Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:03:25.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Protection of the Baltic Sea Environment Against Pollution: A Study in Marine Regionalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Boleslaw A. Boczek
Boleslaw A. Boczek*
Affiliation:
Kent State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Protection of the physical environment of man is one of the most elemental and pressing problems of today’s world. In the past dozen years or so numerous dramatic and disastrous events have focused domestic and international attention on the growing danger of environmental deterioration and provided stimulus for national and international action to protect man against all kinds of pollution hazards. Among these environmental hazards marine pollution is perhaps the most dangerous in the long run. The sea, which covers about 70 percent of the planet, plays a vital role in maintaining the fundamental biological and ecological balance by supplying much of the oxygen on which life ultimately depends.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 72 , Issue 4 , October 1978 , pp. 782 - 814
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources in the Baltic Sea and the Belts, Sept. 13, 1973, 12 ILM 1291 (1972); (effective July 28, 1974).See also infra note 97.

2 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, March 22, 1974, 13 ILM 546 (1974) (not yet in force) (hereinafter the Baltic Convention).

3 See text at notes 88, 89 infra.

4 Basic data on the geography and hydrography of the Baltic Sea are taken from: Baltic Sea, in 2 Encyclopaedia Brtannica 667–70 (1974); Lundholm, B., The Oceans Their Production and Pollution with the Baltic as a Case Study, 4 Pacem in Martbus 50–58 (Burnell, E. H. & von Simson, P., eds. 1971)Google Scholar; Id., Problems of Baltic EcosystemsAnalysis, 3 Pacem in Mahibus 55–87 (N. Ginsburg, S. Holt, & W. Murdoch, eds.1974); Report of the ICES Working Group on Pollution of the Baltic Sea, ICES Cooperative Research Report, Series A, No. 15 (International Council for the Explorationof the Sea, February 1970) (hereinafter ICES Report); B. I. Dybern, , Pollution in theBaltic, Marine Pollution and Sea Life 15 (Ruivo, M., ed. 1972)Google Scholar.

5 The figures in Encyclopaedia Brttannica, supra note 4, at 667, are 160,000 square miles (420,000 square kilometers).

6 Alexander, L. M., Regional Arrangements in the Oceans, 71 AJIL 84, at 85 note 10 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 The lowest salinity is recorded in the Gulf of Bothnia where it is 0.1%-0.4% at the surface and 0.3%-0.4% near the bottom, while the highest is in the Southwest Baltic proper where the figures are 0.7%-0.8% and 1.5%-1.7% respectively. Dybern, supra note 4, at 16.

8 Since 1900 the salinity of the Baltic Sea has increased by about O.lfo-0.2%. Ibid. In 1951, 200 cubic kilometers of saline water were pushed into the Baltic in three weeks. More recently, storms which flooded parts of Denmark in January 1976 were a blessing for the sea region, pushing record amounts of saline ocean water into the stagnating Baltic, thus renewing its water and speeding up the flow of the surface brackish layer out into the North Sea. Ch. Science Monitor, January 14, 1976, at 4. The inflow of the oxygen-rich seawater into the Baltic may have contributed to higher fish catches in the recent years. Carroz, J. E., The Management of Living Resources in the Baltic and the Belts, 4 Ocean Dev. & Intl. L.J. 213, 215 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Fonselius, S. H., On Eutrophication and Pollution in the Baltic Sea, Marine Pollution and Sea Life 23 (Ruivo, M., ed. 1972)Google Scholar; Lundholm, The Oceans, supra note 4, at 53–57.

