Effective regulatory oversight in international shipping is essential for ensuring safety,environmental protection, and fair competition. The International Maritime Organization's(IMO) Member State Audit Scheme (IMSAS) and the International Accreditation Forum's(IAF) Multilateral Recognition Arrangement (MLA) both represent global efforts to enforceuniform compliance through peer evaluation mechanisms. Despite similarities, theseframeworks exhibit key differences in structure, transparency, impartiality, and outcomemonitoring. This paper critically compares IMSAS and the IAF MLA peer evaluation systems,highlighting best practices from the IAF structure that could strengthen maritime auditgovernance. The findings propose actionable reforms to IMSAS aimed at achieving greaterconsistency, credibility, and global trust in maritime regulatory enforcement.