Section 116 of the Argentine National Constitution provides that admiralty cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other, lower federal courts.

Accordingly, Section 515 of the Argentine Navigation Law (No 20,094) sets forth that all cases resulting from, or related to, navigation shall be heard by the Civil and Commercial Federal Courts of Buenos Aires.

The Argentine Maritime Authority (Prefectura Naval Argentina) exercises administrative jurisdiction over navigation matters pursuant to Law 18,398, being responsible for investigating the facts and determining administrative and professional liabilities involved in shipwrecks, collisions, groundings and other maritime incidents. Its findings are considered important pieces of evidence in judicial proceedings related thereto.

Additionally, there is an Administrative Tribunal of Navigation (Tribunal Administrativo de la Navegación), which is another administrative body under the Argentine Navy (Armada Argentina), responsible for determining the professional liability of national or foreign crew members in cases involving incidents in navigation.

Argentina is a signatory to the Latin American Agreement on Port State Control of Vessels, which was signed in Viña del Mar on 5 November 1992 and has been in force since 1993.

For the purposes of exercising port state control, the Argentine Maritime Authority checks whether foreign vessels visiting Argentine ports comply with the provisions set forth by the international conventions of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which are mandatory under the Agreement.

These conventions are:

• the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966;
• the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966;
• the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974;
• the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974;
• the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as amended by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL);
• the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978;
• the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; and
• the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969.

Currently, the Agreement is applicable at the ports of San Lorenzo, Rosario, Arroyo Seco, Villa Constitución, San Nicolás, Ramallo, San Pedro, Zárate, Campana, Buenos Aires, Dock Sud, La Plata, Mar del Plata, Quequén, Bahía Blanca, San Antonio Oeste, Puerto Madryn, Caleta Olivia, Comodoro Rivadavia, Puerto Deseado and Ushuaia.

The Argentine Maritime Authority’s inspectors are empowered to conduct onboard inspections, check the validity of the pertinent certificates and documents, and verify the general condition of the vessel, her equipment and her crew.

If there is evidence of non-compliance with the requirements set forth by the aforementioned international conventions, a more detailed inspection can be carried out, and if they pose a serious risk to navigation or the maritime environment, foreign vessels may be detained until the deficiencies are fixed.

In Argentina, ship registration is regulated by:

• the Argentine Navigation Law;
• Law 19,170;
• the Argentine Maritime, River and Lake Navigation Regime (Decree 37/2025); and
• Maritime Ordinance 9/02.

For vessels with a gross tonnage of less than three, Maritime Ordinance 2/19 shall apply.

The authority handling domestic registration of vessels is the National Registry of Ships, under the ambit of the Argentine Maritime Authority, which is ultimately under the Ministry of National Security.

According to Section 52 of the Argentine Navigation Law, the requirements that must be met to have a vessel registered in the National Registry of Ships are the following:

• the vessel must comply with the construction and seaworthiness requirements set forth by the Argentine Maritime Authority (Section 52.a);
• the ship-owner must be domiciled in Argentina;
• where the ship-owner is an entity, it must be established in accordance with the Argentine regulations (Section 52.c); and
• where the ship-owner is a foreign company, it must have a branch or another kind of permanent representation established in Argentina according to the applicable domestic law (Section 52.c).

Under Argentine law, the temporary registration of vessels in the National Registry of Ships is not provided for. Nevertheless, Decree Law 19,492/44 (regarding national cabotage), as ratified by Law 12,980, and the Law on the Development of the Argentine Merchant Fleet and Regional Fluvial Integration (No 27,419) provide that – under specific circumstances and after complying with formal requirements – foreign vessels may receive the same treatment as Argentine-flag vessels and enjoy all the rights and obligations of registered Argentine vessels, without being registered in the National Registry of Ships.

Maritime mortgages are registered in the National Registry of Ships.

