In a recently published official Report from the Swedish Government (SOU 2010:73) a leg- islative proposal has been introduced. Its main purpose is to prevent parallel registrations of ships that are bareboat chartered to other countries. The legislative proposal claims that by preventing parallel registration of ships the Swedish Maritime Code will better corre- spond with the UN convention on the law of the sea. The UN convention on the law of the sea clearly states that ships are forbidden to fly two flags. There is however no restriction concerning parallel registration, simultaneously, in two registers. A ship that is bareboat chartered out from Sweden does not fulfil criteria re- quired in order to be deregistered, according to the Swedish maritime code. In matter of fact ownership remains unchanged in a bareboat procedure. The situation leads to parallel registration, and uncertainty can arise regarding which country has full state control over the ship. This may cause problems, and should be dealt with. There are however more ap- propriate ways of dealing with the issue rather than prohibiting parallel registration, and that are compatible with the UN convention on the law of the sea. By allowing bareboat registration according to the UN convention on conditions for regis- tration of ships, the issue of which country has full state control over the ship is resolved, and assures that the ship sails under only on states flag. Sweden has held a passive position regarding the issue of parallel registration of ships and a legislative change is necessary, mainly because parallel registration, as it is currently con- ducted in Sweden today, is in conflict with the UN convention on the law of the sea, but also because it leads to uncertainty concerning which country has full state control over the ship. However, a prohibition against parallel registration is not compatible with the rest of EU, where the majority has chosen to permit parallel registration. Bareboat registration ac- cording to the UN convention on conditions for registration of ships is not in conflict with the UN convention on the law of the sea and should therefore be permitted in Sweden.

Att argumentera till sjöss med andra sjöfarare tillhör det normala och de flesta har fått höra att de inte agerat på ett sådant sätt som är förenligt med gott sjömanskap. Vad det innebär att förfara med gott sjömanskap är svårt att sätta ord på och kan ha sin förklaring i att begreppet saknar legal definition. Trots det, kan den som inte handlat med gott sjömanskap få fängelsestraff upp till två år om gärningen är grov. Gott sjömanskap har studerats ur det straffrättsliga perspektivet för att klargöra vad domstol anser är att agera med gott sjömanskap. Syftet var att belysa och precisera begreppet och studien genomfördes med en kvalitativ rättsdogmatisk metod där rättsfall, lagtext och propositioner analyserades. Resultatet visar att gott sjömanskap är ett sådant betanden som domstol inte bedömer som ett vårdslöst. Vad som är ett vårdslöst beteende har fastställts på ett antal punkter. / To argue at sea with other seafarers is normal and most people have been told that they did not act accordingly to good seamanship. What it means to proceed with good seamanship is difficult to put into words and it could be explained by the lack of a legal definition. Despite this, the one who proceeds without god seamanship risk a prison sentence for up to two years if the act is gross. Good seamanship has therefore been studied from criminal law perspective to clarify what court consider as good seamanship. The purpose was to illustrate and specify the term and the study was conducted using a qualitative legal-judicial method where legal cases, legal texts and propositions were analysed. The result illustrates that good seamanship is what court does not judge as an behaviour of carelessness. The carless behaviour has been determined in some areas.