Reform of the Comoros Merchant Shipping Code: Towards a New Governance Framework for the International Ship Registry?

I. The Establishment of an Autonomous Legal Framework for the International Ship Registry

The reform primarily enacts a fundamental clarification of the organization of the Comoros flag.

While the Merchant Shipping Code previously governed the registration of vessels without establishing the architecture now adopted, Law No. 26-009/AU expressly distinguishes between two registries serving different purposes: the Local Registry and the International Registry.

This distinction is not merely administrative.

It now determines the registry to which a vessel must be attached based on the nature of its activity and conditions, to a large extent, the competent authority for its registration, control, and certification.

A. The Separation of the Local Registry and the International Ship Registry

The new Article 57-2 establishes a "distinct regime" for the International Registry of ships of the Union of the Comoros and expressly provides that it is separate from the Local Registry.

This separation follows a functional logic.

The Local Registry is intended for vessels operating solely within waters and activities falling under the local framework. The International Registry, for its part, is intended for vessels engaged in international operations, offshore activities, as well as international fishing activities and related operations.

Article 57-4 translates this distinction into terms of administrative competence.

The Local Registry falls under the authority of the competent national authorities in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Code, whereas the International Registry falls under the authority of the Maritime Administrator, under the general supervision of the minister under the conditions provided by law.

The distinction between the two registries primarily determines the activities that the vessel is legally authorized to conduct.

In this respect, Article 57-5 establishes a particularly important principle: any vessel flying or intending to fly the Comoros flag and engaged in an international activity must be registered in the International Registry.

The text refers in particular to cargo ships, oil tankers, tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, passenger ships, offshore vessels, tugs, barges, private or commercial yachts operating internationally, as well as fishing vessels and refrigerated ships involved in international activities.

The consequence is substantial.

Registration in the Local Registry no longer constitutes, by itself, a title allowing a Comorian vessel to engage indiscriminately in local or international activity.

On the contrary, the law provides that a vessel registered solely in the Local Registry is not authorized, by virtue of this registration alone, to carry out, for instance, an international voyage, deep-sea navigation, an international commercial activity, high-seas or international fishing activity, or any other operation requiring international flag certificates.

The reform therefore establishes a correspondence between the nature of the activity performed and the applicable registration regime.

However, it does not prohibit all interaction between the two registries.

A vessel registered in the International Registry may enter Comorian waters, stay there, and be inspected without having to be re-registered in the Local Registry. However, when it intends to perform certain local activities—notably domestic cabotage, inland transport, local fishing, or port services—it remains subject to the applicable licenses and operational authorizations.

Conversely, the Maritime Administrator may, in certain exceptional circumstances, temporarily authorize a vessel registered in the Local Registry to perform an international voyage or a specific operation outside its usual zone. This authorization must be in writing and limited in time, purpose, itinerary, and navigation conditions.

The legislature therefore does not create two separate flags.

It organizes, within the same Comoros flag, two registration regimes corresponding to two categories of vessel operation, with different administrative competencies and compliance requirements.

This clarification constitutes the first major contribution of the reform.

However, it is accompanied by a second development: access to the International Registry is not designed as a mere registration formality. It is now preceded by a relatively extensive check of the vessel, its operation, and the persons who directly or indirectly control it.

B. Strengthened Conditions for Access to the Comoros International Flag

Law No. 26-009/AU devotes several provisions to the quality of the flag.

Article 57-37 thus subordinates any registration in the International Registry to a series of preliminary verifications.

These primarily concern the identity of the actors involved in the ownership and operation of the vessel: registered owner, beneficial owner, shipowner, charterer, manager, operator and, where applicable, the ISM operator.

The title of ownership or the right of operation must also be verified, as well as the deletion or suspension of the previous flag and the absence of a flag conflict.

But the control does not stop at the legal status of the vessel.

The Administrator must also take into consideration its Port State Control (PSC) record, any casualties, pollution incidents, crew abandonments, or documentary fraud, as well as its class, certificates, technical condition, insurance, and financial guarantees.

Added to this are compliance with international sanctions and, for the vessels concerned, the absence of an unacceptable risk of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

This approach reflects a change in logic.

Admission to the International Registry is now based on an assessment that concerns not only the vessel, but also its history, its operation, and the persons who control it.

