Shipping

The Argentine legal system is primarily based on civil law. The legislation governing shipping takes the form of:

• national laws and codes;
• decrees; and
• administrative regulations.

The key statutes include the following:

• the Navigation Act (Law 20,094);
• Law 27,419 on the Promotion of National Merchant Vessels;
• the Ports Act (Law 24,093);
• Law 24,921 on Multimodal Transport Contracts;
• the Customs Code (Law 22,415);
• the Civil and Commercial Code (Law 26,994);
• Decree 37/2025 on the Regime for River and Lake Navigation; and
• Decree 19,492/1944 on Cabotage.
• The Prefecture Act (Law 18,398).

Argentina is a party to the following conventions:

• the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Collision Between Vessels 1910;
• the International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision 1952;
• the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Penal Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision or other Incidents of Navigation 1952;
• the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea 1972;
• the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969;
• the Convention relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Material 1971;
• the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972;
• the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, together with the 1978 and 1997 Protocols;
• the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992;
• the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992;
• the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992;
• the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990;
• the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law on Assistance and Salvage at Sea 1910;
• the International Convention on Load Lines 1966;
• the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978;
• the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969;
• the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships 2008; and
• the Maritime Labour Convention 2006.

The Naval Prefecture Act (Law 18,398) and the Navigation Act designate the Coastguard as the maritime authority with the capacity to intervene in case of navigation incidents and casualties.

As of November 2019, the Coastguard is entitled to request security from foreign-flagged vessels involved in an incident in order to cover any potential fine that may be imposed should the investigation determine the infringement of any regulation. Failure to provide such security will result in detention of the vessel.

Further, the Transportation Safety Board investigates incidents that result in:

• death or serious injury to persons;
• the abandonment of a vessel;
• damage to or grounding of a vessel; or
• damage to port facilities.

The board will:

• determine the probable cause of the incidents and events under investigation; and
• issue safety recommendations aimed at preventing future occurrences.

The current legal framework emphasises the promotion of the national merchant fleet, including through policies that prioritise Argentine-flagged vessels for cabotage.

Since taking office in December 2023, the current national administration has implemented significant legislative changes in Argentina, focused on deregulation and privatisation.

Extensive reforms are under preparation with the aim of liberalising the shipping sector. Among other things, the reforms are aimed at the deregulation, simplification and digitisation of procedures.

All types of ships – whether merchant vessels, yachts or naval vessels – above one gross ton must be registered with the National Ship Registry.

Both individuals and entities may register vessels in Argentina. As regards entities, there are no specific requirements other than those set out in the general company laws applicable to all businesses.

The National Ship Registry is under the jurisdiction of the Coastguard.

The National Ship Registry is responsible for:

• maintaining the National Registry of Ships, which includes:
• • the National Merchant Registry; and
  • the Yacht Registry;
• recording all documents that establish, transfer, declare, modify or extinguish rights over vessels registered in the National Registry;
• recording all documents that impose liens, restrictions or any other encumbrances on the ownership of vessels, whether they are registered in the National Registry or a foreign registry; and
• recording all documents that restrict a person’s free disposal of its property, whether arising from:
• • a voluntary agreement between parties; or
  • judicial resolution.

The registry is public for anyone with a justified interest in verifying:

• the legal status of a registered vessel;
• its documents;
• restrictions; or
• arrest orders.

No answer submitted for this question.

The owner of any Argentinian-flagged vessel of at least 10 gross tonnage, or a vessel under construction of the same tonnage, may create a mortgage over that vessel. The mortgage:

• must be executed through a public deed; and
• will have effect with respect to third parties from the date of registration in the National Ship Registry.

The documents formalising the mortgage must specify:

• the amount of the mortgage; and
• the applicable interest rate.

The registration of mortgages is automatically cancelled after three years, unless a longer term is specified in the contract.

The Naval Prefecture Act (Law 18,398) and the Navigation Act designate the Coastguard as the maritime authority with the capacity to inspect foreign-flagged vessels at Argentinian ports to verify that the condition of the vessel and its equipment comply with international regulations.