To register a mortgage attached to a vessel with a gross tonnage of ten or more, the following documentary requirements must be complied with.

• The mortgage agreement must be executed in a public deed or an authenticated private agreement, including:
1. the name, surname, filiation, nationality, profession and domicile of the creditor and the debtor;
2. particulars of the ship according to the certificate of registration;
3. relevant details of the contract; and
4. the amount of the loan, the interest rate agreed and the terms of payment.
• Evidence of having paid salaries and all social security contributions of the crew serving the vessel on her last voyage must be submitted.

The information recorded by the National Registry of Ships is available to those who have a justified interest in enquiring about the ownership, mortgages, liens and encumbrances attached to vessels registered therein. Pursuant to Section 40 of Law 19,170, any interested party may request access to data regarding the certificates of ownership, liens and encumbrances of vessels by filling in form F-004-RNB.

Ship financing in Argentina is predominantly structured as debt financing. Equity financing is used less frequently and, when applied, it is typically provided at the level of the ship-owning company through capital contributions or shareholder loans, rather than as financing granted directly to the vessel.

The most common form of security for vessel financing is the ship mortgage, which is expressly regulated by the Argentine Navigation Law. Ship mortgages may be created over Argentine-flagged vessels of ten gross tons or more, including vessels under construction. In order to be valid and enforceable against third parties, a ship mortgage must be granted by public deed (or by a duly authenticated private instrument, where permitted) and registered with the National Registry of Ships.

In order to promote domestic shipbuilding and expand the national merchant fleet, Argentina has enacted the Naval Industry Promotion Law (No 27,418) and the Law on the Development of the Argentine Merchant Fleet and Regional Fluvial Integration. Of particular relevance to ship finance, the Law on the Development of the Argentine Merchant Fleet and Regional Fluvial Integration strengthens the maritime privilege framework applicable to ship mortgages by confirming that a ship mortgage ranks immediately after the first-priority group of maritime privileges and ahead of the second-priority group. In addition, the law expressly grants privileged status to ship construction credits of a mortgage or pledge nature, integrating them into the maritime privilege system and thereby enhancing legal certainty and predictability for lenders and shipbuilders involved in newbuilding financing.

Ship leasing transactions in Argentina have not experienced a significant increase in recent years. Traditional bank lending continues to be the predominant source of vessel financing, while private equity funds, alternative credit providers and Chinese leasing houses are more common in other jurisdictions than in the Argentine market. Under a leasing structure, ownership of the vessel remains with the lessor, while the lessee is granted the right to use and operate the vessel and assumes the related commercial and operational risks. By contrast, under a loan structure, ownership lies with the borrower and the lender’s rights are exercised through contractual claims and security interests, most notably ship mortgages. Enforcement regimes also differ. Ship mortgages are enforced through judicial proceedings before Argentine courts. Enforcement is subject to mandatory local law, including the system of statutory maritime privileges, and typically involves arrest and judicial sale of the vessel. As a result, mortgage enforcement is inherently court-driven. By contrast, leasing enforcement is based on ownership rather than on security interests. Under Argentine law, the lessor remains the legal owner of the vessel during the lease term. As a result, in the event of default, the lessor is entitled to seek repossession of the vessel on the basis of the duly registered leasing agreement. Although repossession in practice requires court involvement and co-ordination with the relevant maritime authorities, the procedure is generally more direct than the enforcement of a ship mortgage, as it does not require a judicial sale of the vessel nor does it involve competition with maritime liens. In practical terms, mortgage enforcement is focused on the realisation of the security through the sale of the vessel, whereas leasing enforcement is focused on the recovery of the possession of the vessel. Sale and leaseback transactions are not common in Argentina and are generally limited to isolated cases.

Argentina is not a party to any international convention covering wreck removal. Hence, domestic legislation applies (ie, the Argentine Navigation Law and Law 16,526 concerning the legal regime applicable to wreck removal operations, Sections 12 to 18).