10 Lundholm, The Oceans, supra note 4, at 55.

11 The first basic source of information was the ICES Report, note 4 supra. It was prepared by the Working Group on Pollution of the Baltic, established in 1968 by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). ICES is an international organization, founded in Copenhagen in 1902, whose objective is to encourage scientific research relating to the exploration of the sea and to coordinate the activities of its members. The members of ICES are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the German Democratic Republic. Alexander, supra note 6, at 99 note 45; N.Y. Times, January 26, 1975 at 36, cols. 3–6. ICES has cooperated closely with research organizations and governments of the Baltic countries both before the conclusion of the Helsinki Baltic Convention in 1974 and thereafter. Its latest report is a prestudy entitled Assessment of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, presented for the use of the Interim Commission at the 4th meeting of the Scientific and Technological Working Group at Turku, Finland, August 23–26, 1977. See Report of the 4th Meeting of the Interim Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, Helsinki, November 15–18, 1977 (hereinafter Interim Commission Report 1977). See also text at notes 174, 175 infra. On pollution in the Baltic Sea see also Dybern, and the two articles by Lundholm, all note 4 supra; Fonselius, supra note 9. See further L. J. Lundqvist, Saving the Baltic, Scandinavian Rev. No. 4, 46–53 (1976); Reintanz, G., The Baltic—Special Pollution Problems, in 3 New Directions in the Law of the Sea 219–22 (Churchill, R., Simmonds, K. R., & Welch, J., eds. 1974)Google Scholar. Among many presentations of pollution in the Baltic see e.g. Ein Meer voller Unrat und Hässlichkeit, Der Spiegel (No. 27) 36–51 (1973).

12 Dybern, supra note 4, at 18–19.

13 Id at 18 (Table 3).

14 The paper industry appears to share the blame for large dead water areas, 1,000 square miles or more, that occasionally form on the surface of the Baltic. N.Y. Times, January 26, 1975, at 36, cols. 3–6.

15 See Dybern, supra note 4, at 18. (Table 2 showing detailed figures for sewage and industrial waste pollution of the major coastal regions of the Baltic.) The situation has improved insofar as discharge of wood-processing industrial waste is concerned. Here the peak of pollution is believed to have passed. Id., at 20.

16 For various estimates of phosphorus budget see ICES Report; Dybern, supra note 4, at 20; Lundholm, Problems,supra note 4, at 60–61; Id., The Oceans, supra note 4, at 55–56. See further S. Gupta, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Budgets in the Baltic Sea, 1 Marine Chemistry 267–80 (1973).

17 It was not until 1971 that the city of Kiel in Schleswig-Holstein began to plan sewage treatment facilities. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 4, 1971; Petersen, M., Die Bedeutung der Konvention zum Schutze der Ostsee für Schleswig-Holstein, Deutsche Gew?Sserkundliche Mitteilungen, No. 19 (Special issue) 27–29 (1975)Google Scholar.

18 By 1974 the situation in the Sound had improved so that 25 percent of the Danish and 85 percent of the Swedish waste water received secondary or better treatment. Lundqvist, supra note 11, at 48. For the Danish-Swedish program see text at notes 75 and 76 infra.

19 See the general plan “Abwasser und Gewässerschutz in Schleswig-Holstein,” issued by the Minister of Food, Agriculture, and Forestry of Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel 1971, cited in J. Koschwitz, Das übereinkommen tiber den Schutz der Meeresumwelt des Ostseegebietes, in [1975] 18 Jahrbuch Für Internationales Recht 223–40 (1976).

20 In 1975 in Poland out of 98 towns included in the “coastal macroregion” only 42 had sewage treatment plants, most of them mechanical, achieving only 30 percent purification. Popiela, W., Ochrona polskich wód morskich przed zanieczyszczaniem [Protection of Polish Sea Waters against Pollution.], 30 Państwo I Prawo (No. 1) 50, at 51 note 7 (1975)Google Scholar.

21 Lundholm, Problems, supra note 4, at 61–62; Gupta, supra note 16.

22 However, the ICES Baltic pollution study investigates the possibility that the presence of heavy metals in fish may be the result of natural contamination by leaching of rock formations around the sea. N.Y. Times, supra note 11.

23 Schachter, O. & Serwer, D., Marine Pollution Problems and Remedies, 65 AJIL 84, at 95 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Id. at 95–96.