Where an inspection by port state control reveals deficiencies, this may lead to:

• the imposition of fines; or
• the detention of the vessel.

As from November 2019, the Coastguard is entitled to request security from foreign-flagged vessels involved in an incident in order to cover any potential fine that may be imposed should the investigation determine the infringement of any regulation. Failure to provide such security will result in the detention of the vessel.

The shipowner or its representative has the right to appeal against detention ordered by the port state control. However, the appeal will not lift the detention.

It is recommended to file an appeal with the Coastguard office where the port state control officer is based.

(a) Collisions

• The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Collision Between Vessels 1910;
• The International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision 1952;
• The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Penal Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision or other Incidents of Navigation 1952; and
• The International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea 1972.

(b) Pollution

• The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969;
• The Convention relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Material 1971;
• The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972;
• The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, together with the 1978 and 1997 Protocols;
• The International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992;
• The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992;
• The International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992; and
• The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990.

(c) Wreck removal

Argentina is not party to the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks 2007. However, the Navigation Act contains a special chapter that addresses wrecks and makes the registered owner of a ship liable for locating and removing a wreck deemed to be a hazard. If a wreck is obstructing navigation, it may be removed by the local authorities, which are entitled to recover the expenses from the owners.

(d) Salvage

Argentina is a party to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Assistance and Salvage at Sea from 1910 and its rules are incorporated into the Navigation Act.

Marine casualty claims may be brought by various parties, depending on the circumstances of the incident and the nature of the damage or loss.

The relevant rule is contained in the Navigation Act which establishes that the Federal Courts have jurisdiction over any legal proceedings involving the shipowner or operator of a foreign-flagged vessel, in cases where the vessel may be subject to arrest under Argentinian law.

Argentina is not a party to any convention on the limitation of liability for maritime claims. The Navigation Act contains a special chapter on the limitation of liability, which sets out two general rules:

• Shipowners can limit their liability in respect of tort and some contract claims to the value of the vessel at the end of the voyage on which it was engaged; and
• Should the previous calculation not be enough to cover claims for personal injury, the limits of liability will be based on the vessel’s tonnage.

The right to limit liability extends to owners, charterers, carriers, masters and crew.

Shipowners may limit their liability in accordance with the rules of the Navigation Act by commencing a limitation proceeding at the Federal Court intervening in respect of the claims that are subject to limitation. In this regard, the shipowner may constitute a fund with the court by either:

• depositing the relevant sum; or
• submitting to court the title of ownership of the vessel.

Further, the shipowner must submit the following information to the court:

• the method of valuation of the vessel;
• pending earnings from the last voyage;
• a list of creditors which are subject to the limitation fund; and
• details of any mortgage over the vessel, if applicable.

The shipowner may limit its liability for the negligence of the master or crew, but not for its personal negligence.

In case of a marine casualty claim, it is recommended that operators take preventive measures to protect the shipowner’s interests. In this regard, it is advisable to request from the Coastguard a copy of the file and documents used in its investigation – in particular:

• witness statements;
• marine surveys; and
• expert reports.

In order to preserve evidence, the Navigation Act allows any interested party to request the court to appoint an expert to record the damages caused or suffered by:

• a vessel or dock; or
• the people or cargo on board.

A court expert can be appointed even before the commencement of the claim on the merits.

Likewise, it is suggested to appoint a public notary to keep a record of damages or statements from:

• the people involved in an incident; and
• people who voluntarily provide such statements.

The Naval Prefecture Act (Law 18,398) and the Navigation Act designate the Coastguard as the maritime authority with the capacity to intervene in cases of navigation incidents and casualties.

The Transportation Safety Board investigates incidents that result in:

• death or serious injury to persons;
• the abandonment of a vessel;
• damage to or grounding of a vessel; or
• damage to port facilities.

