The author considers the issue of the institution of pilot stations. These have aroused a range of controversies in practice. Article 229 of the new Maritime Code deals with pilot stations. This regulation indicates that the director of a Maritime Office is obliged to create a pilot station, the task of which is "the organization and coordination" of pilot services and the training of pilots and candidates for the position of pilot. Pilot stations operate on the basis of regulations issued by the director of the Maritime Office.

The freedom of employment of seafarers is connected with the conditions relating to their taking work on foreign-registered ships. This issue has been for some time the object of numerous normalizations of the system of international law connected with the activities of ILO and IMO, and also of the internal systems of individual states. The freedom of employment of seafarers is regulated by European Community law within the framework of the basic community freedoms, that is the free movement of labour. It grants to seafarers who are the citizens of a particular member state the same chances of joining the crews of vessels belonging to any of the fifteen member states. The question remains open, however, of the employment of citizens of countries from outside the EU. In this matter, competence belongs to member states, which independently define the principles under which foreigners can have access to work. In the face of growing competition from states where registration is inexpensive, the EU has undertaken the task of creating a common register of European shipping registers, the so-called EUROS. However, till now this project has not been realized.

Along with liability for breaking the law, international law recognizes the liability of states for legal activities. The legal liability of a state has taken on increasing importance in the law of the sea and in maritime law. In both normalizations have taken place relating to, inter alia, the liability or co-liability of a state for ecological damage, and also the liability of a state for entities that exploit the sea bed, or what is under the surface of the sea bed, outside the jurisdiction of littoral states. In an approach to these issues, the Commission for International Law agreed in 200 I on a further project for regulations on preventing cross-border damage resulting from dangerous activities.

An analysis of the regulations of this extensive normative act that governs maritime civil law prompts the author to some critical comments. The result of these criticisms are suggestions for the modification of several norms of the Maritime Code. It is the view of the author that, despite the fact that the new legislation has only recently come into force, an urgent revision is necessary. Part of the proposed changes concern minor mistakes that arose at the final stage of the legislative process. There are, however, also proposals that go further, e.g. the removal from the legislation of the new institution of the Polish yacht register. In total, the author presents more than 50 changes to the new Maritime Code. Along with such revisions, the author also proposes new solutions which have not hitherto existed in the Polish Maritime Code. An example of such a proposal is that of introducing into the Maritime Code the obligation of financial security for ship owners responsible to cover damage done by pollutants other than crude oil. Besides arguments in favour of particular proposals for legislative changes, the article contains concrete outlines of new regulations.

The author writes about an important problem of maritime commercial law. She draws attention to the possibility of exploiting a form of understanding among ship owners (called line conferences), even on the basis of European law. This will be a matter of importance from the perspective of the interests of Polish ship owners after Poland's accession to the European Union. At the same time the author draws attention to the OECD report which indicates that this specific feature of maritime transport already belongs to the past, and that one can be certain that liberal tendencies will also extend to the business of ship owning. The future will show if the member states of the OECD will adapt to this tendency. It appears that the reform of shipping legislation in the USA in 1988 began a new era of the gradual opening of the shipping-line sector to free competition. Reform will also take this direction in the European Community, although the process will certainly not be speedy.

The new Maritime Code of2001 contains regulations governing salvage at sea, in Title VJ (Agreements), in Section V/11 (Salvage at Sea), and in Articles 231-249. The content of these regulations is in accord with the decisions of the London Convention of 1989, which came into force on 14 July 1996, and which has not yet been ratified by Poland. The basic changes introduced by the new Maritime Code in relation to salvage at sea have to do with a substantive extension of the object of salvage and with a consideration of the need to protect the natural environment. In accordance with Article 231 of the Maritime Code, salvage at sea involves giving help to a vessel that is in danger in any waters whatsoever, and salvaging property aboard the vessel or originating in it. It also involves salvaging any other property on the sea and not connected permanently and deliberately to the shore. The essence of the change introduced by the new Maritime Code has to do with recognizing as salvaged property any property on the sea, and not just a vessel or property aboard or originating from such a vessel. The author concentrates on comparing the regulations relating to salvage based on the Bruss ells Convention of 191 O and on the new convention SALVAGE 89.

The author of this article calls into question the suitability of the regulation in the Maritime Code relating to the division of a reward for salvage at sea. According to him, this regulation has been unclear for 30 years. He considers that the transfer of this kind of dispute to general courts may further make it difficultfor the crew ofthe salvaging vessel to obtain a part ofany reward. The division of a reward for salvage within the crew should have more precise definition inasmuch as there is an increasing number ofdisputes on this matter. This view is not reflected in the new Maritime Code; quite the reverse, it regulates this matter in an even more general and enigmatic manner, thus creating huge scopefor legal disputes.

This article deals with the project of Legal Committee of the International Maritime Organization to revise the Convention for the Suppression of SUA. The reason for changes in this convention and other maritime conventions is certainly the growth in the danger of terrorist acts at sea. The author calls this the "11 September" syndrome. The proposed changes, prepared by the US delegation, above all entails a significant widening of the typology of acts against the safety of maritime navigation. The idea of these changes leads to the linking of the new crimes introduced into the SUA Convention with many other anti-terrorist conventions. The author of this essay draws attention to the fact may lead to the attenuation of the maritime specificity of the SUA Convention. The close linking of the SUA Convention with other acts of international law certainly has benefits in terms of systematization, but may hinder the ratification of the new version of the SUA Convention by a range of states. The article points to the difficulties connected with the adaptation of internal law to the contents of the modified convention. It also discusses the postulate of supplementing Polish law with other international anti-terrorist regulations, including the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (Rome 1988).

This article is written by a practising captain of a large vessel. The Maritime Code contains dozens of regulations relating to the captain of a sea- going vessel, placing a large number of duties on him, or giving him various rights. Such regulations are contained in almost all parts of the legislation. However, in Title Ill a range of modifications has been introduced in comparison with regulations up till now. It must be generally stated that the regulations contains in Title III of the new Maritime Code do not deviate radically from the provisions of the legislation in force hitherto. A new and certainly positive regulation (in respect of what may be broadly understood as the safety of any vessel) is Article 35 of the Code. It states that "The captain of a ship may oppose the owner in relation to the composition and professional qualifications of persons inscribed in the crew list." This regulation may help to improve the quality of a ship's crew, giving the captain the possibility of eliminating from its complement workers who are unsuitable for the profession.

The use of the seas for military purposes consists of a broad and complex range of activities. We can divide these activities into two categories of users' rights. The first is the right tofreedom ofnavigation, and the second is the right to conduct operational activities. The Navy of a maritime power is the main defender and executive agent ofthese rights. The relations between maritime law and the military exploitation of the oceans, on one hand, 'and maritime law and the structure of power within the international system, on the other hand, are dynamic rather than static ones. They should be considered together in connection with planning for national security. Naval powers have a right to declare that the right to exploit the oceans for military purposes also extends to and beyond exclusive areas of economic