Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 85 - 101 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.4274/jems.2021.75436 İndeks Tarihi: 24-06-2022

ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding

Öz:
The Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) publishes a white, gray, and black list, presenting the full spectrum from quality flags to flags with poor performance that are considered high or very high risk every year. At this point, increasing the flag’s performance can be achieved by eliminating the deficiencies and detentions in the ships. In this context, the aim of this study is to examine the performance of Turkish-flagged ships under the Paris MoU port state control (PSC) to determine the deficiencies of the ships and to make suggestions for measures that may be taken by the Republic of Turkey as a relevant flag state. Accordingly, the PSC data of Turkish-flagged ships between 2013 and 2020 in the EMSA THETIS have been analyzed. Comparison and descriptive distributions for the data of Turkish-flagged ships have been performed by creating cross tables of the distribution of ship type, inspection type, age of ships, detention ports, and detention decisions. An autoregressive distributed lag bound test has been carried out to understand whether the deficiencies and age of the ships can significantly affect the detention decision of ships at the port under the Paris MoU. Consequently, while deficiencies on the ships are found to significantly affect the decision of the detention of ships, the age of ships doesn’t have a significant effect under the Paris MoU.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • [1] A.J.E. Corres and A.A. Pallis, “Flag state performance: an empirical analysis,” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, vol. 7, pp. 241-261, April 2008.
  • [2] J.N.K. Mansell, Flag state responsibility: historical development and contemporary Issues. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.
  • [3] J. Chen, S. Zhang, L. Xu, Z. Wan, Y. Fei and T. Zheng, “Identification of key factors of ship detention under port state control.” Marine Policy, vol. 102, pp. 21-27, April 2019.
  • [4] L. Fan, M. Luo, and J. Yin, “Flag choice and port state control inspections empirical evidence using a simultaneous model”, Journal Transport Policy, vol. 35, pp. 350-357, Sept 2014.
  • [5] M. Perepelkin, S. Knapp, G. Perepelkin, De, and M. Pooter, “An improved methodology to measure flag performance for the shipping industry,” Marine Policy, vol. 34, pp. 395-405, May 2010.
  • [6] H. Ban, and D. Jang, “Recent developments in regional memorandums of understanding on port state control,” Ocean Development and International Law, vol. 243, pp. 170-187, May 2012.
  • [7] P. Cariou, M.Q. Meija Jr and F.C. Wolff, “On the effectiveness of port state control inspections,” Transportation Research Part E, vol. 44, pp. 491-503, May 2008.
  • [8] J. Hare, and J. Ga, “Port State Control: Strong Medicine to Cure a Sick Industry. Journal of International Comparative Law, vol. 26, pp. 571-594, 1996.
  • [9] S. Knapp and P.H. Franses, “Econometric analysis on the effect of port state control inspections on the probability of casualty: can targeting of substandard ships for inspections be improved?,” Marine Policy, vol. 31 pp. 550-563, Jul 2007.
  • [10] C. Heij, G. Bijwaard and S. Knapp, “Ship inspection strategies: effects on maritime safety and environmental protection”. Transportation Research Part D, vol. 16, pp. 42-48, Jan 2011.
  • [11] İ.B. Aydemir, “The Analysis of Defects Determined at The Ships in The Context of Ship Inspection Report Programme (SIRE) (published master thesis).” Istanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 2015.
  • [12] M. Bayram, “Analysis of Turkish flagged ships detained at Paris, Mediterranean, and Blacksea memorandums (published master thesis).” Karadeniz Technical University, 2010.
  • [13] Paris MoU Port State Control, “Port State Progression Detention Rate Down,” Paris MoU Port State, St. Petersburg, Russia, Annual Report 2019 January 12, 2020.
  • [14] F. Piniella, E. Rodríguez-Díaz, and J.I. Alcaide, “A Comparative Analysis of vessels detained under the PSC Agreements of Paris, Tokyo and Viña del Mar,” Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 291-306, 2014.
  • [15] E.G. Emecen Kara, O. Oksas, G. Kara, “The similarity analysis of port state control regimes based on the performance of flag states. proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, part m,” Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, vol. 234, pp. 558-572, Sept 2019.
  • [16] W.H. Chung, S.L. Kao, C.M. Chang and C.C. Yuan, “Association Rule Learning to Improve Deficiency Inspection in Port State Control,” Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 47, pp. 332-351, Nov 2019.
  • [17] P. Cariou, and F.C. Wolff, “Identifying substandard vessels through port state control inspections: a new methodology for concentrated inspection campaigns,” Marine Policy, vol. 60, pp. 27-39, Oct 2015.