The board will:

• determine the probable cause of the incidents and events under investigation; and
• issue safety recommendations aimed at preventing future occurrences.

In case of a collision, grounding or other casualty, the Coastguard will commence an administrative investigation seeking to determine whether the crew of the vessel neglected or infringed any administrative regulation regarding the safety of navigation.

Coastguard officers will then conduct an exhaustive inspection of the vessel to identify any deficiencies. As regards the investigation itself, Coastguard officers will:

• take depositions from the master and officers; and
• collect relevant evidence – for example, a copy of the voyage data recorder data or logbooks.

If the vessel suffers extensive damage due to the casualty and requires temporary or permanent repair at a shipyard outside Argentina, the passage plan to move the vessel to another jurisdiction must be approved by the Coastguard.

The master of a foreign-flagged vessel that is sailing, anchored or moored in Argentinian jurisdictional waters must immediately report any incident experienced or caused by the vessel to the nearest jurisdictional office of the Coastguard, using the fastest means available.

In the event of a grounding, the communication must include, as comprehensively as possible, information on the following points:

• the position of the grounded vessel;
• whether it fully or partially obstructs navigation or allows free passage of other vessels; and
• in the case of partial obstruction, the side that allows passage and the maximum draft.

In cases other than groundings, the communication should include information on the following:

• whether the event is affecting the safety conditions of the vessel; and
• the location of the vessel or, if it is still sailing, the port of destination.

If the master and pilot fail to comply with this requirement, they may be subject to fines.

Wreckage and objects or structures of any nature located in Argentinian jurisdictional waters must be removed, relocated to authorised sites, demolished or dismantled if they:

• are submerged, stranded or floating; and
• constitute:
• • an obstacle or danger to navigation or port operations;
  • an imminent or potential threat to the preservation of the environment, waterways or port infrastructure; or
  • an impediment to the free flow of water.

The belongings of vessels, materials and, in general, any object that is thrown into or that falls into the waters of ports or channels must be removed by the owners or operators, or their representatives, within the timeframe established by the Coastguard. In case of failure to comply with this obligation, if the relevant object constitutes an obstacle or a danger to navigation, the Coastguard may proceed ex officio to remove it, at the expense of those responsible. If the responsible parties fail to pay the expenses incurred within the specified timeframe, the Coastguard must deposit the removed object at the nearest customs office for public auction.

Frequently, salvage operations are carried out by local tug operators. Before the operation begins, the Coastguard will require the vessel’s master to submit:

• a risk assessment; and
• a salvage plan duly signed by a salvage master.

Argentina is a party to the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading 1924 (the Hague Rules). The Brussels Protocol of 1968 amending the Brussels Convention of 1924 (the Hague-Visby Rules) has not been ratified, but its rules have been partially incorporated into the Navigation Act.

The Navigation Act contains public policy rules with regard to jurisdiction and the law applicable to cargo claims. In this regard, if a carrier had a duty to deliver goods in Argentina:

• the law applicable to the case will be the Navigation Act; and
• the Argentinian courts will have jurisdiction on the merits, irrespective of any jurisdiction agreement, which will be deemed void.

Consequently, and notwithstanding the applicability of the Hague Rules, there are specific rules under Argentinian law which will apply irrespective of the carrier’s terms normally contained within the bill of lading.

The receiver of cargo – not necessarily the holder of the master bill of lading – may claim against the contractual carrier or the shipowner in case of:

• misdelivery;
• a shortage of cargo; or
• damaged cargo.

The Navigation Act uses the Argentine gold peso as the unit of measurement for the purpose of establishing liability limits, the value of which is published quarterly by the Central Bank.

According to the Navigation Act, neither the carrier nor the ship will in any event be held liable for any loss or damage to, or in connection with, the goods in an amount exceeding:

• 400 Argentine gold pesos per package or unit lost or damaged; or
• in the case of goods not shipped in packages or units, 400 Argentine gold pesos per freight unit.

