Abstract:

This article analyzes the effectiveness of maritime liens and highlights the substantial divergences in their treatment across national legal systems. Maritime liens, as recognized under domestic law, vary significantly in their types, scope, and enforcement mechanisms compared to those established in foreign jurisdictions. Because these liens attach to vessels irrespective of their location, inconsistencies in local and geographical relations emerge: the existence of a lien in one jurisdiction does not guarantee its recognition elsewhere. The study addresses the “foreignness” of maritime liens and explores its consequences for determining the applicable law in international maritime transactions.
Employing a comparative analysis of Greek law (Code of Private Maritime Law), international conventions (1926 and 1967 Brussels Conventions, 1993 Geneva Convention), and European legal frameworks, the article demonstrates the absence of a harmonized regime for maritime liens at the European or global level. It critically examines various theoretical approaches to choice of law-including lex navis (law of the flag), lex fori (law of the forum), and lex executionis (law of enforcement)-and scrutinizes Greek case law, which reveals the prevailing application of lex fori in judicial practice.
The analysis identifies persistent legal uncertainty for maritime creditors, primarily due to the lack of harmonized international regulations and the absence of a unified maritime lien registry. The article concludes by advocating for the establishment of a comprehensive international framework-including a centralized register of maritime liens—to mitigate inter-jurisdictional conflicts and promote greater transparency and legal certainty in global shipping transactions.