Maritime Security Legislative Critique

Maritime Security Legislative Critique
Student Name
Program Name or Degree Name (e.g., Master of Science in Nursing), Walden University
COURSE XXX: Title of Course
Instructor Name
Month XX, 202X
Maritime Security Legislative Critique
Before the 9/11 attack, global maritime transportation risks were a primary concern for companies and countries. However, following the attack, terrorism heightened the need for improved security measures. Terrorism is among the artificial risks critical infrastructure like maritime ports must mitigate daily. Others include smuggling and pilferage. In response to the 9/11 attack, the United States Congress, following the realization that maritime ports are vulnerable entry points for weapons and terrorists, passed the MTSA in 2002 and later, in 2006, strengthened it through the SAFE Port Act. The current paper is a legislative criticism of the two Acts whose purpose is to enhance maritime security.
Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) (2002) and SAFE Port Act (2006)
Legislative History
The MTSA of 2002 was established to amend the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. The purpose of the amendment was to enhance security for seaports and strengthen the supply chain system. In other words, terrorism detection and prevention are among the key priorities of the public port authority. In the Act, combined efforts from the port authorities, the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, the US Coast Guard, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Domestic Nuclear Protection Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Transportation Security Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The extensive collaboration established by the Act highlights the importance of marine ports on the American economy and the security agencies. According to findings for the MTSA, the US has 361 ports handling over $1.3 trillion in cargo per year (Foote, 2017). Therefore, the rippling effect of disruption in the marine industry resulting from internal or external threats can have far-reaching consequences. The Act, therefore, represented a significant shift from the Merchant Marine Act, whose measures on terrorism could not meet the terror threats of the modern world. Thus, the MTSA provides the framework for maritime security concerns to be addressed in the country. The SAFE Ports Act of 2006 was the first addition to this framework. The Act created and codified new initiatives and programs and amended some of the perceived shortcomings within the MTSA.
Core Legislation Points
MTSA was designed, in part, to enhance the security of ports and waterways from threats of terror. Thus, the Act required a wide range of security improvements, including the need for vulnerability assessment for port vessels and facilities, development of security plans for identified risks, development of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) (a biometric identification system), and assessment of foreign ports from which vessels depart for America (Caldwell, 2007). Thus, the MTSA is primarily a security threat mitigation legislation that detects and prevents terrorism. As an addition to this framework, the SAFE Port Act enhances the security stipulations within the MTSA. According to Caldwell (2007), the SAFE Port Act codified the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). Unlike the MTSA, the SAFE Ports Act recognized the threat posed by transportation containers. In 2005, Senator Carl Levin had described shipping container ports as Modern-Day Trojan Horse (Keefer, 2007) because of the little attention containers received prior to the 9/11 attack and its exclusion in the MTSA. Scholars alike have highlighted the security threats posed by shipping containers. Referring to the shipping container as Terror in a Box, Simpson-Wood (2013) argued that security threats related to shipping containers influenced the formulation of the SAFE Port Act. Further, the Act established interagency operational centers, developed fee restrictions for TWIC, expanded access to data, and set an implementation schedule. Subsequently, what the port has established is a layered security structure aimed at preventing terrorism.
Legislation Summary
The MTSA impacted 587 ports, 469,686 facilities, and 778,633 vessels intending to protect the maritime industry, commerce, and the Marine Transport system (Hampton, 2021). Apart from this intention, the act was designed to strike a balance between security and the free flow of commerce by preventing transportation security incidents, loss of life, damage to the environment, and economic disruption. The Act consists of five major components: Maritime Security General, Area Maritime Security, and Vessel & Facility Security Requirements, Assessment, and Security Plans. The first layer encompasses territorial seas and foreign ports & facilities; in compliance with the International Ship and Facility Security (ISPS) code. Other layers include the International Waters in which offshore actions, surveillance, tracking, and interdictions are enforced; and the US exclusive economic zone where coastal actions, interdictions, and boardings are performed.
The SAFE Port Act was established to enhance security stipulations with three core points of focus: increase the US port security readiness and preparedness, reinforce the enhanced layered security throughout the international supply chain, and leverage information and intelligence sharing (King, 2007). According to Simpson-Wood (2013), tightened restrictions around TWIC, established grant programs for port security, enhanced port security training and exercises, automated targeting systems, established custom-trade partnerships against terrorism (C-TPAT). Essentially, SAFE Port Authority enhances and expands on the stipulations of MTSA with a significant focus on the enhancement of maritime security against threats of terror. As it turns out, however, the overemphasis on terrorism might also be a fundamental weakness of this legislation.
Legislation Strengths and Weaknesses
The key strengths of the legislations lie in their progress so far in addressing specific security areas of concern. For instance, port security systems, including several guards, cameras, and monitoring systems, have been established. In contrast, the Port Security Grant Program has helped develop sustainable prevention, preparedness, and response capabilities of the ports author...