In many ports of the European Union (EU), public port authorities routinely award terminal contracts to private operators who undertake substantial capital investment in port superstructure such as terminal surface layout, handling equipment, and warehouses. This well-nigh traditional collaboration can be considered a form of PPP avant la lettre. Partnerships where the private terminal operator also financesPort finance the port infrastructurePort infrastructure, such as capital dredging, quay walls, or even breakwaters and locks, are rare in the EU. There are several reasons for this, including the strong role of the public sector in ports, the availability of sufficient public funding sources, and the usually satisfactory functioning of the classic combination of public infrastructure investment and private superstructure investment. Generally, the setting up of PPPs in EU ports does not seem to encounter major legal obstacles deriving from either Union or national law. However, port terminalPort terminal contracts in the EU Member States take different forms. In the few cases of private infrastructure investment, models are lacking, and there is often experimentation, which entails risks. There is scope for EU institutions to issue a guidance instrument that offers practical, legal, and financial advice and explains best practices on both classic and innovative PPPs in ports.

The Belgian experience with the introduction and implementation of rules on maritime safety is specific due to the division of responsibilities between the federal and regional regulatory levels. This division of responsibilities is the result of major political compromises on the step-by-step reform of the state and, in particular, on the granting of autonomy to the regions, only one of which (Flanders) is located by the sea. While Flanders has obtained a large autonomy with respect to ports and inland navigation, key maritime policy fields such as flag state management, the management of marine areas and maritime safety regulation have largely remained part of the Belgian federal (national) domain. This chapter provides a general insight into the division of powers and the structure of the maritime safety-related laws and regulations.

This paper discusses the achievements and pitfalls of unification and codification of maritime law and their interaction. Today the unification of maritime law, which was launched as a business-orientated but also quite idealistic Belle Epoque project, has become difficult. Not only does unification suffer from inherent procedural complications, but unity is under a serious additional threat from the unguided missile of national re-codification projects, which often seem to lack an internationalist perspective. Against this background, four targeted policy measures are suggested: (1) restore the idealism of unification through awareness-building among proponents of national legislative projects; (2) revive comparative law research to support drafters; (3) issue CMI Guidance on national codifications; and (4) continued compilation of the Lex Maritima, which is still an ongoing project.