Article 57-38 regarding beneficial ownership is particularly revealing of this development.

The Maritime Administrator may require the full declaration of the chain of ownership, control, and economic benefit up to the final natural persons.

The text above all allows for consequences to be drawn from this verification.

Refusal of registration may notably be based on substantial opacity, false declaration, the use of nominees, or the existence of an artificial structure or concealment of the beneficial owner intended to circumvent the regulations.

The identification of the beneficial owner thus ceases to be a mere administrative piece of information: it becomes a condition for access to the flag.

Simultaneously, the reform introduces a screening mechanism for international sanctions, criminal risks, documentary fraud, money laundering, risks of illicit financing, and threats to the integrity or reputation of the flag. The Administrator may refuse, suspend, or deregister a vessel when it, its owner, its beneficial owner, its charterer, its manager, its operator, or its financier presents an unacceptable risk or refuses to cooperate.

Admission, moreover, does not exhaust the control.

The law imposes on owners and operators a continuing obligation of compliance. Any change in ownership, beneficial owner, charterer, manager, insurer, or technical status must in particular be brought to the attention of the Administrator, as well as certain events likely to affect the compliance of the vessel.

Flag control thus becomes a continuous process, from the admission of the vessel to its deletion.

This development is of particular interest in an international context where the quality of a registry is no longer measured solely by the number of registered vessels, but also by its ability to identify operators, track vessels, and prevent the use of its flag by structures or activities presenting a legal or reputational risk.

It is completed by a third element, less visible but equally important for the legal certainty of the registry: the organization of the publicity of the rights of creditors and the security interests constituted on vessels.

C. Enhancing Legal Certainty for Transactions Involving Vessels

The reform devotes an entire chapter to ship mortgages, liens, charges, and security interests.

The objective goes beyond merely organizing an administrative file.

The new regime tends to make the International Registry an instrument allowing the legal status of the vessel to be established and made enforceable against third parties.

Article 57-43 thus provides for the keeping of a special register of ship mortgages, charges, restrictions, notices of priority, discharges, certificates of charges, transcriptions, and other security interests relating to vessels registered or intended to be registered in the International Registry. This register may be kept in physical, electronic, or digital form.

The creation of a ship mortgage must be established in writing and must allow, in particular, for the identification of the vessel, the mortgagee, the debtor, the secured debt, as well as its maximum amount where applicable.

The registration then produces an essential effect: the mortgage becomes enforceable against third parties from the date and time of its registration.

The law also organizes the ranking of mortgagees, mainly according to the chronological order of their registration, and allows for the issuance of a certificate of charges intended to trace the registrations existing on the vessel.

These provisions are of particular importance for maritime financing operations.

A vessel constitutes a mobile asset capable of changing owner, flag, or jurisdiction. The security of the financing therefore depends largely on the ability of the creditor to make its security interest enforceable and to prevent certain operations involving the vessel from extinguishing or compromising its rights.

It is precisely on this point that the reform introduces one of its most significant mechanisms.

When a registered mortgage provides for a restriction on transfer, sale, change of ownership, change of name, change of flag, deletion, re-registration, or another substantial restriction, this restriction must be mentioned in the registry.

The Maritime Administrator may then not proceed with the relevant act without the written consent of the registered mortgagee or, unless there is a final decision of a competent court, without satisfying the mandatory conditions provided by law.

The principle is extended to the matter of deletion.

No deletion certificate, closure, flag transfer, or removal from the International Registry may be issued as long as the registered mortgages and charges have not been duly discharged, transferred, or consented to by the creditors concerned, subject to the rules provided by law and the Registry Rules.

Deletion therefore no longer constitutes solely a relationship between the shipowner and the flag administration.

It must also take into account the duly registered rights of third parties.

The law provides, moreover, that an administrative deletion pronounced for reasons of compliance, sanction, fraud, security, or IUU fishing does not entail the extinction of validly registered real rights. The Administrator retains the trace of undischarged mortgages and charges and may issue the corresponding transcriptions to the creditors.

This architecture is completed by provisions relating to the discharge, transfer, and assignment of mortgages, the rights of the mortgagee, as well as vessels under construction.