This does not apply where:

• the shipper declared the nature and value of the goods prior to loading;
• this declaration was inserted in the bill of lading; and
• the declaration was not made under the administrative requirements of the country of the port of loading or discharge.

The declaration, as inserted in the bill of lading, constitutes a presumption regarding the value of the goods, unless the carrier provides evidence to the contrary.

Where a container or similar article of transport is used to consolidate goods, the number of packages or units specified in the bill of lading as included in the container will be deemed to be the number of packages or units for the purpose of the limitation of liability. Otherwise, the container itself will be considered a package or unit.

A carrier or vessel cannot rely on the limitation of liability if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done:

• with intent to cause damage; or
• recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.

According to Article III of the Hague Rules, the carrier and the ship will be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year of:

• delivery of the goods; or
• the date on which the goods should have been delivered.

The same rule can be found in Article 498 of the Navigation Act.

The time bar can be interrupted by commencing proceedings in a Federal Court. Alternatively, the Navigation Act allows the parties to voluntarily extend the time bar.

The carriage of passengers by sea is fully covered by the Navigation Act and the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea from 1974 – but not the 2002 Protocol – provided that neither the passenger nor the carrier is Argentine, in which case only the Navigation Act applies.

The Navigation Act uses the Argentine gold peso as the unit of measurement for the purpose of establishing liability limits, the value of which is published quarterly by the Central Bank.

The carrier’s liability for damages resulting from the death or injury of a passenger is limited, in all cases, to 1,500 Argentine gold pesos.

The carrier is not liable for amounts exceeding 150 Argentine gold pesos or 100 Argentine gold pesos, depending on whether the liability concerns loss or damage to luggage. These amounts may not exceed 80 Argentine gold pesos and 50 Argentine gold pesos, respectively, in case of transport by river. The carrier’s liability for loss or damage to vehicles being transported, including all luggage carried on or within a vehicle, will not exceed 350 Argentine gold pesos.

The carrier loses the right to invoke any limitation of liability if it is proven that the respective damage was caused by an act or omission on its part, carried out either:

• with the intent to cause such damage; or
• recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.

A claimant seeking to obtain security for a maritime claim may consider arresting the vessel in Argentina irrespective of whether it is a foreign-flagged vessel. The federal courts are expeditious and prepared to hear maritime claims.

Argentina has ratified the 1926 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages, which takes precedence over the Navigation Act.

The arrest procedure is straightforward and is carried out inaudita altera parte.

Vessels can be arrested on the basis of:

• preferred claims;
• maritime claims regarding debts incurred in Argentina and in connection with the ship; or
• claims regarding any debt where the Argentine courts have jurisdiction on the merits.

The Navigation Act lists ‘preferred claims’ in Article 476, which coincides with Articles 1(1)(a)–(q) of the 1952 Arrest Convention, even though Argentina is not a signatory thereto.

Argentina – a civil law country – recognises ‘preferred claims’, which are the equivalent of maritime liens under common law. Based on the Supreme Court decisions in The Pavlo (1997) and The Oceana (2024), the characterisation of a preferred claim will be established according to the lex forum – that is, Argentine law.

In this regard, Argentina has adopted a long list of preferred claims which can be found in Article 476 of the Navigation Act, as follows:

• judicial expenses incurred in the common interest of creditors for:
• • the preservation of the vessel; or
  • its sale and the distribution of its price;
• claims of the captain and other crew members arising:
• • from employment contracts; or
  • under labour laws;
• claims for credits associated with the construction of a vessel that has been mortgaged;
• taxes, duties, contributions and service fees arising from:
• • navigation activities; or
  • the commercial operation of the vessel;
• claims for death or personal injury occurring on land, on board or in the water, directly related to the operation of the vessel;
• claims for unlawful acts against the owner, the operator or the vessel, not based on a contractual relationship, for damages to property located on land, on board or in the water, directly related to the operation of the vessel;
• claims for:
• • assistance and salvage;
  • removal of wreckage; and
  • contributions to general average;
• claims for damage to cargo and luggage;
• claims arising from contracts for the lease or chartering of a vessel or a transport contract;
• claims for the supply of products or materials to a vessel for its operation or maintenance;
• claims for:
• • the construction, repair or equipment of the vessel; or
  • dockyard expenses;
• claims for:
• • disbursements by the captain; and
  • expenses incurred by shippers, charterers or agents on behalf of the vessel or its owner; and
• claims for the price of the last acquisition of the vessel and interest due in the last two years.

