In this work an overview of specific possibilities to secure a maritime claim available to claimants from all over the world, based on the legal regimes of arrest of ships in Norway and Ukraine, as well as on Rule B attachment is given. Due to the fact, that International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships (1952) was ratified by Norway, and not ratified by Ukraine, such analysis will give to the reader an overview of possible complications, which can arise, when arrest of a ship is sought in a country party to Brussels convention and in a country, which is not. With respect to Norway specific attention is paid to the issues of arrest of a ship, not owned by a debtor, as well as to the specific requirements of "arrest ground." Regarding Ukraine, the focus of the work is on specific problems of Ukrainian legislation concerning arrest of ships and possibilities of its amendment. Moreover, a brief legal analysis of Rule B attachment of EFTs is made with a view to its advantages and disadvantages comparing to ship arrest, in order to provide the reader with a broader view on specific remedies, which are or were used for securing maritime claims all over the world.