Regarding pollution, Argentina ratified the 1992 Protocol amending the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971, thus becoming a party to those conventions. Argentina is not a party to the 2003 Protocol establishing an International Oil Pollution Compensation Supplementary Fund.

In addition, Argentina has not ratified the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001, nor the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 1996, and its amending protocols.

Regarding marine pollution prevention, Argentina has ratified the following international conventions:

• the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969;
• the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 and Protocol of 1997;
• the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990;
• the co-operation agreement with Uruguay to Prevent and Combat Incidents of Pollution of the Aquatic Environment Caused by Hydrocarbons and Other Harmful Substances, 1987; and
• the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972.

Argentina is a signatory to the Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules with Respect to Assistance and Salvage at Sea, and to the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules with Respect to Collisions between Vessels, both of 1910.

Likewise, Argentina has ratified the International Convention on Certain Rules concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, 1952; the International Convention on Certain Rules concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, 1952; and the Montevideo International Commercial Navigation Treaty, 1940 (which provides rules on jurisdiction in matters of salvage and collision).

In those cases where these conventions do not apply, the Argentine domestic legislation does. Accordingly, the Argentine Navigation Law contains specific provisions about procedural aspects, causation and apportionment of liability, applicable law and jurisdiction on collision and salvage matters.

Argentina is not party to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, but the Argentine Navigation Law provides for a specific regime that allows the ship-owner and the disponent owner to limit their liability by setting up a limitation fund, for losses and damages caused by the acts of, or omission to perform an act by, their employees, servants and agents who performed their duties at sea.

The cap on the liability for maritime claims is the value of the ship at the end of the voyage, plus the credits accrued on the last voyage. If the value of the vessel at the end of the voyage is insufficient to pay all compensation for claims due to death or personal injury, there is a supplementary limitation based on the tonnage of the vessel.

Registered owners can also limit their liability for maritime claims by relinquishing their vessel in favour of their creditor, depositing the title of ownership in a judicial court pursuant to a special judicial proceeding within three months after the incident occurred.

Argentina approved and ratified the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties by Law No 19,865, enacted on 3 October 1972, and it therefore forms part of the Argentine legal system. Argentina is not a party to any international conventions on limitation of liability, including the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976.

Limitation funds must be set up in cash by depositing an amount that equals the value of the ship at the end of the voyage, plus the credits accrued on the last voyage. The right to set up a limitation fund may be alleged by the owner or the disponent owner before the expiry of the time limit to allege defences in the sentence enforcement process. Among other formalities, explanatory details of the composition of the limitation fund and a list of the creditors or claimants subject to such limitation fund must be provided by the owner or the disponent owner. Afterwards, a special proceeding of limitation of liability will be initiated. If the ship-owners elect to limit their liability by relinquishing the vessel, they must provide the property deed of the vessel. The owners’ right to relinquish their vessel should be alleged within three months after the incident occurred.

Argentina is a party to the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, approved by Law 26,920, and its amendments of 2014, 2016 and 2018.

In addition, the following national legislation applies to the rights and safety of seafarers:

• the Labour Contract Law (No 20,744);
• the relevant sections of the old Commercial Code, as amended by Laws 17,371 and 17,823 related to the legal regime applicable to work on board ships;
• the Labour Risks Law (No 24,557);
• the Argentine Navigation Law;
• collective bargaining agreements; and
• Regimen de Formación y Capacitación del Personal de la Marina Mercante (REFOCAPEMM).

The transport of cargo under a bill of lading is governed by:

• the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading (the “Hague Rules”), signed in Brussels in 1924, which was ratified by Argentina in 1960; and
• the Argentine Navigation Law, which contains specific provisions applicable to the contract of carriage of goods by sea, when the International Convention does not apply.

Therefore, when a bill of lading or similar document of title has been issued in a contracting state to the Hague Rules, the Hague Rules apply; otherwise, the Argentine Navigation Law does.

