illustrated by the conclusions of a United States
Government Accountability Office report.88 On 2 May
2012, an official notification letter was submitted
by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security to the United States Congress, thus giving
effect to the anticipated deferral of the requirement
for the 100 per cent scanning of United States-bound
maritime containers at foreign ports for two years, until
1 July 2014. The letter states among other elements
that 100 per cent scanning of containers is neither
the most efficient nor cost-effective way to secure the
supply chain against terrorism. In addition, diplomatic,
financial and logistical challenges of such a measure
would cost an estimated $16 billion.89
In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security
secretary has again decided on another two-year
extension, citing the same reasons that existed two
years ago. In a letter to the United States Congress
sent in May 2014, he notes that the conditions and
supporting evidence cited in the 2012 deadline
postponement “continue to prevail and preclude fullscale
implementation of the provision at this time”. In
addition, he notes that the use of systems available
to scan containers “would have a negative impact
on trade capacity and the flow of cargo”, and points
out that scanners to monitor the 12 million containers
imported in the United States each year “cannot
be purchased, deployed or operated at ports
overseas because ports do not have the physical
characteristics to install such a system”. The letter
also draws attention to the huge cost of such a
scheme.90
(c) International Maritime Organization
Measures to enhance maritime security
Certain matters covered as part of the agenda of the
latest sessions of the MSC and the Legal Committee
of IMO are also worth noting that relate to the effective
implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the
International Ship and Port Facilities Security (ISPS)
Code91 (combating piracy and armed robbery, and
requirements related to privately contracted armed
security personnel on board ships).
Maritime Safety Committee
The MSC at its ninety-third session92 expressed its
concern that some States have incorporated the
ISPS Code into their domestic legislation without
accommodating many of the enabling provisions to