Section 8.8).

The 1 January 2028 amendments to Annex 2 were adopted but are not yet in effect. The Ship Risk Profile described in this article is the one in force until that date.

Tokyo MoU practical implications for owners, managers and masters

For a ship trading in the Asia-Pacific, the Tokyo MoU record is a commercial document as well as a regulatory one. It is public on the Tokyo MoU website and in Equasis, where charterers and tanker vetting under SIRE can read it, and the Ship Risk Profile looks back 36 months.

Managing the Ship Risk Profile

Of the seven Annex 2 parameters, three are within an operator’s reach. Keeping every inspection at 5 or fewer deficiencies avoids the per-inspection point, avoiding three detentions in 36 months avoids the detention point, and ISM company performance, where each ISM deficiency weighs 5 times an ordinary one, is set by the fleet’s record. Ship type and age are fixed; flag and RO are changeable only at the cost of a reflagging or a change of class.

A container ship or bulk carrier starts at 2 points by type. One more point, from age over 12 years, a Low performance flag or a Low performance RO, brings it to 3; a fourth point from any source makes it a High Risk Ship with a 2 to 4 month window.

Preparing for an inspection

The 2025 figures point to where inspectors find the detainable items: fixed fire-extinguishing installations, ISM implementation and lifeboats. Fire safety was the largest single deficiency category, at 18,020. A master preparing for a Tokyo MoU call has those three areas, the current CIC questionnaire (cargo securing until 30 November 2026), and certificate validity as the first checks, because an improperly extended certificate was a named PSCC35 concern.

Ballast water management and MLC 2006 wages and employment agreements were the CIC subjects in 2025 and 2024.

After a detention

A detention is notified to the flag State, published in the Tokyo MoU detention data and entered in APCIS, where it feeds the ship, company, flag and RO ratings. The company’s options are the national appeal or, through the flag State or RO, the detention review within 120 days or 4 months of release. A review finding is not binding and carries no compensation, although the detention review page states that it may justify the port State amending its APCIS records.

A third detention within 12 months puts the ship on the under-performing ships list, with more frequent inspection to follow.

Limitations of the Tokyo MoU data and rules

The figures in this article come from the Tokyo MoU 2025 and 2024 annual reports and the PSCC37 press release of 18 September 2026. They describe the regime in force on 30 September 2026. Three changes are already adopted and not yet in effect: the Annex 2 amendments and the harmonized flag and RO methods from 1 January 2028, and the first list under the new RO method from 1 July 2028.

The flag and RO lists are valid for one year, from 1 July to 30 June, and are recalculated each year on a rolling three-year data window. A flag’s tier in this article is correct for the list valid 1 July 2026 to 30 June 2027 and should be rechecked after that date.

The regional totals mix Authorities that report their whole coastline with four (Canada, Mexico, Panama, the Russian Federation) that report only Pacific ports. Per-Authority volumes are not comparable as a measure of port traffic.

The Memorandum sets the framework, and much of the operational detail sits in procedures below it and in IMO resolution A.1206(34), which is recommendatory. Where the Memorandum and a national statute differ, a detention is decided under the national statute.

The entry-into-force dates in the instruments table are those printed in the Tokyo MoU 2025 annual report. The date a convention binds a given member Authority is that State’s own ratification date, which can be later.

Related Articles

• Port State control
• Paris MoU
• Regional port State control memoranda
• Ship Risk Profile
• Concentrated inspection campaign
• IMO Procedures for Port State Control
• Refusal of access (banning) under port State control
• Recognized organization
• Equasis
• Flag state and flag of convenience