The consignee of the cargo and/or the legitimate holder of a bill of lading is entitled to sue under the bill of lading. Argentine law recognises the assignment of title to sue, although it may be subject to certain conditions and formalities depending on the particulars of the case.

The Argentine Navigation Law establishes a package limitation based on the nature of the cargo (per package, piece, unit or kilo weight). It follows the spirit of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, 1924 (the “Hague–Visby Rules”), but sets its own unit of account – namely, the Argentine gold peso – for the calculation of the limit. It is restricted to carriers, but their servants and agents can also allege the benefit of this limitation when a claim is brought directly against them. Therefore, the ship-owner – acting as actual carrier – can also claim the benefit of this limitation.

Section 278 of the Argentine Navigation Law provides that the limit to the carrier’s liability for cargo claims shall be calculated per damaged or lost piece of cargo (when the cargo is carried unpacked, eg, heavy objects) or package of cargo (when the cargo is carried packed, eg, in boxes or pallets) or per unit of freight (when the cargo is carried in bulk). When cargo is carried in containers, the law states that where a container is used to consolidate goods, the number of packages or units enumerated in the bill of lading as packed in it shall be deemed the number of packages (for the purpose of limitation) as far as these packages or units are concerned. The limitation of liability operates as a defence to which the carrier is entitled and which the carrier must allege when first appearing in court. Although the legislation fails to provide a cap to carriers’ liability for damages and/or losses caused by a delay in delivering the cargo at the port of destination, Argentine courts have resolved to follow the same limitation of liability regime as for loss of, or damage to, cargo.

Section 296 of the Argentine Navigation Law provides that shippers shall be deemed to have guaranteed to carriers the accuracy of the particulars of the cargo as inserted by them in the shipping instructions or the declaration of cargo for shipment. Therefore, carriers could bring a claim against shippers, if their failure to describe the cargo accurately causes damage to them or makes them incur liability before third parties.

Under Argentine legislation, the time limit for cargo claims under the contract of carriage is one year from the unloading of the cargo; or, in the event that the goods were not discharged from the ship, from the date on which they should have been discharged; or, in the event that the goods have not been loaded onto the ship, from the date on which the ship departed, or should have departed, from the port of loading. Parties are allowed to agree on an extension to the time bar, provided that such agreement is reached after the damage, or the cause of the damage, occurred.

Argentina is neither a party to the Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, 1952, nor to the International Convention on Arrest of Ships, 1999.

Ship arrests are governed by the Argentine Navigation Law, which provides that Argentine vessels can be arrested in the following cases:

• to grant a maritime lien; and
• to grant a debt incurred by the Master, owner or disponent owner of the vessel in connection with her use, navigation and exploitation (in the port of the jurisdiction where the ship-owner is domiciled or has its principal establishment).

Furthermore, it sets forth that foreign vessels can be arrested and prohibited from sailing in the following cases:

• to grant a maritime lien;
• to grant a credit accrued in the Argentine territory for the use of a vessel, or a sister vessel of the same, belonging to the same ownership when bringing actions of arrest or when the credit accrued; and
• to grant a credit, connected or not with the use of the vessel, which is capable of being claimed by the creditor before Argentine courts, which should be competent to hear the case.

Under Argentine law, the following claims are considered maritime liens and may entitle claimants to arrest a vessel and collect their credit with preference over other creditors:

• judicial and legal costs incurred for the common interest of creditors for the maintenance of the ship, for her judicial sale, and for the distribution of the sums obtained from the sale of the vessel among the creditors;
• claims for wages and other sums due to the Master, officers and other members of crew resulting from employment contracts, labour laws and agreements signed with unions;
• claims arising from shipbuilding contracts;
• taxes, duties, contributions and others resulting from the navigation or the commercial exploitation of the vessel;
• claims resulting from death or personal injury that occurred on board or ashore, in connection with the operation of the vessel;
• claims for tortious acts against the owner, the disponent owner or the vessel resulting from the operation of the vessel;
• claims for salvage reward, wreck removal expenses and general average contributions;
• claims for damage or loss caused to the cargo or goods on board;
• claims resulting from charterparty disputes or from the execution of contracts of carriage;
• claims resulting from supplies or other necessaries for the vessel’s operation, maintenance or service;
• credits for the construction, repair or equipment of the vessel and for dock expenses;
• claims arising from disbursements made by the Master, shippers, charterers or agents on behalf of the vessel or her owner; and
• claims for the last purchase price of the vessel and the interest accrued during the last two years.

Depending on the case, in Argentina, a vessel could be arrested regardless of her owner’s personal liability on the merits constituting a recognised maritime lien, for debts incurred by the demise charterer.

The supply of bunkers or other necessaries gives rise to a maritime lien, and thus gives a right to arrest the ship irrespective of whether it was ordered by the charterer or the owner.

In order to obtain an order of arrest from an Argentine court, the arrestor will need to meet the following procedural requirements:

• pay a court fee – 3% of the claimed amount must be paid to court;
• pay expenses concerning the National Registry of Ships – 0.1% of the claimed amount; and
• provide adequate counter-security for any eventual damages that the arrest might cause if it is made without the arrestor being entitled to do so.

Counter-security may be given in cash, by a local bank or by a well-known local insurance company. It may be difficult to obtain locally when the arrestor is a foreign entity; however, there might be alternative ways to overcome any obstacle in this regard.

The arrestor will also need to grant its lawyers a power of attorney (POA) empowering them to bring actions of arrest; nevertheless, actions could be brought without a POA if this document is presented in its original form within the following 40 days after the initial presentation requesting a vessel’s arrest.

The Argentine Navigation Law does not specifically deal with the possibility of arresting bunkers and freight, as it does with the possibility of arresting a vessel; however, it provides that specific maritime claims confer a maritime lien over freight.

Regarding the procedural requirements to bring actions of arrest on bunkers and freight, the requirements set forth by the National Civil and Commercial Procedural Code regarding precautionary measures over any assets, goods or credits shall apply.

Pursuant to the Argentine Navigation Law, it is possible to arrest a foreign sister-ship if the vessel that generated the credit to be secured with the arrest and the one to be arrested belong to the same ownership, when requesting the arrest or when the credit accrued.

The National Civil and Commercial Procedural Code sets forth different precautionary measures to obtain security, such as seizure of assets, credits and rights, prohibition of disposal of movable or immovable property, judicial intervention, and the possibility to request a more convenient measure aimed at obtaining a more appropriate security in view of the particular case.

A vessel that is arrested may be released from arrest if adequate security is given to substitute the security granted by the arrest. Adequate security may be given in the form of another asset to be arrested, a local bank guarantee, a cash deposit, an insurance policy issued by a local company or an insurance policy obtained locally by the Argentine shipping agents of the foreign vessel, or by giving Argentine National Treasury Bonds.

A club’s letter of intent or a foreign bank’s letter of guarantee may be effective to get the vessel released from the arrest; however, if the arrestor objects to its effectiveness or appropriateness, the judge may not admit the substitution.

After an enforceable title is in place, the court shall – before ordering the judicial sale of a national ship – request from the National Registry of Ships a report of the vessel’s mortgages, liens and encumbrances. If the vessel flies a foreign flag, such request shall be made to the corresponding consular authority. If liens and encumbrances do not exceed the vessel price, the court shall order the judicial sale of the ship, and the funds obtained from the auction shall be distributed among the creditors. If liens and encumbrances exceed the vessel price, creditors may request the initiation of the special proceeding of privileged creditors on the vessel. In principle, the private sale of an asset subject to judicial execution is not permitted under Argentine law, as the judicial auction/sale process is the mechanism established to ensure transparency, equality among creditors, and the maximisation of value for the benefit of the interested parties.