The reform therefore does not limit itself to determining which vessels may fly the Comoros flag.

It also seeks to organize the conditions under which third parties—owners, operators, financiers, and creditors—may rely on the information contained in the International Registry.

This dimension is decisive.

The credibility of an international registry depends as much on the quality of its control of vessels as on the legal certainty it offers to the operations to which these vessels are subject.

But this ambition assumes an authority capable of administering the registry, performing checks, issuing certificates, organizing the publicity of rights, and, when necessary, sanctioning breaches.

It is on this point that the reform makes its most important institutional choice: the concentration of these functions in the hands of a Maritime Administrator benefiting from autonomy and particularly extensive prerogatives.

II. Extensive Delegation of Flag Administration, Subject to State Oversight

The creation of a distinct International Ship Registry necessitated the determination of the authority responsible for its administration.

On this point, Law No. 26-009/AU adopts a specific architecture: it does not directly entrust the day-to-day management of the International Ship Registry to a central administration, but instead establishes a Maritime Administrator, who is granted extensive powers within the framework of a Concession Agreement concluded with the State.

This choice goes beyond the outsourcing of material or technical tasks.

The Maritime Administrator is indeed invested with prerogatives that directly affect the exercise of functions traditionally associated with the flag State: registration and deletion of ships, certification, compliance monitoring, registry regulation, seafarers’ documentation, and administrative sanctions.

The issue then becomes the balance struck by the reform between operational autonomy of the International Ship Registry and the retention of the authority of the Comorian State over its flag.

A. The Emergence of a Maritime Administrator Vested with Extensive Powers

The new Article 57-9 establishes, for the needs of the International Ship Registry, a Maritime Administrator "invested with a statutory public service mission and maritime authority powers" relating in particular to registration, certification, flag compliance, regulation, monitoring, and administrative sanctions.

The chosen qualification is significant.

The Administrator is therefore not presented as a mere service provider tasked materially with maintaining a database or marketing the registry’s services. The law expressly recognizes a public service mission and maritime authority powers.

Its status nevertheless displays a certain originality.

Article 57-10 provides that the Maritime Administrator may be "a legal entity, including a company, consortium, group, joint venture, or a public, private, or mixed entity, incorporated in the Union of the Comoros." It is appointed by joint order of the minister in charge of maritime transport and the minister in charge of finance.

The two ministers are then authorized to sign, on behalf of the Government, a Concession Agreement with the appointed Maritime Administrator.

The reform thus dissociates two elements that were traditionally liable to be conflated: on one hand, the sovereignty of the State over its flag and, on the other hand, the operational management of the registry that gives administrative effect to this link.

This distinction appears even more clearly upon reading Article 57-14.

During the term of its appointment, the Maritime Administrator exercises exclusive functions relating to the International Ship Registry, including international registration, suspension and deletion, re-registration, registry renewal, international compliance visas, maritime training linked to the International Ship Registry, seafarers’ documents, STCW and STCW-F certificates, as well as the collection of registry fees.

The law reinforces this exclusivity by providing that no other authority, agency, person, or entity may issue a document, certificate, receipt, authorization, or attestation pertaining to the International Ship Registry without written authorization from the Maritime Administrator or express provision of the law.

This constitutes a true centralization of competencies relating to the International Ship Registry.

The objective is understandable: to avoid a multiplication of stakeholders, reduce the risk of contradictory documentation, and ensure that registered owners, shipowners, foreign administrations, and other third parties have a clearly identified point of contact.

However, this concentration correlatively implies that the scope of the Administrator's powers must be precisely determined.

This is what Article 57-16 does.

In matters of registration and documentation, the Administrator may, in particular, receive, process, approve, reject, condition, suspend, renew, or cancel any application relating to the International Ship Registry.

It may register ships, issue certificates of registration and other flag documents, and register owners, beneficial owners, operators, ship managers, charterers, as well as ship mortgages, liens, charges, and restrictions. It also approves ship names, changes in ownership, management, operation, or class, and technical characteristics.

In addition to these competencies regarding ships, there are those concerning seafarers.

The Administrator may notably issue, renew, recognize, suspend, or withdraw certificates of competency and proficiency, endorsements, and validations relevant to the STCW and STCW-F conventions. It also possesses competencies in matters of maritime training and the recognition of the relevant institutions and programs.