25 Johnson, B., The Baltic Conventions, 25 Int'L. & Comp. L. Q. 1, at 5 (1976)Google Scholar.

26 See Dybern, supra note 4, at 21 (Table 7A); Lundholm, Problems, supra note 4, at 64–66 (Tables 9 and 10). See further Osterroht, C., Dissolved PCB's and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides in the Baltic, Determined by Two Different Sampling Procedures, 5 Marine Chemistry 113–21 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stadler, D., p,p'-Ddt, Dieldrin und polychlorierte Biphenyle(PCB)im Oberflächenwasser der westlichen Ostsee 1974, 29 Deutsche Hydrographische Zeitschrift 25–31 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jensen, S., Anthropogenic Substances in Seal from the Baltic: Methyl Sulfone Metabolites of PCB and DDE, 5 AMBIO [Sweden] 257–60 (1976)Google Scholar; Olsson, M. & Jensen, S., PCB Levels Correlated with Pathological Changes in Seal Uteri, 5 AMBIO 261–63 (1976)Google Scholar; Jansson, B. et al., Identification by GC-MS of phenolic Metabolites of PCB and p,p'-DDE Isolated from Baltic Guillemot and Seal, 4 AMBIO 93–97 (1975)Google Scholar.

27 Reintanz, supra note 11, at 219.

28 Dybern, supra note 4, at 21.

29 On wastes dumped from ships, see generally Schachter and Serwer, supra note 23, at 105–10. 30 Lundqvist, supra note 11, at 47.

31 Fonselius, supra note 9, at 23.

32 Schachter & Serwer, supra note 23, at 106; Reintanz, supra note 11, at 219. Other toxic substances, once dumped off the Swedish coast, are mercury, chromium, and various acids. See Dybern, supra note 4, at 22.

33 See Schachter & Serwer, supra note 23, at 107. During World War II and in the immediate post-War period the Baltic served as the dumping ground for munitions of war. This practice has been given up. See Koschwitz, supra note 19, at 234.

34 See,e.g., the Swedish Marine Dumping Prohibition Act, January 1, 1972, reprinted in 1l ILM 1115 (1972).

35 See text at note 71 infra. But see further text at notes 72 and 73 infra.

36 The oil spill from the tanker Paha, which ran aground in the Finnish waters in 1969, provided a good example of the hazards of oil spills in cold waters. 25 to 30 percent (2,400 to 3,000) of the birds in the affected area, mostly eider ducks, died as a result of the accident. Leppakoski, E., Effects of an Oil Spill in the Northern Baltic, 4 Marine Pollution Bulletin (No. 6) 93 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. More recently about 1,600 tons of oil leaked from the Soviet tanker Tsesis 30 miles south of Stockholm. This was the worst oil spill in the Baltic. N.Y. Times, October 29, 1977, at 5, col. 3; Ch. Science Monitor, October 31, 1977, at 2.

37 Lundholm, Problems, supra note 4, at 67.

38 According to reports by Soviet scientists at the Soviet-Swedish symposium in 1971, high values of oil exist in the surface waters of the Baltic and its water down to the depth of 100 meters is contaminated. Id., at 66.

39 Reintanz, supra note 11, at 220.

40 See texts at notes 61 ff. and 140 ff. infra.

41 see N.Y. Times, January 24, 1978, at 49, cols. 1–2. See also V. Šebek, 1 The Eastern European States and the Development of the Law of the Sea: Regional Documents—National Legislation 189–191 (1977); Jaworski, M., Podziai oraz zasady wykorzystania szelfu Morza Baityckiego [The Division and the Principles of the Utilization of the Baltic Sea Shelf], Sprawy Miedzynarodowe (No. 10) 105–106 (1976)Google Scholar.

42 Article 10 of the Baltic Convention envisages the possibility of pollution resulting from offshore oil exploitation. See text at note 162 infra.

43 Sweden, for example, is planning to build about ten nuclear power stations, each emitting about 150 cubic meters of heated water per second, which corresponds to the outflow of ten Swedish rivers. Dybern, supra note 4, 22.

44 Lundholm, Problems, supra note 4, at 68.

45 Ibid. Coliform bacteria has been reported in some areas. Living salmonella virus has been found in the Gulf of Gdansk and in the Sound. Epidemic has been reported among bathers in Stockholm and some beaches have been closed in Poland. See ibid., Dybern, supra note 4, at 21; Popiela, supra note 20, at 52.