However, certain exceptions or alternatives may be available, depending on the specific circumstances of the case and the express authorisation of the court.

Any interested party may object to the judicial sale of the vessel. If no objections are entered or if they are dismissed by the court, the judicial sale of the vessel shall be ordered, and the sums obtained therefrom shall be distributed among the creditors, observing the order of preference provided by the Argentine Navigation Law. The Argentine Navigation Law divides maritime claims into two groups. The first group is formed of credits resulting from non-contractual claims and has preference over the claims of the second group, which is formed of credits resulting from contractual claims. The credit of the mortgagor has preference after the credits of the first group and before the credits of the second group.

The Argentine Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law (No 24,522), as amended by Laws 25,563, 25,589 and 26,086, provides for a debt restructuring proceeding that is similar to the one set forth under Title 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. Once a debtor files a judicial restructuring proceeding (Concurso preventivo de acreedores), all existing actions to enforce claims against it – except those claims arising from a pledge or mortgage – shall be stayed and transferred to be continued by the bankruptcy court and no similar actions may be brought. However, any existing contentious proceeding against debtors, where their liability has not been yet determined, shall continue its regular course before the same court where the claim was originally brought, up to the final judgment.

Privileged creditors secured by pledges or mortgages shall be allowed to continue enforcement actions, but the court may order a stay of such proceedings for a period no longer than 90 days. Moreover, the court shall not authorise precautionary measures or judicial sale unless the claimant proved the credit was verified in the judicial restructuring proceeding. Among privileged creditors, those whose claims are secured by maritime liens set forth by the Argentine Navigation Law may request the formation of the special process of maritime privileged creditors. Moreover, a vessel mortgagee may request the judicial sale of the vessel, over which maritime privileged creditors will concur following the ranking of priority set forth by the Argentine Navigation Law. If, after the judicial sale of the vessel, any part of the purchase price remains, it will be transferred to the relevant bankruptcy court.

Despite the aforesaid, the debtor and other interested creditors may request the bankruptcy court to lift all precautionary measures pending over those assets considered essential for the continuance of their commercial activities, such as a vessel might be for her owners. Under these circumstances, the judicial sale of a vessel property of owners that are under a judicial restructuring proceeding shall be subject to the judicial bankruptcy proceedings.

The Argentine Navigation Law does not contain any express provision about wrongful arrests; however, the most recognised doctrine has considered that, in the case of an intentional wrongful arrest, the arrestor shall be liable unlimitedly for all the damages and losses resulting from the illegitimate immobilisation of the vessel. In this respect, the burden of proof to demonstrate the arrestor’s liability would be difficult to meet, as the intention of the arrestor, the wrongful arrest and the causation link between the arrest and the damages will need to be demonstrated.

The Argentine Navigation Law only provides that the liability of the arrestor who – without acting maliciously – obtains the arrest of a vessel and does not ultimately initiate actions of claim is limited to the damages caused by the immobilisation of the vessel, until the moment at which the ship-owner substitutes said arrest with another security, and to the expenses related thereto (Section 540, Argentine Navigation Law).

Argentina approved its accession to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea and its Protocol (1974) by means of Law 22,178. Furthermore, the Argentine Navigation Law rules apply to those cases that do not fall within the scope of application of the aforementioned Convention and contains specific provisions on the contract of carriage of passengers, including passengers’ claims for personal injury, death, and damage to their cabin luggage, and luggage and vehicles in the ship’s hold.

The time bar limit for passengers’ claims is two years under the Convention and a year under the Argentine Navigation Law. Both legal systems establish a presumed fault or a fault base liability regime applying to the carrier, which varies depending on whether the cause of the personal injury, death or damage to luggage or vehicles is related to a maritime incident or not. Furthermore, both legal systems set forth that the carrier is entitled to claim the benefits of the limitation of liability. Claims for indemnities for personal injury of a passenger would be recognised as a maritime lien and claim.