A comparison of Article 476 of the Navigation Act and Articles 1(1)(a)–(q) of the 1952 Arrest Convention reveals that the preferred claims under the act are mostly based on the convention, even though Argentina is not a signatory thereto.

Furthermore, Argentina has ratified the 1926 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages, which takes precedence over the Navigation Act.

According to the Navigation Act, a claimant may arrest either:

• the particular ship in respect of which a maritime claim has arisen; or
• any other ship which is also owned by the person that owns that particular ship.

As regards associated ownership, ships will be deemed to fall under the same ownership where all shares therein are owned by the same person or persons.

In the case of a charter by demise, the charterer and not the registered owner will be liable in respect of a maritime claim relating to that ship. The claimant may arrest such ship or any other ship in the ownership of the charterer by demise, but no other ship in the ownership of the registered owner will be liable to arrest in respect of such maritime claim.

The writ of arrest must be filed with all documentary evidence duly translated into Spanish. The arrest proceeding is straightforward and is carried out inaudita altera parte.

The federal courts give priority to arrest cases and orders are normally issued in a matter of hours. Typically, the court will request a countersecurity of 30% of the amount claimed, which can be replaced by a local surety bond. The court fees are set at 3% of the amount of the claim.

The arrest order can be substituted by a surety bond issued by local insurers. The protection and indemnity letter of undertaking may be accepted if there is no objection by the arrestor. The time it takes to lift the arrest will vary depending on the port at which the vessel is arrested. The scenarios vary depending on whether the vessel is located:

• upriver on the Parana river;
• on the River Plate; or
• at southern Atlantic ports.

A claim for wrongful arrest may have no link to the arrest proceeding itself; but if the arrestor is the losing party in the proceedings on the merits, the shipowner may seek to claim damages for losses incurred while the vessel was arrested.

The only reference to wrongful arrest in the Navigation Act concerns the situation where a claimant seeks arrest but fails to commence a claim on the merits. In such case, the arrestor will be liable for damages caused by the immobilisation of the vessel from the moment the arrest order was enforced until the arrest is lifted (eg, by means of security). However, the claim will succeed if the claimant can prove that the arrestor acted with the intent to cause such loss.

An alternative to ship arrest is to initiate a garnishment proceeding to attach other assets.

Three scenarios are set out in the Navigation Act regarding the judicial sale of a ship:

• Where a wreck that was obstructing navigation has been removed by the state and the shipowner does not pay the expenses incurred, the wreck will be subject to judicial sale.
• Where a vessel under co-ownership requires repairs and there is no agreement between the shareholders in this regard, any shareholder may apply for the judicial sale of the ship.
• In the case of ships or wrecks refloated by third parties, the refloating company may apply for judicial sale if the owners or other interested party with regard to the ship or wreck fails to appear.

Otherwise, any interested party with title for enforcement under the Civil and Commercial Procedural Act may apply for the judicial sale of a ship. The title for enforcement includes a judgment, mediation agreement or arbitral award against the shipowner, whether for a maritime or non-maritime claim.

The procedure for judicial sale requires:

• a valuation survey of the ship; and
• the appointment of an auctioneer by the court.

Further, the court intervening must request from the National Ship Register a report indicating:

• the existence of any mortgages, liens or charges attached to the vessel; and
• a list of creditors.

In the case of foreign-flagged vessels that have been arrested in Argentina, the register will also indicate the arrestors under the Argentinian proceeding, irrespective of the flag of the country of registration of the vessel.