46 For a useful review of pollution control policies see R. L. Siegel & L. B. Weinberg, Comparing Public Policies: United States, Soviet Union, And Europe (1977). East Germany, West Germany, Sweden, and the Soviet Union are among eight countries discussed in this study. For a comparative review of environmental legislation in 16 countries, including Denmark, Finland, the two Germanys, Sweden, and the Soviet Union, see Lutz, R. E. II, The Laws of Environmental Management: A Comparative Study, 2A Am. J. Comp. L. 447–520 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (hereinafter Lutz).

47 In Denmark a Ministry for Environmental Protection was created in 1971; Lutz 453. See also C. H. Jensen, The Law and Practice Relating to Pollution Control in Denmark (1976). In the German Democratic Republic, where antipollution control is among the best on the Baltic, there is a Ministry for Environmental Protection and Water Economy, set up in 1972; See Sand, P. H., The Socialist Response: Environmental Protection Law in the German Democratic Republic, 3 Ecology L. Rev. 451–505 (1973)Google Scholar. In Sweden there is a National Environmental Protection Board, forming part of the Ministry of Agriculture and supervising pollution control, and a Franchise Board, an independent body issuing permits and licenses. On the Swedish pollution control system see Oecd, Environmental Policy in Sweden (1977). See also L. J. Lundqvist, Environmental Policies in Canada, Sweden, and the United States: A Comparative Overview (1974). In West Germany there is a special Cabinet Committee for Environment coordinating pollution management and an Environment Office directing research and representing the federal government in international environ-mental matters. See Lutz, 452, 454. See also H. Steigeh & O. Kimminich, The Law And Practice Relating To Pollution Control In The Federal Republic Of Ger-Many (1976). In the Soviet Union water pollution is under the supervision of the Ministry for Reclamation and Water Management; in Poland, the Ministry of Local Economy and Environmental Protection.

48 See, e.g., the Swedish Environmental Protection Act, May 29, 1969; similar Danish Act, June 13, 1973. See Lutz, passim. In the German Democratic Republic environmental protection, including water purity, is raised to the status of a constitutional rule. Constitution of the German Democratic Republic, 1968, Art. 15.

49 See, e.g., the Finnish Water Act, May 19, 1971, cited in Lutz 499.

50 See the discussion in Lutz, 497–500.

51 Id., at 504–06.

52 Thus in Poland marine pollution control is governed by the Water Law of May 30, 1962, which, however, is geared more to protecting inland waters than marine environment; an Order of the Minister of Shipping; by harbor regulations; and by the Penal Code. See Popiela, supra note 20, at 50.

53 See Lutz 506–08, discussing the procedures in the two Germanys and the Soviet Union.

54 Id., at 513–14, reviewing the laws of the Soviet Union, East Germany, Finland, and Sweden. For Poland see Popiela, supra note 20, at 54.

55 Lutz at 511–13, discussing Denmark, Sweden, the Soviet Union, and West Germany.

56 Id., passim, discussing the legislation of Denmark, Sweden, East Germany, and the Soviet Union.

57 See generally Siegel & Weinberg, supra note 46, at 407–09. See also Powell, D. E., The Social Costs of Modernization: Ecological Problems in the USSR, 23 World Politics 618–34 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C. H. Enloe, The Politics of Pollution in a Comparative Perspective: Ecology and Power in Four Nations Ch. 6 (1975).

58 The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) is an IMCO body created in 1973 to coordinate and administer IMCO activities regarding control of marine pollution. See Greenberg, E. V. C., IMCO: An Environmentalist's Perspective, 8 Case W. Res. J. int'l. L. 131, at 144–48 (1976)Google Scholar.

59 Šebek, supra note 41, at 257–58.

60 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, done at London, May 12, 1954 (effective July 26, 1958), amended in 1962 (amendments effective May 18 and June 28, 1967), 1969 (effective January 20, 1978) and 1971 (not yet in force); TIAS Nos. 4900, 6109, 8505; 324 UNTS 3. The 1954 Convention is in force for all the Baltic countries except the German Democratic Republic. B. Johnson, The Baltic, in 3 New Directions In The Law Of The Sea 209, at 212 (R. Churchill, K. R. Simmonds, & J. Welch, eds. 1974). 61 Annex A.