Jurisdiction clauses are recognised and enforced by Argentine courts; however, attention should be paid to Section 614 of the Argentine Navigation Law, which expressly states that clauses of jurisdiction excluding Argentine courts from resolving disputes – incorporated into a voyage charterparty, a contract of carriage of goods or persons, or any contract where the carrier undertakes to transport goods to a destination where they have to be delivered in Argentina – shall be null and void.

Likewise, Section 621 provides that the parties are allowed to agree that a charterparty dispute or cargo claim shall be subject to arbitration proceedings or resolved by a court from a different jurisdiction, provided that such agreement is reached after the damage or the cause of it has occurred.

In the event that the bill of lading has an applicable law clause indicating that the contract of carriage is subject to a specific law or to an international convention such as the Hague or Hague–Visby Rules (clause paramount), such provision will be valid before the Argentine courts, and such legislation will apply, irrespective of its ambit of application. However, if any of the provisions of the chosen applicable legislation or international convention restrict or limit the liability of the carrier or ship-owner to a greater degree than the Argentine Navigation Law does, those provisions will be considered null and void. An example of provisions that would be considered null and void by Argentine courts are those referring to the limitation of liability of the carrier under the Hague and Hague–Visby Rules.

Arbitration clauses referring disputes to foreign arbitration, incorporated into a bill of lading for the transport of goods that shall be discharged at Argentine ports, shall be null and void, pursuant to Section 614 of the Argentine Navigation Law, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to Argentine courts to resolve claims arising under a contract of carriage whereby goods are to be delivered at any Argentine port.

Argentina has been a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards signed in New York on 10 June 1958 since 1988. Moreover, Law 27,449, concerning international commercial arbitration, contains specific provisions that apply to international commercial arbitration with a seat outside Argentina. This body of provisions follows the spirit of the aforementioned Convention.

Judicial precedents issued by the National Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals have regularly stated that Argentine courts have concurrent jurisdiction to arrest a vessel, in all cases where a vessel could be arrested under the Argentine Navigation Law, despite the jurisdiction of another court that might be competent to resolve the merits of the dispute that gave rise to the arrest, either because an extension of jurisdiction clause has been agreed between the parties or because another court might be competent due to another provision of international private law.

Furthermore, as Argentina is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Argentine courts could order an arrest on a vessel to secure a claim, which would be subject to arbitration proceedings in a country that has ratified such convention, if they are empowered to do so under Argentine law.

The Argentine Maritime Law Association (Asociación Argentina de Derecho Marítimo) has issued Arbitration Rules and created an Arbitration Committee within the organisation. Although it is known that some contracts will have incorporated an arbitration clause referring all disputes that may arise thereunder to be resolved following the Association’s Arbitration Rules and by the Arbitration Committee, there is no record of disputes being resolved by the institution.

At the first appearance at court, the defendant should raise an objection of lack of competence based on the breach of a foreign jurisdiction or arbitration clause.

In Argentina, there is no tonnage tax and the incomes earned by ship-owners established in Argentina are fully subject to income tax. The income tax is calculated on the profit or loss shown in the company’s financial statements, which is adjusted by adding up non-deductible expenses, and deducting non-taxable incomes and/or allowable deductions not accounted for in the accounting records. The tax rate on the net income of companies incorporated in Argentina is 30%. Depending on the particulars of the case, if a ship-owner’s vessel is engaged in several contracts, in excess of her ordinary use during a fiscal year, the benefits of the accelerated depreciation of such asset may be claimed before the tax authority, in the form of a reduction in income tax.

