The global shipping industry faces mounting pressure to combat illicit trade practices, placing international ship registries at the center of an escalating regulatory paradox. According to Graeme Morkel, Deputy International Registrar of Shipping and Seamen at the St Kitts and Nevis International Ship Registry, flag states are increasingly caught between enforcement obligations and operational risks.
Sanctions evasion, flag hopping, and complex ownership structures have evolved from peripheral concerns to critical challenges threatening the integrity of the global fleet and the credibility of maritime administrations. While open registries are frequently characterized as part of the problem, many have actually become frontline enforcers in the battle against illegal shipping practices.
A fundamental tension has emerged through recent stakeholder engagements: flag states cannot simultaneously serve as enforcement agents and bear sole responsibility for consequences. Registries are now expected to execute intelligence-driven decisions carrying significant operational and human impacts, yet the supporting frameworks surrounding these decisions remain underdeveloped.
Progress has emerged through collaborative initiatives like the Registry Information Sharing Compact (RISC), which enables flag states to exchange intelligence regarding vessels denied registration or under sanctions investigation. This mechanism addresses the deliberate strategy of flag hopping—where operators shift registrations to avoid compliance scrutiny—rather than treating it as merely an administrative loophole.
Modern registries maintain close cooperation with international enforcement and intelligence agencies, frequently making registration decisions based on directives from organizations specializing in sanctions enforcement and national security. However, when vessels are removed from registries following such directives, the action is often mischaracterized as abandonment, wrongly attributing responsibility to the flag state.
This misrepresentation creates dangerous operational and reputational risks. Enforced removals conducted in support of sanctions compliance constitute legitimate regulatory actions, not abandonment. The current disconnect underscores the urgent need for clearer alignment between the United Nations, International Maritime Organization, and flag states regarding definitions and communications protocols.
Encouragingly, international recognition of this imbalance is growing. Discussions regarding sanctions frameworks and enhanced IMO cooperation indicate increasing awareness that effective enforcement requires shared responsibility and consistent accountability. The fight against illicit maritime trade ultimately depends on trust, transparency, and cooperation—with flag states requiring consistent support when implementing difficult enforcement decisions.