62 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, opened for signature January 15, 1974, reprinted in 12 ILM 1319 (1973) (not yet in force) (hereinafter 1973 IMCO Convention). 63 1973 IMCO Convention, Annex I, Reg. 1 (10).

64 Id., Annex I, Res. 10.

65 See texts at notes 140 ff. infra.

66 Convention on the High Seas, done April 29, 1958, 13 UST 2312, TIAS No. 5200, 450 UNTS 82; Arts. 24, 25. The Convention is in force for all Baltic countries except Sweden.

67 Convention on the Continental Shelf, done April 29, 1958, Art. 5(7), 15 UST 471, TIAS No. 5578, 499 UNTS 311. The Convention is in force for all Baltic countries except the Federal Republic of Germany.

68 Done at Brussels, Nov. 29, 1969, TIAS No. 8068, reprinted in 9 ILM 25 (1970) (effective May 6, 1975). Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Marine Pollution by Substances Other than Oil, Nov. 2, 1973, 13 ILM 605 (1974) (not yet in force).

69 Done at Brussels, Nov. 29, 1969, 9 ILM 45 (1970) (effective June 19, 1975).

70 Done at Brussels, Dec. 18, 1971, 11 ILM 284 (1972) (not yet in force).

71 Done Nov. 13, 1972, 11 ILM 1294 (1972) (effective Aug. 30, 1975). Among the signatory states are Denmark, West Germany, Finland, and Sweden.

72 Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, Done at Oslo, Feb. 15, 1972, 11 ILM 262 (1972). Among other signatories of this Convention, which is now in force, are Denmark, West Germany, Finland, and Sweden.

73 Id,Art.2 (a)(i).

74 Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources, adopted February 21, 1974, open for signature June 4, 1974, Art. 3(a). 13 ILM 352 (1974) (not yet in force). Among other signatories were Denmark, West Germany, and Sweden. Finland attended the Conference as observer.

75 Dybern, supra note 4, at 23; Lundqvist, supra note 11, at 47.

76 Johnson, supra note 25, at 4; Lundqvist, supra note 11, at 48.

77 Lundqvist, supra note 11, at 47.

78 Dybern, supra note 4, at 23. 79 Johnson, supra note 60, at 212; Lundqvist, supra note 11, at 48.

80 Denmark-Finland-Norway-Sweden: Convention on the Protection of the Environment, Done at Stockholm, February 19, 1974, 13 ILM 591 (1974), (in force October 5, 1976). On this Convention see Kiss, A. C., La convention nordique sur tenvironnement, in 20 Ann. Fhanqais De Dnorr Int. 808–14 [1974] (1975)Google Scholar; Fleischer, C. A., Nordisk miljøvernkonvensjon, Tidsskhift for Rettsvitenskap (No. 1) 83–116 (1976)Google Scholar.

81 Nordic Convention, Art. 2. 82 Id., Art. 3.

83 Id., Art. 1.

84 U.N. Document A/CONF.48/14, Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, June 16, 1972. Major portions reprinted in 11 ILM 1416(1972)

85 see, for example, B. M. Russett, International Regions and the International System: A Study in Political Ecology (1967); L. J. Cantori &S. L. Spiegel, the International Politics of Regions: a Comparative Approach (1970).

86 Alexander, supra note 6, at 88.

87 Ibid.

88 Alexander, L. M., Regionalism and the Law of the Sea: The Case of Semienclosed Seas, 2 Ocean Dev. & int'l. L.J. 151, at 155–57 (1974)Google Scholar. Alexander lists 24 semi-enclosed seas, among them the Baltic Sea. Cf. also the definition of an “enclosed or semi-enclosed sea” in Article 122 of the Informal Composite Negotiating Text (ICNT) of the UNCLOS III, UN Doc. A/CONF. 62/WP. 10, July 15, 1977, reprinted in 16 ILM 1108 (1977).

89 Alexander, supra, note 88, at 167–68 (Appendix).

90 Alexander, supra, note 6, at 88. A marine regional arrangement which is in effect is referred to by Alexander as an “operational region.” Id., at 93. Thus the Baltic region is “operational” insofar as the management of the living resources is concerned since the 1973 Gdansk Convention (see text at note 97 infra) is already in force.

