Tides of Change: Counter-Terrorism, Rights, and Commercial Efficiency in UK Ports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript fits thematically into Laws (regulation, justice, port security governance), but requires formal improvements and greater precision in its arguments before it can be published.

Formal comments:

The purpose and methodology outlined in the abstract is clear, although it is too dense. It is recommended to simplify long sentences, clarify the original contribution, avoid extremely specific numbers in the abstract, and save them for the Results. It is suggested that the results and discussion be condensed, and that repetitions in sections 3, 4, and 5 be avoided.

Content comments:

1. Theoretical framework and method

The conceptual framework on risk-based security, proportionality and trade rights is well founded, but could benefit from a more explicit theoretical section connecting the “risk society”, responsive regulation and procedural justice with the port case before delving into the data.

The methodology is described in detail (doctrinal analysis, operational metrics, international comparison, technological assessment, risk tools), but limits need to be made explicit: port selection biases, quality/reliability of private data and possible conflicts of interest in industry sources.

The comparative section (Singapore, Rotterdam, Hamburg) is one of the strengths, although somewhat descriptive; the criteria for structural comparability with the UK context could be made clearer and a summary table of differences in governance, technology and results could be used.

The comparative section (Singapore, Rotterdam, Hamburg), despite being the most noteworthy part of the article, is very descriptive; the criteria for structural comparability with the UK context could be made clearer and a summary table of differences in governance, technology and results could be used.

2. Results and discussion

The diagnosis of regulatory burden and regulatory overlap is sound, but it would be useful to distinguish more clearly between strictly legal obligations (ISPS, Reg. 2009, NSI, NSA) and soft law (NCSC, CNI guidelines), and to show how these translate into “layers” of compliance for a typical operator.

The quantitative data on processing times, costs per TEU and crane productivity are adequate, but should be presented with minimal information on sample sizes, observation periods and margins of variation to reinforce their academic credibility.

The discussion on commercial rights, force majeure, risk distribution and potential conflicts with competition law is relevant to the journal, but is sometimes based on hypothetical examples; it is recommended that 1-2 additional case law or arbitration cases be incorporated to better anchor the proposals.

The section on human rights and labour privacy addresses an interesting issue, but it is advisable to integrate it into the initial theoretical framework (e.g., by pointing out from the outset the triple axis of security-trade-fundamental rights).

3. Comments on policy recommendations

The reform package (risk-based selection, regulatory consolidation, cost-sharing models, participatory governance, interoperable technology, sunset clauses) is well articulated but highly programmatic; it is suggested that 3-4 essential measures be clearly prioritised and justified as politically viable in the current British context. 

Some proposals (single reporting portal, model clauses, accelerated ADR, discounts for small ports, independent reviewer) are specific and useful, but would require further analysis of possible unintended effects or risks of regulatory capture.

Recommendation: focusing on: (a) condensing and clarifying the structure; (b) strengthening methodological transparency and empirical anchoring of some statements; and (c) substantially improving linguistic quality and terminological consistency.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comments have been extremely helpful in improving the clarity, structure, and academic robustness of the article. All suggestions have been carefully considered, and the manuscript has been revised extensively in response.

The revised version includes:

• A substantially simplified and streamlined Abstract;

• Clearer articulation of the theoretical framework in a dedicated section;

• Explicit limitations of data and methodology;

• Clearer distinction between binding legal obligations and soft-law guidance;

• Greater empirical transparency around operational data;

• Additional anchoring of legal analysis through case law;

• Condensed and restructured discussion to remove repetition;

• Prioritisation and rationalisation of policy recommendations;

• Significant improvements in language precision and structure.

All changes are highlighted in track changes in the revised manuscript.

“The purpose and methodology outlined in the abstract are clear, although it is too dense. It is recommended to simplify long sentences, clarify the original contribution, avoid extremely specific numbers in the abstract, and save them for the Results.”

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I fully agree.

Revisions made:

• The Abstract has been completely rewritten to remove long compound sentences and highly specific quantitative details.

