Drowning Dollars in Adventorous Waters

Under the International Conventions, maritime search and rescue operations are a no cost agreement. This is based on the basic premise of Human Rights that human life is most important and invaluable. But the US teenager Abby Sunderland's US$ 94,500 worth of rescue operations in the uncharted Indian Ocean island by Australia has sparked off worldwide debates if a teenager's adventorous sports is worth the tax payers hard earned money.

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, an International Maritime Safety Treaty(SOLAS), first adopted in 1914  is the most prominent of international treaties relating to safety of merchant hips. The first version of the treaty was passed in 1914 passed in response to the sinking of Titanic. It prescribed the number of lifeboats and other emergency equipments along with other safety procedures including continuous radio watches. The treaty underwent periodic amendments in 1929, 1948, 1960 and 1974. However by the time the amendments came into force, it was always late since the accepting minimum number of threshold countries with requisite tonnage limits required to give notice to the IMO, took painfully long. Consequently the 1974 version with all previous amendments included was adopted. The important breakthrough in the 1974 procedure was the simplified procedure for amending the treaty including the 'tacit acceptance' procedure wherein there is a default incorporation of amendments unless and until there is an objection filed by certain threshold of countries meeting the tonnage or number criteria. Prior to this a minimum of two-thirds of member countries were required to accep the amendments for incorporation.

Australia rightfully saved the teenager's life. But the all encompassing question is: Was it morally acceptable and ethically correct on the part of the 16 year old to chart out all alone and were her parents justified in letting their child who is yet to attain the legally adult age, sail on her own in those difficult waters. The trip was not even insured, which means that Australia's benevolent act is at best one of charity. In times of emergency one can not spark the adventure versus taxpayer's money debate; but when the storm subsides and we can sit back and think calmly, is it not time to define a legal indictment and punishment to discourage the amateur in future from taking up such risky sports.