91 For a discussion of the Soviet doctrine and practice of the closed sea, see W. E. Butler, the Soviet Union and the Law of the Sea Ch. 4 (1971); šebek, supra note 41, at 423–69. Recently the Soviet Union seems to have dropped its insistence on the regional sea doctrine, probably in view of its negative implications for the growing Soviet navy, especially in the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. See šebek, at 465.

92 Jaworski, M., Miȩgdzynarodowa ochrona zasóbdw biologicznych i Brodowiska morskiego Baltyku, [International Protection of the Living Resources and the Marine Environment of the Baltic] Sprawy MIȨdzynarodowe (No. 7) 109, at 115–17 (1974)Google Scholar; Johnson, supra note 25, at 1.

93 In this respect there are analogies with the situation obtaining in the Mediterranean today. It is significant, however, that most of the littoral Arab states on the Mediterranean signed the pollution agreements in 1976. See Mediterranean Pollution: The Tie That Binds, 3 The Interdependent, Apr. (No.4) 1976, at 2. More Arab countries were absent from the 1977 Venice conference which drafted an Agreement on protecting the Mediterranean from land-based pollution. N.Y. Times, Oct. 22, 1977, at 3, cols. 5–7. The 1976 Mediterranean Pollution Convention and the two Protocols are reprinted in 15 ILM 290, 300, 306 (1976).

94 See text at notes 173–75 infra.

95 On ICES see note 11 supra.

96 Wooster, W. S., Interactions between Intergovernmental and Scientific Organizations in Marine Matters, 21 Int ‘L. Org. 102, at 104–05 (1973)Google Scholar.

97 Reprinted in 12 ILM 1291 (1973). For a discussion of this 1973 Gdańsk Convention see Carroz, supra note 8.See also Gelberg, L., Rechtsprobleme des Schutzes der lebenden Resourcen in der Ostsee, [1975] Jahrbuch for Internationales Recht 204–22 (1976)Google Scholar; Straburzyński, A., Ochrona Bywych zasobów Baityku na tie postanowien konwencji gdanskiej [The Protection of the Living Resources of the Baltic against the Background of the Provisions of the Gdńask Convention] 29 Państwo I Prawo (No.5) 68–75 (1974)Google Scholar.

98 Final Act of the Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, Helsinki 18 to 22 March 1974, done March 22, 1974, 13 ILM 544 (1974). The text of the Baltic Convention is reprinted at id. 546. Despite optimistic forecasts (see, for example, Popiela, W., Konwencja o ochronie Brodowiska morskiego Baityku [Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environ-ment of the Baltic], 30 Państwo I Prawo (No. 7) 96, at 101 (1975)Google Scholar; Koschwitz, supra note 19, at 239) , the Baltic Convention is not yet in force since to become effective it must be ratified by all the seven Baltic states (Art. 27 ). As of January 1, 1978 it had been ratified by Finland (June 27, 1975), Sweden (July 30, 1976), the German Democratic Republic (January 6, 1977), and Denmark (July 20, 1977). According to die statements of the respective delegations to the 1977 meeting of the Interim Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany expects to ratify the Convention in 1978; Poland after 1978; and the Soviet Union as soon as possible after completion of necessary implementa-tion measures. Poland is carrying out a program of investment projects aiming at full implementation as soon as possible of the requirements of the Convention. The existing possibilities do not allow ratification in 1978. See Interim Commission Report 1977, at 3. Under its Article 29 the Baltic Convention is drawn up in a single copy in English. Official translations into the six languages of the Baltic states were to be prepared and deposited with the signed original. The Convention consists of 29 articles and annexes which elaborate the concise provisions of the main body of the Convention. The Annexes are as follows: I—hazardous substances; II—noxious substances and materials; III—land-based pollution; IV—pollu-tion from ships (this very long Annex, partially incorporating the provisions of the 1973 IMCO Convention, has eight Regulations and five Appendices); V—exceptions from dumping prohibition (five Regulations); VI—cooperation in combating marine pollution (ten Regulations and an Appendix on incidents involving harmful substances, which includes five Regulations). Finally Annex B includes seven Resolutions (applica-tion by other states of special rules for ships; reception facilities; navigation through the entrances to the Baltic; uniform reporting system; safety of navigation; application of Article 21 to future treaties; and Interim Commission). Under Article 20, the Annexes form an integral part of the Convention. Preparing the Convention in two parts is a drafting technique frequently used in conventions of this kind since under Article 24 of the Convention the procedure for amending Annexes and adding new ones is simpler than for amending the Convention's text itself. Generally speaking, the Commission itself adopts annex amendments proposed by a Party, recommending them for acceptance. An amendment is deemed to have been accepted at the end of the period fixed by the Commission unless one of the Parties has objected. Cf. 1973 IMCO Convention, Art. 16 (2)(f).See also Mensah, T. A., International Conventions Concerning Oil Pollution at Sea, 8 Case W. Res. J. int'l. L. 110, at 122 (1976)Google Scholar. Amendments to the articles themselves may be proposed by each Party and are communicated to all through the Depositary Government. Notifications of acceptance by all are necessary for an amendment to become effective (Art. 23). A conference for purposes of a general revision or amending may be convened with the consent of all Parties or at the request of the Commission (Arts. 22 and 23 (2)). The Baltic Convention is not subject to any reservations, but a Party may suspend the application of an annex or a part thereof for a period not exceeding one year (Art. 25(1)(2)).

