IMO Guidelines Are Quietly Weakening the Basel Convention

International law depends on a basic understanding that obligations accepted by states cannot be set aside by administrative preference. Treaties are binding because states have consented to be bound, and that consent cannot be diluted through voluntary guidance adopted by a different institution. Yet in the regulation of ship recycling, this principle is being tested in a way that should concern anyone who takes treaty law seriously.

The issue arises from the growing reliance on non-binding instruments adopted within the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to manage the overlap between the Basel Convention and the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (HKC). While the objective of improving ship recycling standards is widely shared, the method being used risks weakening a binding environmental treaty through practice rather than law.

The Basel Convention governs the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Its purpose is preventative. Hazardous waste should not be exported across borders without the prior informed consent of the states concerned, particularly where the receiving state may lack adequate capacity to manage the waste safely. End-of-life ships, which typically contain asbestos, PCBs, heavy metals, residual fuels, and contaminated coatings, fall within Basel’s scope once a decision has been taken to dispose of them. The HKC, adopted in 2009 and in force since June 2025, addresses a different problem. It establishes technical and operational standards for ship recycling, including inventories of hazardous materials (IHM), certification of ships, and authorization of recycling facilities. It was developed in response to the absence of a coherent ship-specific framework and reflects years of negotiation within the maritime community.

Legally speaking, there is nothing inherently inconsistent between these two treaties. A state can comply with Basel’s controls on hazardous-waste movements while also applying HKC’s standards for safe and environmentally sound recycling. The difficulty arises because, in practice, many shipping administrations and industry actors view Basel procedures as ill-suited to the realities of shipping and recycling markets. Basel is seen as slow, rigid, and potentially disruptive. HKC is seen as tailored and workable.

This practical tension has driven the IMO to act. Over the past decade, the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has adopted a comprehensive set of guidelines to support implementation of the HKC. These include guidelines on ship recycling plans (MEPC.196(62)), safe and environmentally sound recycling (MEPC.210(63)), authorization of ship recycling facilities (MEPC.211(63)), survey and certification of ships (MEPC.222(64)), inspection of ships (MEPC.223(64)), and the development of inventories of hazardous materials (MEPC.379(80)). Each of these instruments is expressly non-mandatory...Basel and HKC do not meet that test. One regulates hazardous-waste movements. The other regulates ship recycling standards. A state can comply with both without contradiction i.e. they are not mutually exclusive. Operational inconvenience alone, however significant, does not constitute legal incompatibility.... Courts do not apply guidance. They apply law......Domestic courts are therefore a critical, if underused, check in this system...The integrity of international law depends on clarity about sources and hierarchy. Treaties bind because states agreed that they would. Guidelines guide because they are meant to assist, not replace, legal obligations. When that distinction is blurred, law becomes negotiable and obligation becomes optional.

The IMO’s ship-recycling guidance was intended to promote safer practices and regulatory coherence. Those aims are legitimate. But legitimacy of purpose does not confer legal authority. Where guidance promotes outcomes that conflict with binding law, it must be rejected and set aside.... Hong Kong standards must and should operate alongside them.

Binding law binds. Guidance does not change that.      Dr. Ishtiaque Ahmed is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Law at North South University, Bangladesh. A former Merchant Marine Engineering Officer, he holds a J.S.D. (Doctor of the Science of Law) from the University of Maine School of Law, USA, where he specialized in International Ship recycling laws and policy. He contributed to the drafting of Bangladesh’s Ship Recycling Rule 2025 (proposed) and revising Bangladesh Ship Recycling Act 2018 as the sole Legal Consultant. Dr. Ahmed is also a qualified Barrister of England, an active member of Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (MCIArb) in London and an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. His expertise lies at the intersection of maritime law, environmental regulation, and sustainable ship recycling practices.