Finally, the reform grants it specific competencies concerning deep-sea and international fishing vessels. These concern in particular registration, documentation, flag compliance, class, safety, insurance, radio documents, identification, marking, and risks of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

The Maritime Administrator thus becomes the operational hub of the Comorian flag's international apparatus.

However, its competencies are not limited to the application of the rules defined by the law. The reform also recognizes significant normative capacity for it.

B. Regulatory, Financial and Enforcement Powers Extending Beyond the Administrative Management of the Registry

One of the most significant characteristics of the reform lies in the status granted to the Registry Rules.

Article 57-17 authorizes the Maritime Administrator to enact the rules necessary for the functioning of the International Ship Registry.

Their scope is particularly broad.

These rules may concern registration, deletion, transfer, and renewal of ships; certificates, licenses, and official documents; dues, levies, special taxes, registry fees, costs, charges, deposits, guarantees, penalties, and administrative fines; requirements for safety, security, pollution prevention, radio, manning, and compliance; seafarers; the creation and management of maritime establishments and colleges; different categories of ships; Recognised Organisations (RO) and classification societies; beneficial ownership; the fight against document fraud; as well as electronic documents and digital signatures.

These Rules are mandatory for registered owners, beneficial owners, shipowners, charterers, managers, operators, masters, agents, applicants, mortgagees, and Recognised Organisations dealing with the International Ship Registry.

They enter into force upon their publication on the International Ship Registry’s official website, on its digital platform, or by any other means determined by the Maritime Administrator.

The legislature nonetheless introduces a control mechanism.

The Maritime Administrator must transmit the Rules to the minister at the time of their publication. The minister may oppose them within seven days following such publication. This opposition must be motivated by considerations of national security, manifest incompatibility with an international obligation, manifest illegality, or serious harm to the public interest.

The technique adopted deserves attention.

Ministerial control is not designed as systematic prior approval. The rule emanates from the Administrator and enters into force upon its publication, subject to a subsequent power of opposition by the minister in the cases defined by law.

The autonomy granted to the Administrator is also manifested on the financial level.

The law specifies that the amounts of the dues, taxes, levies, costs, or charges of the International Ship Registry are not fixed directly by it. Article 57-68 expressly empowers the Maritime Administrator to set, modify, revise, increase, reduce, suspend, or cancel them for the needs of the International Ship Registry.

The fee schedules may vary according to the nature of the ship, its tonnage, age, class, PSC history, type of operation, duration of registration, urgency, or relevant risk.

The reform also authorizes, under certain conditions, exemptions, reductions, deferrals, payment plans, penalty waivers, or promotional rates. Certain exemptions, however, remain subject to the prior agreement of the minister of finance.

The registry’s revenues are collected by the Maritime Administrator or the persons it authorizes. Their distribution between the Government and the Administrator is determined by the Concession Agreement, which must also provide for accounting, payment, and audit mechanisms.

Operational autonomy is finally complemented by a power of administrative sanction.

The law allows the Administrator to impose fines, penalties, daily penalty payments, and other administrative sanctions in the event of violation of the law, the Concession Agreement, the Registry Rules, applicable international conventions, conditions of registration, instructions, certificates, or registry decisions.

Among the breaches expressly targeted are, in particular, false declarations, concealment of ownership or beneficial owner, document fraud, abusive use of the flag, failure to pay, violation of conditions of registration, exposure to international sanctions, certain IUU fishing risks, lack of insurance or class, refusal to communicate required documents, or unjustified deactivation of certain tracking systems.

The measures that may be taken go beyond pecuniary sanctions.

The Administrator may notably suspend a registration, suspend or withdraw a certificate, refuse its renewal, refuse a deletion until payment or regularization, impose operating conditions, require an inspection or an audit, block the issuance of documents, or delete the ship from the International Ship Registry.

The law nevertheless provides for an adversarial procedure and rights of appeal. Except in cases of urgency, serious risk, manifest fraud, or other situations justifying immediate intervention, the interested party must be informed of the essential grievances and be granted a reasonable time to present their observations. Decisions may be subject to an administrative appeal before the minister or before a maritime appeal commission designated by the latter.