If there are multiple creditors and the valuation of the vessel does not cover all outstanding claims, the Navigation Act provides for a special process which is similar to a winding-up proceeding, whereby the court intervening in the judicial sale will invite all creditors to seek agreement with regard to the distribution of the funds that may be received based on the valuation of the vessel. In case of failure to reach agreement, the court will appoint a liquidator, who will assess each claim and proceed to allocate the funds available from the judicial sale pursuant to the creditors’ rank as set out in:

• the Navigation Act; and
• the Maritime Lien and Mortgage Convention 1926.

The judicial sale of the vessel extinguishes the maritime lien over the vessel from the moment the funds are deposited in the judicial account.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the primary international convention for the prevention of pollution of the marine environment from merchant vessels. The convention aims to prevent and minimise pollution caused by ships – both accidental and arising from normal operations – and includes six annexes.

Argentina ratified the MARPOL Convention through Act 24,089/1992, designating the Coastguard as the implementing authority. Further, Argentina approved Annex VI, which aims to contribute to a cleaner environment by:

• addressing air pollution from shipping; and
• limiting sulphur oxide emissions from ships.

However, there is no domestic legislation on the technical aspects of this. Consequently, there are no rules in Argentina addressing, for example, the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems; and thus, there is no prohibition on the use of open loop scrubbers:

• whether on the territorial seas or in internal waters;
• whether manoeuvring inbound or outbound upriver the Paraná River; and/or
• when the vessel is in port, whether idling or under loading/discharging operations.

As from 1 January 2020, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 global 0.5% sulphur limit from Annex VI entered into force. Shipowners must comply either by:

• using low-sulphur fuel, which is normally more expensive; or
• continuing to burn heavy fuel oil, provided that the vessel has installed an exhaust gas cleaning system.

There are a variety of options for compliance with the requirement to use marine fuels with less than 0.5% sulphur content, including continuing to use high sulphur fuel oil in conjunction with exhaust gas abatement technology – for example, open-loop scrubbers. In particular, Regulation 14 of Annex VI requires ships to use fuel oil with a sulphur content that does not exceed 0.50% mass by mass from 1 January 2020. Regulation 4, however, allows for the use of an alternative compliance method that is at least as effective in terms of emission reductions as that required by Annex VI, including the standards set forth in Regulation 14, and taking into account any relevant guidelines developed by the IMO. In this regard, IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution 259(68) on Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems establishes the wash-water discharge criteria and limits:

• pH;
• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons;
• turbidity/suspended particle matter; and
• nitrates.

Argentina is not a party to the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, which will enter into force in June 2025.

The scrapping process was previously governed by Decree 770/2019, which established that before commencing the scrapping process, the legal owners of the vessel or the individuals or companies duly authorised to carry it out had to request the corresponding authorisation from the Coastguard who would take the necessary steps to determine the condition of the vessel, the legal feasibility of the scrapping process, the safety conditions; and the responsibility for the technical tasks. The regulation referred also that the Coastguard would seek to prevent the presence of debris that could obstruct the navigation of other vessels.

As from January 2025, the regulation 37/2025 simplified the procedure. According to this regulation, the shipowners shall request the corresponding authorization from the National Ship Registry. If the Coastguard does not issue a decision within a period of three (3) months, the scrapping shall be automatically authorized. The scrapping may then be carried out by the shipowner, ensuring compliance with safety conditions and pollution prevention measures as established by the applicable regulations.

There are domestic regulations regarding the implementation of Annex V on garbage covering general aspects of the equipment and operational discharge procedures. In this case, the legal framework can be found in Ordinance 2/98, which incorporates most of the amendments to Annex V.

From a phytosanitary perspective, local authorities other than the Coastguard – for example, the National Service of Agri-Food Health and Quality – are entitled to inspect ships and check whether they comply with local regulations on organic residues. However, they do not have jurisdiction to inspect other conventional types of waste (eg, plastics or domestic or hazardous waste). It has been reported that in several cases, inspectors from phytosanitary agencies have forced ships to discharge non-organic residues despite being in compliance with the vessel’s garbage management plan. The master is entitled to refuse to discharge the garbage in such scenario.

