Legal Liability of Port Operating Entities in Managing Risks of Vessel Pilotage and Towing Services

Abstract

The phenomena occurring in port operations reveal frequent incidents of negligence in pilotage services and vessel delays, leading to logistical disruptions, delayed goods distribution, and even maritime accidents. Legal issues arise when claims for damages are filed against the Port Authority as the service provider. The lack of clarity regarding the Port Authority’s legal liability and the limits of its liability under port regulations constitutes a significant source of problems. When service users face losses, there are often no clear and effective legal mechanisms available to resolve disputes fairly. The Theory of Legal Liability, the Theory of Supervision, and the Theory of Administrative Law Enforcement are employed as practical analytical tools to examine and analyze these issues. The research method employed is normative legal research, focusing on the examination of written legal norms that regulate or relate to the research subject, such as Law No. 66 of 2024 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 17 of 2008 on Shipping, Government Regulation No. 7 of 2000 on Maritime Affairs, Government Regulation No. 51 of 2002 on Shipping, Government Regulation No. 61 of 2009 on Ports, Government Regulation No. 5 of 2010 on Navigation, Government Regulation No. 31 of 2021 on the Administration of the Shipping Sector, Ministry of Transportation Regulation No. PM 57 of 2015 on Vessel Pilotage and Towing, Ministry of Transportation Regulation No. 37 of 2017 on the Administration of Port Services, Ministry of Transportation Regulation No. 30 of 2017 on Maritime Safety Regulations, as well as other laws and regulations governing the operations of Port Business Entities (BUP). The research findings indicate that Law No. 66 of 2024 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 17 of 2008 on Shipping, as the primary legal framework for the port sector, does not explicitly address the limits of legal liability for Port Business Entities, lacks provisions for dispute resolution mechanisms, and exhibits weak oversight functions regarding service standards of Port Business Entities. This indicates the existence of legal gaps and dysfunction that create legal uncertainty, both for Port Business Entities as business operators and for service users as the aggrieved parties. Therefore, it is hoped that the Government and regulators will undertake concrete and practical regulatory reforms to improve the quality of governance and legal protection in port services in Indonesia.