Regardless of the teachings of COVID-19, the remedy of cruise ships throughout public well being emergencies stays ruled by fragmented and incomplete guidelines below worldwide legislation. Current treaty reform efforts didn’t resolve the structural gaps uncovered each in 2020 and now once more in 2026.
In April and Could 2026, the expedition cruise vessel MV Hondius turned the location of a hantavirus outbreak that has grabbed media headlines the world over. The ship departed Ushuaia, Argentina, on 1 April 2026, carrying round 150 passengers and crew representing 23 nationalities. Passengers have been primarily from Spain, France, the UK, and the USA, whereas most crew members have been from the Philippines.
The outbreak unfolded with tragic penalties. On 11 April, a passenger died on board. His physique was taken ashore in Saint Helena on 24 April, the place his spouse disembarked earlier than dying two days later in a Johannesburg hospital. A 3rd passenger later died on board, and one other was evacuated to South Africa in a essential however secure situation.
On 3 Could, the vessel docked at Praia, Cabo Verde, however disembarkation was refused as a consequence of restricted native capability to handle the emergency. Regardless of native opposition, Spain ultimately agreed to obtain the ship within the Canary Islands. On 6 Could, three passengers—together with the ship’s physician—have been medically evacuated to the Netherlands. After arriving in Tenerife on 10 Could, the remaining passengers disembarked and have been repatriated, whereas contaminated people have been hospitalised throughout a number of international locations, together with South Africa, the Netherlands, Germany, Saint Helena, Spain, France, and Switzerland.
For a lot of, the occasions on the Hondius evoked robust reminiscences of the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, cruise ships such because the Diamond Princess and the Ruby Princess turned notorious early superspreaders. Many states responded with a combination of warning and panic, usually closing their ports to cruise vessels, leaving passengers and crew stranded at sea.
Current occasions revive questions of worldwide legislation: what tasks do port and flag states bear within the occasion of public well being emergencies on cruise ships? When should ships be granted entry to ports? How ought to obligations regarding quarantine, remedy, evacuation, and repatriation be allotted? And, importantly, did the expertise of the COVID-19 pandemic present a chance to convey concerns of humanity to the fore when coping with public well being emergencies on cruise ships?
A fragmented authorized framework for a transnational drawback
The worldwide authorized framework relevant to public well being emergencies on cruise ships is comprised of a posh constellation of agreements and regimes, together with the United Nations Conference on the Legislation of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Worldwide Well being Laws of 2005 (IHR 2005), the Conference on Facilitation of Worldwide Maritime Visitors (FAL Conference), the Maritime Labour Conference (MLC) and worldwide human rights treaties.
This framework should account for the inherently transnational nature of cruise transport and due to this fact includes overlapping jurisdictions and competing pursuits: these of flag states, port states, and states whose nationals are on board; these of worldwide organisations such because the World Well being Group (WHO) and the Worldwide Maritime Group (IMO); and people of business actors like cruise operators and even people corresponding to ship captains.
Public well being emergencies at sea expose the tensions inherent on this framework, notably the place capacities and priorities usually are not aligned.
Port entry
One of the vital contentious points—each throughout COVID-19 and within the Hondius case—is entry to ports. Cabo Verde’s refusal to allow disembarkation, in addition to the political resistance within the Canary Islands, illustrate the reflex to shut ports to ships coping with the outbreak of illness.
Beneath UNCLOS, rights and duties regarding port entry are largely ignored. As a matter of customary worldwide legislation, states train sovereignty over their ports and will typically deny entry to overseas vessels. Exceptions exist in instances of misery or power majeure, however these are interpreted narrowly.
Through the COVID-19 pandemic—and once more in 2026—states invoked this sovereign authority to justify port closures and the denial of entry to cruise vessels. These measures have been usually framed as workout routines of border management designed to guard home populations from an infection.
Nevertheless, port state sovereignty shouldn’t be absolute. It’s conditioned by different worldwide obligations, notably below the IHR 2005 and the FAL Conference.
The IHR 2005 present essentially the most straight related framework. Article 28 establishes that states mustn’t stop ships from calling at ports for public well being causes or refuse free pratique, which is the proper of ships to enter ports to embark and disembark items. The FAL Conference extends this precept to cruise ships, offering that entry shouldn’t be refused the place it will not outcome within the introduction or unfold of illness (Annex, customary 3.20).
But these obligations nonetheless afford beneficiant discretion to port states. Notably, states could deny entry in the event that they lack the capability to implement obligatory well being measures, corresponding to quarantine or disinfection (Article 28(1) of the IHR 2005)—exactly the rationale invoked by Cape Verde. They might additionally impose inspections and require ships to undertake decontamination measures (Article 28(2)). These exceptions enable port states to prioritise home well being concerns even on the expense of these on board.