Seafarers’ rights and obligations are set out in several acts, such as:

• the Employment Contract Act (20,744/1976);
• the Navigation Act (20,094/1973); and
• a number of administrative regulations that address each of the seafarer sectors.

Argentina has also ratified the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, which entered into force on 28 May 2015.

Shipowners and operators should be aware that, in the event of a marine incident or casualty, the Coastguard will launch an investigation and may press charges against the master and officers. Depending on the circumstances, the crew may be restricted from leaving the country until the investigation is completed, which could take several months.

In a recent case in which a foreign-flagged vessel collided with a bridge, causing significant damage, both the master and the pilots were subjected to restrictions and were not allowed to leave the country pending the investigation.

According to the Constitution, the federal courts located in each province have jurisdiction to hear maritime claims. This rule is also enshrined in the Navigation Act, which further includes a special provision triggering the federal jurisdiction where a claim is linked to a vessel sailing between ports located in different jurisdictions (ie, different provinces).

In cases where Argentinian seafarers claim directly from their employer’s insurer for damage caused on board, the federal courts may decline jurisdiction and refer the case to the provincial courts.

Arrest cases commonly involve issues relating to the characterisation of the maritime lien on which the arrest petition is based. According to the Navigation Act, the arrest proceeding is subject to the procedural rules of the intervening court (ie, the lex fori). On the other hand, the Navigation Act provides that the law of the flag will apply in certain cases – for example, where there are multiple preferred creditors. This has led to a longstanding debate due to confusion between the concept of the maritime lien under common law and the concept of the preferred claim under civil law, both of which refer to different scenarios.

In The Oceana (2024), the Supreme Court confirmed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal of Mar del Plata which established that the characterisation of a maritime lien must be determined according to the lex fori (ie, Argentine law).

The case concerned a Hong Kong-flagged vessel arrested in Argentina for unpaid bunkers. The supplier sought the arrest of the vessel based on a maritime lien under Argentinian law, while the shipowner contended that there was no such maritime lien under Hong Kong law. Irrespective of the applicability of Argentine law to the arrest proceeding – including the characterisation of the lien – the court highlighted that Hong Kong is a party to the 1952 Arrest Convention, Article 6 of which provides that the rules of procedure relating to the arrest of a ship and to all matters of procedure which the arrest may entail will be governed by the law of the state in which the arrest was made or applied for (ie, Argentina).

The national administration has publicly announced a series of amendments to the regulations on navigation within Argentine waters. In this context, the government is expected to introduce a new legal framework aimed at the deregulation, simplification and digitalisation of procedures in the shipping sector. Specifically, the proposed framework seeks to simplify the vessel registration and deregistration process with the aim of reducing the current bureaucracy, which causes excessively long delays.

Local regulations issued by the Coastguard are subject to regular revision, particularly with regard to operational aspects of navigation upriver on the Paraná River – for example:

• safe under-keel clearance;
• the compulsory use of tugs; and
• the allocation of roads.

The impact of climate change has changed rain patterns in Brazil, thus affecting the depth of the Paraná River, which has remained two metres below the average for the last four years. This new scenario has exposed vessels to challenging conditions in which safe navigation can be compromised both:

• during pilotage passage; and
• while berthing and unberthing.

The predominant risks are:

• the risk of grounding and the need for tugs to refloat the vessel; and
• the need for abrupt manoeuvres to keep the vessel in the navigational channel, which can expose it to a sudden engine blackout.

The situation is exacerbated in a context where the dredging of the Paraná is under scrutiny and the government remains in charge of navigational channel maintenance until a new tender has been published for private companies willing to offer dredging services for more than 460 kilometres of the waterway.

Operators should be alert to regulatory changes in order to mitigate potential issues that could expose shipowners to unexpected port expenses.