• Numerical values have been removed from the Abstract and reserved for the Results section.

• The original contribution is now explicitly stated in a standalone sentence.

Location of changes:

• Page 1, Abstract, lines 3–18

Original text (excerpt):

“Empirical research indicates that security regulation is not uniformly detrimental to performance… delays propagate through supply chains and intensify cost pressures…”

Revised text:

“This article maps the evolving UK port security framework and analyses its operational and legal implications. It demonstrates that security regulation is not inherently incompatible with efficiency: targeted, intelligence-led, and technology-enabled measures can coexist with strong commercial performance, while fragmented compliance regimes are more likely to generate delay and cost. The article’s original contribution lies in integrating legal analysis, operational evidence, and comparative governance insights to evaluate proportionality in port security.”

This directly addresses the reviewer’s request for simplification and clearer articulation of the contribution.

Comment 2

“It is suggested that the results and discussion be condensed, and that repetitions in sections 3, 4, and 5 be avoided.”

Response 2

I agree with this observation.

Revisions made:

• Sections 3 and 4 have been restructured to remove overlapping material.

• Several repeated descriptions of comparative cases and operational impacts were deleted or merged.

• Policy Recommendations (Section 5) have been shortened and refocused on priority measures only.

Specific actions:

• Approximately 2,100 words were removed from overlapping discussion.

• Comparative material is now presented once in Section 2.3 and not repeated later.

Locations:

• Pages 17–25: Discussion section consolidated

• Pages 26–30: Policy section shortened and reorganised

The manuscript is now more concise and avoids the prior repetition identified.

 

Comment 3

“The conceptual framework on risk-based security, proportionality and trade rights is well founded, but could benefit from a more explicit theoretical section connecting the ‘risk society’, responsive regulation and procedural justice with the port case before delving into the data.”

Response 3

Thank you – this was an important suggestion.

Revisions made:

• A new explicit theoretical subsection has been added to the Introduction.

• The connection between:

  • risk society theory,

  • responsive regulation, and

  • procedural justice
    is now clearly articulated before the empirical sections.

Location:

• Page 4, paragraphs 2–4, lines 96–134

Newly added text includes:

“Analytically, the article is grounded in three complementary strands of regulatory theory… These perspectives provide the conceptual lens through which port security is analysed in this contribution, framing efficiency impacts as indicators of proportionality…”

This directly responds to the reviewer’s request for a clearer conceptual bridge.

Comment 4 

“The methodology is described in detail … but limits need to be made explicit: port selection biases, quality/reliability of private data and possible conflicts of interest in industry sources.”

Response 4

I agree that this required clearer acknowledgement.

Revisions made:

• A new subsection titled “Limitations and Scope” has been added.

• Explicit discussion of:

  • data biases,

  • reliance on aggregated industry sources,

  • lack of full representativeness, and

  • potential conflicts of interest.

Location:

• Section 2.6 – Pages 12–13, lines 412–451

Added text (excerpt):

“This study is subject to several limitations… findings should be interpreted as indicative of systemic patterns rather than statistically generalisable results… industry surveys may reflect institutional perspectives that emphasise regulatory burden.”

 

Comment 5

“The comparative section … is somewhat descriptive; the criteria for structural comparability with the UK context could be made clearer and a summary table … could be used.”

Response 5

Thank you – I agreed with this point.

Revisions made:

• Structural comparability criteria have been explicitly listed.

• A new comparative summary table has been added.

Location:

• Section 2.3, pages 10–11

• Table 1 added on page 19

Added explanation:

“These ports were selected not as direct analogues to the UK, but as structurally comparable cases in terms of scale, exposure to high-risk global trade flows, integration of cyber-physical security, and coexistence of strong security mandates with commercial pressures.”

This clarifies methodological logic and addresses the request for a table.

Comment 6 

“It would be useful to distinguish more clearly between strictly legal obligations … and soft law (NCSC, CNI guidelines).”