  • [18] A. Graziano, P. Cariou, F.C. Wolff, M.Q. Mejia and J.U. Schröder- Hinrichs, “Port state control inspections in the european union: do inspector’s number and background matter?” Marine Policy, vol. 88, pp. 230-241, Feb 2018.
  • [19] F. Yılmaz and N.J. Ece, “The analysis of the relationship between variables related to Paris Mou - PSC inspections and the results of inspections applied to Turkish flagged ships,” Journal of ETA Maritime Science, vol. 5, pp, 172-185, 2017.
  • [20] F. Piniella and E. Rodriguez-Diaz, “The new inspection regime of the Paris Mou on port state control: improvement of the system,” Journal of Maritime Research, vol. 9, pp. 9-16, Jan 2019.
  • [21] S. Knapp and P.H. Franses, “A global view on port state control: econometric analysis of the differences across port state control regimes,” Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 34, pp. 453-482, 2007.
  • [22] K.X. Li, J. Yin and L. Fan, L. “Ship safety index,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 66, pp. 75-87, Aug 2014. [23] P.B. Payoyo, “Implementation of international conventions through port state control: an assessment,” Marine Policy, vol. 18, pp. 379-392, Sept 1994.
  • [24] H.S. Bang and D.J. Jang, “Recent developments in regional memorandums of understanding on port state control,” Ocean Development & International Law, vol. 43, pp. 170-187, Jan 2011.
  • [25] F. Piniella, J.I. Alcaide and E. Rodríguez-Díaz, E. “Identifying stakeholder perceptions and realities of Paris Mou inspections.” WMU J Maritime Affairs, vol. 19, pp. 27-49, 2020.
  • [26] R. Harris, and R. Sollis, Applied Time Series. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
  • [27] R.F. Engle, and C.W.J. Granger, “Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation and Testing,” Econometrica, vol. 50, pp. 987-1007, March 1987.
  • [28] S. Johansen, “The role of the constant and linear terms in cointegration analysis of nonstationary variables,” Econometric Reviews, vol. 13, pp. 205-229, 1994.
  • [29] J. Breitung, “A parametric approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data,” Econometric Reviews, vol. 24, pp. 151-173, May 2005.
  • [30] M. Sevutekin and M. Cınar, Ekonometrik Zaman Serileri Analizi. Bursa: Dora Basın Yayın Dagıtım Ltd. Sti, 2017.
  • [31] D. Dickey and W.A. Fuller. Distribution of the estimates for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, pp. 427-431, Nov 1976.
  • [32] C. Granger and P. Newbold. Forecasting economic time series. London: Academic Press, 1977.
  • [33] EMSA THETIS. (2013-2020) Inspection Reports. Retrieved January 10 2021, from https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/web/ thetis/inspections
  • [34] A. Das, “Longitudinal data analysis,” in Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. A.C. Michalos, Ed. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014.
  • [35] F.W. Hair, Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Education Limited, 2013.
  • [36] B.G. Tabachnick and L.S. Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics. California: Pearson, 2013.
APA uygur s, BOLAT F (2021). ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. , 85 - 101. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
Chicago uygur selen,BOLAT FIRAT ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. (2021): 85 - 101. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
MLA uygur selen,BOLAT FIRAT ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. , 2021, ss.85 - 101. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
AMA uygur s,BOLAT F ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. . 2021; 85 - 101. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
Vancouver uygur s,BOLAT F ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. . 2021; 85 - 101. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
IEEE uygur s,BOLAT F "ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding." , ss.85 - 101, 2021. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
ISNAD uygur, selen - BOLAT, FIRAT. "ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding". (2021), 85-101. https://doi.org/10.4274/jems.2021.75436
APA uygur s, BOLAT F (2021). ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. Journal of Eta Maritime Science, 9(2), 85 - 101. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
Chicago uygur selen,BOLAT FIRAT ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. Journal of Eta Maritime Science 9, no.2 (2021): 85 - 101. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
MLA uygur selen,BOLAT FIRAT ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. Journal of Eta Maritime Science, vol.9, no.2, 2021, ss.85 - 101. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
AMA uygur s,BOLAT F ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. Journal of Eta Maritime Science. 2021; 9(2): 85 - 101. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
Vancouver uygur s,BOLAT F ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. Journal of Eta Maritime Science. 2021; 9(2): 85 - 101. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
IEEE uygur s,BOLAT F "ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding." Journal of Eta Maritime Science, 9, ss.85 - 101, 2021. 10.4274/jems.2021.75436
ISNAD uygur, selen - BOLAT, FIRAT. "ARDL Bound Testing Approach for Turkish-Flagged Ships Inspected under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding". Journal of Eta Maritime Science 9/2 (2021), 85-101. https://doi.org/10.4274/jems.2021.75436