99 Baltic Convention, Art. 1.

100 see text at notes 63, 64 supra and 140–142 infra.

101 Baltic Convention, Art. 4 (1).

102 Id., Art. 13 (a).

103 id., Art. 4(2).

104 Final Act of the Baltic Conference, para. 10. Cf. Final Act of the Conference adopting the 1973 Gdansk Convention.

105 ICNT, Art. 3.

106 see note 74 supra.

107 Baltic Convention, Art. 4(3).

108 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Art. 3. 15 UST 1606; TIAS No. 5639; 516 UNTS 205.ICNT, Art.5.

109 Id., Art.4. ICNT, Art.7.

110 Butler, supra note 91, at 106.

111 Šebek, supra note 41, at 173–76.

112 Baltic Convention, Art. 4(3). One small part of the internal waters of the Baltic Convention area, notably the internal waters in the Kattegat, will receive protection from land-based pollution under the 1974 Paris Convention when that Convention becomes effective. See text at note 74 supra.

113 Baltic Convention, Annex B, Res. 3.

114 Id.,Art.26(1).

115 Consent to accession by all the seven Baltic states could at least partially reassure those who believed that absence of extra-Baltic states from the Gdańsk and Helsinki arrangements meant that the Baltic was clearly “juridically becoming a closed sea.” See Miljan, T., Mare Clausum Balticum and the Law of the Sea, Osteuropa Recht (No. 2) 103, at 117 (1972)Google Scholar.

116 Baltic Convention, Art. 28.

117 Id., Art. 8.

118 Id., Art. 4(4). Cf. 1973 IMCO Convention, Art. 3(2) (3).

119 Id., Art. 19.

120 Id., Annex B, Res. 1.

121 Ibid.

122 Baltic Convention, Art. 3(1). Scientific and technological cooperation is also among the obligations undertaken by the Parties. Id., Art. 16.

123 Id., Art. 3(2). Cf. ICNT, Art. 196. As noted by Johnson (supra, note 25, at 7), there are fears in Sweden that all the supertankers which are not allowed into the Baltic will have to be received in the West, the Skagerrak Coast north of Göteborg, with the potential danger to the recreational area of that part of the Swedish coast.

124 Baltic Convention, Art. 2(1).

125 id., Art. 2(2).

126 See text at notes 11 ff. supra.

127 See text at notes, 23 ff. supra. 128 batlic convention,art.5,.

128 Id., Annex I.

130 Ibid.

131 The Scientific and Technological Working Group set up by the Interim Commission (see note 11 supra and text at notes 173–175 infra), agreed at its 1977 meeting that the elimination of DDT's and PCB's should be achieved by “all possible means.” It called upon the seven governments to present national reports on these hazardous substances before the next meeting of the STWG in 1978. Interim Commission Report 1977, at 9–10.