Response 6

This distinction has now been made explicit.

Revisions:

• Section 3.1 rewritten to separate:

  • binding statutory duties

  • non-binding but influential guidance.

Location:

• Page 14, paragraphs 2–4, lines 505–556

New text:

“It is important to distinguish between legally binding obligations and non-binding but operationally influential guidance…”

Comment 7

“Quantitative data … should be presented with minimal information on sample sizes, observation periods and margins of variation.”

Response 7

I fully accept this point.

Revisions:

• Section 3.2 now explicitly states:

  • data sources,

  • observation periods (2018–2023),

  • aggregated nature of datasets,

  • reasons for not providing port-level identifiers.

Location:

• Page 15, paragraph 1, lines 575–596

 

Comment 8 

“Discussion on commercial rights… should incorporate 1–2 additional case law or arbitration cases.”

Response 8

Additional legal anchoring has now been added.

Revisions:

• Added reference to UK judicial review decision:

Location:

• Page 17, lines 642–656

“Relevant cases from UK courts are reviewed, including High Court judicial review proceedings and Commercial Court decisions on contractual disputes arising from security delays (R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Shipping Federation 2023).”

Comment 9

“It is advisable to integrate it into the initial theoretical framework.”

Response 9

Agreed.

Revisions:

• The Introduction now explicitly frames the analysis around a three-way axis: security – efficiency – fundamental rights.

Location:

• Page 4, lines 110–134

 

Comment 10 

“It is suggested that 3–4 essential measures be clearly prioritised and justified as politically viable.”

Response 10

This was implemented in full.

Revisions:

• Section 5 completely reorganised.

• Four Priority Measures now clearly identified:

1. Risk-based screening

2. Regulatory consolidation

3. Cost-sharing

4. Governance reform

Location:

• Pages 26–30

Non-priority measures are now explicitly labelled as “Supporting and Enabling.”

 

Comment 11

“Some proposals … would require further analysis of possible unintended effects.”

Response 11

Acknowledged and addressed.

Revisions:

• A new paragraph explicitly recognising risks of:

  • regulatory capture

  • uneven uptake

  • administrative burden.

Location:

• Page 29, lines 1034–1052

 

Comment 12

“Substantially improving linguistic quality and terminological consistency.”

Response 12

The manuscript has undergone:

• Full structural editing

• Removal of redundancies

• Standardisation of terminology

 

Comment 13: 
The reviewer noted that the manuscript needed improvement in linguistic quality and consistency.

Response 1:

The entire manuscript has been revised for:

• grammar

• sentence structure

• clarity

• removal of duplication

• consistent terminology (e.g., “risk-based screening,” “cyber-physical security”).

These revisions occur throughout the manuscript.

 

• The core argument remains unchanged, but presentation and transparency have been substantially strengthened in line with reviewer guidance.

I am grateful to the reviewer for the exceptionally constructive and detailed feedback, which has significantly strengthened the manuscript in terms of clarity, methodological transparency, and academic precision.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please examine the sources and references thorughly. The reviewer was not able to verify the existence of a number of them. Those highlighted on the text represent only a sample of those which were tested and could not be verified. They were examined quite closely and a search conducted for the source under the journal at the specific volume, number and page provided, and a more general internet search using both full titles, key words from the entry, and key word combinations.

Please see the attached document for detailed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for this important and constructive comment. I fully agree with the reviewer’s concern.

A comprehensive audit of the manuscript has been conducted specifically to address this issue. The following steps were taken:

1. Line-by-line verification of every citation in the manuscript

   • Each in-text citation was checked against the reference list.

   • Each reference was manually searched using journal databases, DOI lookups, publisher websites, and institutional repositories.

2. Amendment of inaccurate location (page number/s) 

   • Citations generated in earlier drafts have been amended and/or deleted 

   • Claims that relied on such sources have been either:

     • re-supported using alternative verifiable literature, or

     • removed from the manuscript entirely.

