If the casualty occurred within the territorial sea of “y” its national law may require its authorities to conduct an investigation.

Whether the casualty occurred inside or outside “Y’s” territorial sea, the authorities of “Y” in the exercise of sovereign police power may of course interview the injured passengers present in “Y” with respect to the casualty, within the constraints imposed by their medical condition.

The presence of the ferry in the port of “Y” following a serious casualty allows “Y” to exercise its sovereign police power under the ‘peace and tranquillity’ doctrine to board the ferry to investigate.

[If there is any indication that incompetency, error or omission on the part of the pilot may have caused or contributed to the casualty, that the pilot held a pilot’s license issued by “Y” would not invoke jurisdiction to investigate under STCW – pilots are not covered by STCW Convention. Neither does the Convention make provision for the issue of pilotage endorsements or pilotage exemption endorsements].

State “P” is not a “substantially interested State” by reason of the tanker’s grounding on a sandbank within its territorial sea; however, if the tanker poses a threat to “P’s” marine environment, that gives “P” a substantial interest. That 230 nationals of “P” as ferry passengers were exposed to danger by the collision may be considered a “significant interest”.

State “P” may exercise its sovereign police power under the ‘peace and tranquillity’ doctrine to conduct an examination of the tanker and to interview any persons on board (or taken ashore to “P”) having knowledge of the casualty.

[UNCLOS Articles 218 and 220 will not confer jurisdiction on “P” because the release of oil to the environment resulted from the collision, and not from a violation of the rules and standards referred to in Part XII of UNCLOS.]

[That the Master of the ferry held a pilot exemption is relevant only if that exemption was issued by State “P”. “P’s” Administration could not affix a pilotage exemption endorsement to a license issued by “A”, so the exemption would have to be endorsed on a license issued by “P” to the Master of the ferry. If that were the case and there is any indication that incompetency, error or omission on the part of the ferry Master may have caused or contributed to the casualty, then “P’s” obligation under STCW ’95, Annex, Chapter I, Regulation I/5 becomes relevant and it has an obligation under this hybrid of international and national law to investigate the casualty in the context of the Master’s involvement.]

State “W” has no jurisdiction to investigate and would be a “substantially interested State” as defined by the Casualty Investigation Code only if the Master or one or more of the officers and crew of the tanker who were nationals of “X” were injured or died as a result of the casualty.

[If the Master and/or the officers and crew held licences or other certification issued by “W” and there is any indication that incompetency, error or omission on the part of any of them may have caused or contributed to the casualty, then “W’s” obligation under STCW ’95, Annex, Chapter I, Regulation I/5 becomes relevant and it has an obligation under this hybrid of international and national law to investigate the casualty in the context of their involvement.]

State “X” has no jurisdiction to investigate but is certainly a “substantially interested State” as defined by the Casualty Investigation Code because a national of “X” (the cadet) died as a result of the casualty.

[If any of the officers or crew of the tanker held licences or other certification issued by “X” and there is any indication that incompetency, error or omission on the part of any of them may have caused or contributed to the casualty, then “X’s” obligation under STCW ’95, Annex, Chapter I, Regulation I/5 becomes relevant and it has an obligation under this hybrid of international and national law to investigate the casualty in the context of their involvement.]

State “Z” has no jurisdiction to investigate, but that 500 nationals of “Z” as ferry passengers were exposed to danger by the collision may be considered a “significant interest” by the lead investigating State which would accord “Z” the status of a “substantially interested State” as defined by the Casualty Investigation Code. If any of these nationals were among the injured passengers, then “Z” would be a “substantially interested State”. That the voyage of the ferry originated in “Z” does not appear to have any relevance to the casualty or to “Z’s” status.