Conceived in this way, the status of the Maritime Administrator goes far beyond that of an administrative manager.

It combines functions of registry management, regulation, certification, control, collection, and sanctioning.

Such a concentration of competencies makes the question of the mechanisms by which the State retains general control over its maritime policy and oversees the exercise of delegated powers all the more decisive.

C. Government Oversight as a Framework for the Delegation of Powers

The broad autonomy granted to the Maritime Administrator does not mean that the Government relinquishes all competence relating to the International Ship Registry.

On the contrary, the law organizes several levels of control.

The first results from the Concession Agreement itself.

Article 57-11 provides that this agreement determines, in particular, the duration of the concession, the obligations of the Maritime Administrator, the rights of the Government, the financial regime, the distribution of revenue, reporting and audit obligations, renewal conditions, grounds for suspension or termination, as well as measures intended to ensure continuity of service.

The duration of the Administrator's appointment is determined by this agreement.

The law also allows the Government to terminate the concession under certain grave circumstances, particularly in the event of fraud, corruption, serious threat to national security, manifest violation of an international obligation, persistent non-compliance with maritime conventions, or serious damage to the reputation of the flag.

The second level of control relies on informing the Government.

The Administrator must transmit a quarterly activity report to the competent ministers.

This report must notably present the number and categories of registered ships, registrations, deletions, suspensions, and renewals, revenues collected, sums remitted to the Government, reductions or exemptions granted, compliance actions, Port State Control (PSC) detentions, major casualties and incidents, visas issued to international fishing vessels, the performance of Recognised Organisations, activities relating to seafarers, as well as major risks identified for the flag.

A summary annual report may also be published, notably on the development of the International Ship Registry, the quality of the fleet, PSC performance, compliance actions, and objectives for improving the flag.

The third level is that of audit.

The Concession Agreement must provide for the modalities for financial, operational, technical, digital, and compliance audits of the International Ship Registry. The Government may furthermore have a reasonable audit conducted of the revenue due to the State, essential public service obligations, and compliance with international obligations.

But it is probably Article 57-87 that most clearly reflects the balance sought by the legislature.

The two competent ministers may send the Maritime Administrator general guidelines relating to the national maritime policy and the strategic interests of the Union of the Comoros.

They may not, however, intervene in an individual decision concerning registration, deletion, compliance, sanction, due diligence, prior visa, or refusal, except for a written reason pertaining to national security, an international obligation, public order, or a higher interest of the State.

The distinction is important.

The Government retains the definition of general guidelines and control of the concession, while the Administrator enjoys, in principle, autonomy in the processing of individual files.

The legislature thus seems to have sought to avoid two opposite pitfalls: on one side, an registry management insufficiently autonomous to function with the responsiveness expected of an international registry; on the other, a delegation that would lead the State to lose all control over the use of its flag.

The reform finally completes this system with integrity obligations.

The Administrator must notably implement an integrity code, an anti-corruption mechanism, a procedure for declaring conflicts of interest, and a protected whistleblowing channel. Acts of corruption, fraud, unauthorized collection, document falsification, misappropriation of revenue, violation of sanctions, or serious misconduct may lead to the withdrawal of the approval or authorization of their perpetrators.

The model adopted by Law No. 26-009/AU is therefore based on a relatively sophisticated institutional balance.

The State remains the holder of the flag and retains the definition of maritime policy, the appointment of the Administrator, the control of the concession, the audit of the apparatus, and certain powers of intervention linked to the fundamental interests of the State.

At the same time, the day-to-day administration of the International Ship Registry, individual decisions, and a substantial part of technical regulation are entrusted to a Maritime Administrator benefiting from significant operational autonomy.

The decisive question therefore becomes that of the effectiveness of this model.

For the international credibility of the Comorian flag will not depend solely on the formal distribution of competencies between the State and the Administrator. It will depend on how these competencies are exercised, the quality of the controls performed on ships and their owners, the reliability of the certificates issued, and, more broadly, the ability of the new system to meet the international standards applicable to flag States.

It is precisely on this ground that the reform displays its most important ambitions.

III. A Reform Aimed at Strengthening the International Credibility of the Comoros Flag, Whose Effectiveness Will Depend on Implementation

Law No. 26-009/AU does not merely reorganize the institutions in charge of the International Ship Registry.

