Determinants of Adjudication Decisions by the Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal in Marine Collision Cases: An Exploratory Study

This study aims to explore the factors that influence the level of disciplinary sanctions in adjudication decisions by the Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal (KMST) in marine collision cases. While the KMST's decisions are structurally analogous to sentencing in criminal trials—particularly in their role of assigning responsibility and imposing sanctions—empirical research on this topic remains extremely limited. Therefore, this study empirically investigates the determinants of sentencing decisions in KMST rulings, with the goal of enhancing the consistency and fairness of adjudications and providing foundational insights for future policy development. This study examines 249 licensed maritime officer who were subjects of adjudication in 287 marine collision cases decided by the Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal between 2020 and 2024. The dependent variables are (1) whether the suspension of a license was accompanied by a stay of execution and (2) the duration of the suspension (in months). Independent variables include individual characteristics, causes of the accident, degree of responsibility, post-accident actions, and humanitarian or personal circumstances. Logistic regression and OLS regression were conducted to examine the effects of these variables on the outcomes. The results show that the decision to grant a stay of execution was significantly affected by the level of license, the presence of human error, and whether post-accident actions were taken. Meanwhile, the length of suspension was influenced by the relative responsibility in the incident and the severity of damage. Notably, paradoxical findings were observed: the presence of human error or proactive post-accident measures were associated with a lower likelihood of receiving a stay of execution. This suggests that the KMST places more weight on the circumstances and culpability at the time of the accident than on subsequent corrective actions. Such trends indicate a certain consistency in decision-making criteria, yet they also highlight the need for institutional refinement—especially in better integrating post-accident efforts into the adjudication process. Furthermore, the variation in sentencing depending on license level suggests that the tribunal tends to impose stricter standards on holders of higher-level licenses. This study represents the first empirical attempt in South Korea to apply sentencing research methodologies to the KMST’s disciplinary decisions, filling an academic gap and offering policy-relevant implications for the improvement of maritime adjudication practices.