The Argentine Navigation Law, when regulating the different shipping contracts, provides that a force majeure event shall operate as an exemption from liability cause, in different specific scenarios. The maritime doctrine and relevant judicial precedents have stated that the defence of force majeure should be interpreted narrowly, that the concept of force majeure is dynamic and cannot be analysed in abstract situations, and that the admissibility of this defence depends strictly on the circumstances of the case. Further, it has stated that for an event to be considered force majeure, it should not be a mere difficulty, but unforeseeable, unavoidable, real, current, beyond the control of the parties and supervening, and should pose an insuperable obstacle that prevents the full performance of a contractual obligation. The theory of frustration as such is provided by Section 1091 of the National Civil and Commercial Procedural Code; however, it should be pointed out that this contractual remedy may not apply to all maritime matters.

On 8 June 2021, Argentina deposited the instrument of accession to the Protocol of 1997, adopting Annex VI of MARPOL with the IMO. Therefore, the limit on the sulphur content in the fuel oil used on board ships navigating Argentine territorial waters is a maximum of 0.50% mass by mass. The Argentine Maritime Authority is empowered to inspect vessels arriving at Argentine ports, regardless of their flags, to ensure compliance with the environmental protection provisions stipulated by MARPOL Annex VI, and demand the fulfilment of the operational requirements set forth by the convention for national-flag vessels.

The Argentine Republic is a founding member of the United Nations. Since its foundation, the country has played an active role in the defence and promotion of international peace and security, human rights and sustainable development. Regarding international trade sanctions, Argentina generally follows the sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship. The decisions adopted by the Security Council are incorporated in domestic law according to the procedure set forth in Law 24,080 and its regulatory decrees.

With respect to the impact that the trade sanctions imposed by the international community due to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine may have in Argentina, it should be noted that it does not differ from the one observed in the shipping industry at large.

Issues encountered include cancellations of voyages, shipments and bookings, as well as the need to issue letters of indemnity. When a specific cargo has been intended to be consigned to a Russian-related party or a Russian-related territory, delays and additional costs have been observed.

Argentina has not been shut off from the global economic consequences of the war in Ukraine, such as the increase in the prices of energy, agricultural products, minerals and fertilisers, and fuels, as well as higher rates for international transportation. Likewise, since Argentina is a notable exporter of agricultural products, the interruption of trade with Ukraine and Russia has given the country the opportunity to increase and expand its foreign commerce in these sectors of the economy. With regard to the non-performance of contractual obligations due to the war, depending on the circumstances of the case, the defence of force majeure could be invoked by the defaulting party in order to escape from liability. To date, there are no records of any final judicial decision in this regard.

All the main maritime matters regulated by Argentine law have been covered throughout this article; nevertheless, the author would like to address the Law on the Development of the Argentine Merchant Fleet and Regional Fluvial Integration, in force since 29 December 2017, which was enacted with the purpose of promoting the transport industry and the participation of Argentine ship-owners in the local market.

Said act brought about the creation of the Special Registry of National Ship-Owners, which depends on the Undersecretariat of Ports, Waterways and Merchant Navy of the Ministry of Transport, in contrast with the Registry of Onshore Personnel, which depends on the Argentine Maritime Authority.

Those registered in this new registry can benefit from the advantages established by the Law on the Development of the Argentine Merchant Fleet and Regional Fluvial Integration, among them, the reduction of obstacles to:

• importing foreign vessels to incorporate them in an Argentine fleet (without paying import taxes); and
• chartering foreign-flagged vessels and naval artefacts under bareboat charter contracts within a temporary import legal regime and having them considered Argentine-flagged to all effects, including operating on national cabotage during the chartering period (ie, the vessel shall keep her foreign flag but she will receive “Argentine-flag treatment”).

In addition, Argentina continues to review and update the regulatory framework applicable to the maritime sector, with the aim of modernising its legal regime and facilitating the shipping business.

These measures form part of broader efforts to simplify procedures, reduce administrative burdens and improve efficiency in maritime and shipping-related activities, while promoting greater legal certainty and alignment with international trade practices. This process remains ongoing.