It also seeks to anchor its operations in a logic of permanent compliance, traceability, and modernization.

This orientation is evident in the requirements imposed on vessels, the integration of international standards regarding seafarers and fishing, as well as the choice of a largely digitized registry.

The stake is clear: for an international registry, commercial attractiveness cannot be durably dissociated from the quality of the flag.

A. Embedding International Compliance into the Operation of the Registry

One of the most significant developments of the new framework lies in the continuous nature of oversight.

Registration no longer marks the end of the verification process.

The law requires owners and operators to maintain their vessels in compliance with applicable provisions, international conventions, the Registry Rules, issued certificates, and registration conditions.

They must also immediately notify the authorities of any changes or events likely to affect this compliance.

In this regard, the text grants a specific place to Port State Control.

The Port State Control history is taken into account as soon as a vessel is admitted to the International Ship Registry. The Maritime Administrator may subsequently adopt a fleet quality policy based, inter alia, on the vessel’s age, class, PSC history, recorded deficiencies, detentions, casualties, repairs, insurers, and managers.

They may impose pre-inspections, annual inspections, extraordinary inspections, management audits, security deposits, or corrective action plans.

The logic of the text is therefore clear: fleet quality must be manageable over time and not merely assessed at the moment of registration.

The same approach applies to Recognised Organisations (ROs) and classification societies.

The Maritime Administrator may recognize, approve, recommend, audit, monitor, suspend, or withdraw their authorization. These organizations remain subject to performance and notification obligations, particularly regarding serious deficiencies, withdrawal of class, and suspended certificates.

The reform also grants an important place to standards applicable to seafarers.

It entrusts the Maritime Administrator with competencies relating to training, qualification, certification, and professional documentation, and explicitly aims at the implementation of STCW and STCW-F standards. It also organizes the accreditation and supervision of maritime training institutions, examination centers, and simulation centers.

Finally, a specific regime is dedicated to deep-sea and international fishing vessels.

The Maritime Administrator exercises their powers over these vessels regarding flag state responsibilities, registration, documentation, compliance, class, safety, insurance, marking, and the risk of IUU fishing, while the administration in charge of fisheries retains its competencies regarding the management of fishery resources, quotas, catches, reporting obligations, and national fisheries policy.

The law thus seeks to coordinate the management of fishery resources and the exercise of flag State responsibilities, rather than conflating them.

This institutional clarification, combined with mechanisms for sanctions, fleet monitoring, and risk screening, reflects a clear ambition: to make international compliance a structural element of the Registry's operation.

B. Digitalisation and Transparency as Tools for Modernising the Flag

The reform also includes a highly developed digital component.

Article 57-64 provides that the International Ship Registry may be maintained in a fully electronic form.

Files, registrations, ship mortgages, certificates, signatures, seals, receipts, attestations, and decisions may be created, stored, signed, validated, published, verified, and transmitted electronically.

Crucially, the law expressly settles the question of their legal value: electronic registrations have the same legal value as paper registrations.

The same principle is applied to certificates.

Electronic or digital certificates issued or validated by the Maritime Administrator have the same legal value as paper documents.

They may include a unique identifier, a tracking number, a QR code, a digital signature, an electronic seal, a date of issue, an expiry date, as well as an online verification mechanism.

This dematerialization offers an obvious practical advantage for a registry whose vessels, owners, managers, creditors, and legal counsel may be established in various jurisdictions.

However, it also entails new requirements.

The law thus requires the Maritime Administrator to implement measures for cybersecurity, backup, redundancy, access control, logging, encryption, business continuity, log retention, security audits, and data protection.

The Concession Agreement itself must provide for minimum requirements for digital security, data transfer, service continuity, and the return of archives to the State at the end of the concession.

Digitization is therefore not designed solely as an instrument for speed.

It also becomes an issue of documentary sovereignty and the continuity of the registry.

The reform simultaneously attempts to reconcile transparency and confidentiality.

Certain essential information may be made public, notably the vessel's name or IMO number, its registration status, the validity of certain certificates, its type, tonnage, home port, and deletion status.

Conversely, information relating to beneficial owners, sanctions, investigations, audits, commercial or financial data, and internal reports remains confidential, subject to legally justified communications to competent authorities and concerned bodies.