Human rights at sea
Past port entry, public well being emergencies on cruise ships increase important considerations below the Maritime Labour Conference (MLC) and worldwide human rights legislation.
The MLC imposes obligations on flag states to make sure that seafarers, together with the crew on cruise ships, have entry to immediate and enough medical care on board (Regulation 4.1.3), and requires port states to offer entry to medical providers ashore the place accessible. It additional mandates that onboard medical care needs to be comparable, so far as doable, to requirements on land (Regulation 4.1.4). The COVID-19 pandemic revealed how ceaselessly these requirements weren’t met. Crew members have been usually stranded for prolonged durations, denied shore go away, and left with out enough care.
Worldwide human rights legislation provides one other layer of safety. All people at sea take pleasure in rights, together with the proper to well being, freedom of motion, and safety from discrimination.
But the train of public well being powers—corresponding to quarantine, motion restrictions, and port closures—can intervene with these rights. Throughout COVID-19 and once more within the Hondius case, states confronted tough trade-offs between defending public well being and safeguarding particular person rights. The occasions aboard the Diamond Princess, Ruby Princess, and different vessels in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed structural weaknesses within the worldwide authorized framework. Whereas the WHO supplies technical steerage, it doesn’t all the time deal with strike this steadiness, contributing to inconsistent and, at occasions, dangerous outcomes.
Compounding these points are enforcement gaps inherent within the legislation of the ocean. Accountability could be subtle between flag and port states, with every counting on the opposite to fulfil obligations—generally leading to neither doing so successfully.
The multinational composition of cruise ships additional complicates issues. Within the Hondius case, many states turned concerned in evacuation and repatriation efforts of their nationals on board the ship. Diplomatic coordination was required not solely to convey nationals house, but additionally to handle remedy throughout jurisdictions and conduct contact tracing after disembarkation.
Whereas such efforts reveal worldwide cooperation, in addition they underscore the absence of predefined coordination mechanisms. A lot depends upon advert hoc preparations somewhat than established authorized frameworks.
Incomplete reform: the neglect of cruise ships
Within the aftermath of COVID-19, states undertook efforts to strengthen world well being governance, together with by amendments to the IHR 2005 and the adoption of the WHO Pandemic Settlement in 2025. But these reforms have largely missed the maritime dimension of pandemics—and cruise ships specifically.
This omission is placing and one thing we’ve got beforehand warned of. Cruise ships are uniquely susceptible environments throughout public well being emergencies: contagious illness can unfold rapidly and ships traversing a number of jurisdiction and carrying folks with varied nationalities make them depending on worldwide cooperation between states and non-state actors.
Whereas some modifications to the IHR 2005 goal to raised steadiness public well being safety with the facilitation of worldwide site visitors, they don’t adequately deal with the particular challenges posed by cruise ships. The emphasis stays on the powers of states, somewhat than on the rights and welfare of people on board.
If the teachings of each COVID-19 and the Hondius outbreak are to be taken significantly, extra work is to be executed.
First, states ought to develop extra particular guidelines on the remedy of cruise ships throughout public well being emergencies. These ought to deal with key points corresponding to quarantine, medical care, evacuation, and repatriation.
Second, tasks should be clearly allotted amongst related actors. This contains not solely port and flag states, but additionally worldwide organisations and personal actors corresponding to cruise operators and people. Efficient responses require coordination, and coordination requires readability about tasks.
Third, reforms ought to make human rights and humanitarian concerns guiding rules for any response. Public well being measures could also be important to stop additional unfold of illness, however they need to not disproportionately burden these aboard ships. Passengers and crew mustn’t bear all the prices.
Lastly, any allocation of tasks should take into consideration the realities of the transport trade, together with the prevalence of flags of comfort. Expectations positioned on flag states should be calibrated to align with their precise capacities.
A warning unheeded
The MV Hondius outbreak shouldn’t be an remoted incident. It’s one other warning signal—one which echoes the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It demonstrates, as soon as once more, the human prices of scrambled well being responses at sea. Regardless of the expertise of 2020, worldwide legislation nonetheless lacks clear and coordinated guidelines for managing public well being emergencies on cruise ships. Reform efforts have didn’t study the teachings from the previous.
Till cruise ships are correctly built-in into the worldwide authorized framework, comparable incidents are prone to recur. We should study from our errors and place human rights and humanitarian concerns on the centre of the response to outbreaks of illness at sea.
Picture credit score: fdesroches, CC BY-SA 4.0