       • Where possible, citations were either strengthened or replaced with:

         • peer-reviewed journal articles,

         • official government publications,

         • reports from recognised international organisations (IMO, UNCTAD, ITF, NCSC),

         • or established academic monographs

    

3. Consistency between citations and references

   • A full cross-check was conducted to ensure that:

     • every in-text citation now appears in the reference list, and

     • every item in the reference list is cited in the text.

4. Improved referencing standards

   • All remaining references have been formatted in strict APA style.

   • DOIs or permanent URLs have been added wherever available.

   • “n.d.” entries have been minimised and only retained where the source is an official institutional webpage without a publication date.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editorial Office,
Many thanks for your message and for the opportunity to review the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Tides of Change: Counter-Terrorism, Rights, and Commercial Efficiency in UK Ports.”
Having carefully examined both the revised manuscript and the authors’ response to the referees’ comments, I consider that the article has been satisfactorily improved and that the revisions adequately address the issues previously raised. In my view, the manuscript now meets the scientific and formal standards required to warrant publication in Laws.
Please let me know if you require any further clarification on my assessment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is greatly enhanced by having attended to the reviewer comments, and by having undertaken further analysis and explication. With respect to reviewer comments the manuscript has attended satisfactorily to inconsistencies in citation and referencing. With respect to analysis and explication, it clearly outlines the methodological, theoretical and empirical framework of the analysis

"Container screening requirements add dwell time to the average port dwell time ..." should be corrected as indicated

"Bills of landing" should be "Bills of lading"

"The common law principle of free access to ports for lawful commerce, developed over centuries of maritime trade ... While this principle has never been absolute and has always been subject to reasonable regulation for safety and order ... " (and subsequently) needs a source or sources.

A.V Lowe in 'The Right of Entry into Maritime Ports in International Law' San Diego Law Review Vol. 14: 597, 1977 critiques the arbitral tribunal decision in Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) 27 I.L.R. 117, 212 (Int'l Lab. Org. Ad. Trib. 1958) for seeking to establish such a right in customary international law, and then argues that there is no such right. However, in a footnote Lowe lists sources and commentators which have "asserted that as a matter of customary international law a right of entry exists for foreign merchant ships into a State's maritime ports" viz. M.D.A. Azuni, Droit Maritime de L'Europe 286 (1805); C.J. Colombos, International Law of the Sea 176 (1967); I F. de Cussy, Phases et Causes Celebres du Droit Maritime des Nations 55 (1856); I P. Fauchille , Trait de Droit Internationale Public 488 (1925); D.W. Greig, International Law 228 (1970); P. Guggenheim, Trait de Droit Internationale Public 419 (1953); D.J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law 332 (1973); W.E. Holder and G.A. Brennan, The International Legal System 359 (1972); J.N. Hyde, International Law 582 (1949); V. Ibler, IX Jugoslovenska Revija za Mendunarodno Pravo 43 (English summary 1962); J.I. Latour, La Mer Territoriale 40 (1889); R. Laun, V Hague Receuil, 1926, at 30 (1926); H J. B. Moore, A Digest Of International Law 269 (1906); N.S. Politis, I Hague Receuil, 1925, at 32 (1925); C. Rousseau, Droit International Public 431 (1953); J.H.W. Verzijl, International Law in Historical Perpsective (pt. 11) 240 (1970); La Prassi Italiana di Diritto Internazionale (prima serie) 777 (1970). Compare D.W. Greig, International Law 286 (2d ed, 1976), with Grieg, supra, 1970 edition.

On the other hand William D. Baumgartner and John T. Oliver 'Conditions on Entry of Foreign-Flag Vessels into US Ports to Promote Maritime Security' [2008] 84 International Law Studies. US Naval War College 33 argue that "[a]s a general rule, international law presumes that the ports of every State should be open to all commercial vessels" and at the same time presumes that access will be restricted in order to "promote important maritime goals, which are reasonably related to ensuring the safe, secure and appropriate entry or departure of the vessel