The new registry thus relies on a logic of verifiable transparency for information necessary for third-party trust, while maintaining a regime of confidentiality for sensitive information.

This technical modernization is significant.

However, it will not, by itself, be sufficient to determine the success of the reform.

C. Effectiveness Will Ultimately Depend on the Registry Rules and the Concession Agreement

Law No. 26-009/AU establishes a particularly detailed architecture.

However, it does not itself regulate all the operating conditions of the new International Ship Registry.

Two instruments occupy a decisive place in this regard: the Registry Rules and the Concession Agreement.

The former will serve to specify a substantial part of the operational regime: procedures for registration and deletion, certification, documents, requirements applicable to different categories of vessels, ship mortgages, security interests, Recognised Organisations, seafarers, inspections, sanctions, digital modalities, and pricing.

The latter will determine, in particular, the duration of the concession, the obligations of the Maritime Administrator, the rights of the Government, the distribution of revenues, audit mechanisms, conditions for renewal and termination, as well as measures for service continuity.

These cross-references are not accessory.

They mean that a significant part of the practical scope of the reform cannot be assessed by reading the law alone.

The quality of due diligence procedures, the criteria actually used for the admission or retention of a vessel, the speed and reliability of documentary verifications, the operation of the mortgage registry, relationships with Recognised Organisations, sanction and appeal procedures, or even the modalities for digital continuity will depend largely on the instruments adopted to implement the new framework.

Another question will be that of the transition between the old and the new regime.

The law provides that vessels flying the Comoros flag and engaged in international activities on the date of its entry into force must submit an application for registration, confirmation, or regularization to the International Ship Registry within one hundred and eighty days.

Deep-sea or international fishing vessels must, in parallel, obtain the valid visa of the Maritime Administrator before any new international operation.

Existing certificates generally remain valid until their expiration or for a maximum period of twelve months, whichever is shorter, subject to their validity and the absence of reputational risk.

Furthermore, the law prohibits any new international registration outside of the International Ship Registry after its entry into force.

The period following the entry into force of the text will therefore be decisive.

It will allow for the assessment of not only the capacity of the new Registry to process new applications, but also its capacity to regularize the existing fleet, verify previous situations, and ensure the legal continuity of ongoing registrations and certificates.

Conclusion

With Law No. 26-009/AU of June 30, 2026, the Comorian legislator has not contented itself with modifying a few rules relating to vessel registration.

It has created a true legal and institutional regime for the International Ship Registry, distinct from the Local Registry, based on strengthened conditions for flag admission, better identification of beneficial ownership, a developed regime for the publication of ship mortgages and security interests, continuous monitoring of vessel compliance, and advanced digitization of registry operations.

The reform simultaneously chooses an original institutional organization.

The operational administration of the International Ship Registry is concentrated in the hands of a Maritime Administrator invested with a public service mission and maritime authority powers, while the State retains the definition of general policy, the designation of the Maritime Administrator, the oversight of the concession, the audit of the mechanism, and certain prerogatives linked to the fundamental interests of the Union of the Comoros.

The sought-after balance is clear: to allow the International Ship Registry to operate with the autonomy and responsiveness expected of an international maritime registry, without dissociating its management from the responsibilities that remain attached to the flag State.

On paper, the framework is ambitious.

Its success will henceforth depend less on the architecture of the law than on its implementation: the content of the Concession Agreement, the quality of the Registry Rules, the effectiveness of due diligence procedures, the reliability of certification, the supervision of Recognised Organisations, the protection of creditors' rights, cooperation with national and foreign administrations, and the capacity to effectively apply the control and sanction mechanisms provided by the text.

The reform thus opens a new phase for the Comoros flag.

The challenge will no longer be solely to attract vessels under the Comoros flag, but to demonstrate that the International Ship Registry can simultaneously offer attractiveness, legal certainty, international compliance, and effective flag State control.

It is likely on this capacity that the real scope of the reform will be measured in the coming years.

---

Source : Law No. 26-009/AU of 30 June 2026 amending Law No. 14-030/AU of 24 June 2014 relating to the Comoros Merchant Shipping Code, promulgated by Decree No. 26-099/PR of 14 September 2026.