132 Baltic Convention, Art. 6(3) (4) (5).

133 This list is another version of the harmful substances listed in Annexes I and II of the 1972 London Convention on the Dumping of Wastes at Sea (see note 71 supra). Mercury, cadmium and their compounds are considered the most dangerous substances “for urgent consideration.” The other category includes 16 groups, such as antimony, arsenic, copper, lead, phenols, cyanides, radioactive materials, chemicals used in paper, cellulose and wood pulp industry, oil and wastes from petrochemical industry, pesticides, herbicides, and slimicides other than DDTs and PCB's. Also included are substances having adverse effects on the taste or smell of products for human consumption or on the water itself, reducing the amenity value of the sea or seriously interfering with legitimate uses of the sea.

134 See text at note 11 ff. supra.

135 Baltic Convention, Art. 6(6).

136 Id., Annex III.

137 A proposal by the Federal Republic of Germany to adopt more concrete and binding standards of water quality was not accepted. Koschwitz, supra note 19, at 231.

138 Baltic Convention, Art. 13(d); Annex 111(6).

139 At the meeting of the STWG (see text at notes 173–175 infra) at Turku, Finland in August 1977, attended by delegations of the seven Baltic countries and an observer from ICES, it was recognized that in elaborating common criteria for discharges of harmful substances, both ecological and water use criteria and technological standards must be taken into account. A special Working Group on Criteria and Standards was called upon to investigate whether the establishment of numerical values (water quality criteria) and applying technical criteria and emission and immission norms was possible. As noted by the STWG, useful work on developing criteria and standards for discharges of harmful substances was being conducted within the framework of the European Community in fulfillment of the Community's directive of May 4, 1976, 15 ILM 1113 (1976). Interim Commission Report 1977, at 7–11.

140 See note 62 supra.

141 1973 IMCO Convention, Annexes I, II, V.

142 Baltic Convention, Art. 7; Annex IV.

143 Id., Art. 7(1). All these measures are set out at length in Annex IV along the lines of the IMCO “special area” rules.

144 Baltic Convention, Annex IV, Reg. 4(B)(1). Oils are listed in Appendix I to Annex IV.

145 This criterion may be changed by amendment, as discussed by the Maritime Working Group (see note 153 infra) in 1977. See Interim Commission Report 1977, at 23.

146 Baltic Convention, Annex IV, Reg. 4(B)(2).

147 Id., Annex IV, Regs. 4 and 5. The alternative date of January 1, 1977 has now passed.

148 Id., Annex IV, Reg. 5.

149 Ibid.

150 Id., Annex IV, Appendix III.

151 Id., Annex IV, Reg. 7.

152 Id., Annex IV, Reg. 8.

153 Id., Art. 7(2). The Interim Commission established a Maritime Working Group which has started work on measures relating to all aspects of reception facilities, and marine pollution in general. See Interim Commission Report 1977, at 20–26. 154 Baltic Convention, Annex IV, Reg. 4 (E).

155 See note 98 supra. 156Baltic Convention, Annex IV, Regs. 5(H), 7(E) , 8(E). Annex B, Res. 2(2)(3) (4)(5).

157 id., Annex IV, Reg. 5(F).

158 Id., Art. 2(3).

159 See note 71 supra.

160 Baltic Convention, Art. 9; Annex V, Regs. 1, 2, 3.

161 See text at note 41 supra.

162 Baltic Convention, Art. 10; Annex IV, Reg. 4(D). Several treaties for the delimitation of national sectors of the continental shelf have already been concluded. Others are being negotiated. Among the treaties are A Agreement between Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany, June 9, 1965, 570 UNTS 91; Finland and the U.S.S.R., May 20, 1965, 6 ILM 727 (1967) and May 5, 1967, 7 ILM 560 (1968); Finland and Sweden, September 29, 1972; see Johnson, supra note 60, at 213–14; Poland and the German Democratic Republic, October 29, 1968; Poland and the U.S.S.R., August 28, 1969; see Jaworski, supra note 41, at 110–12.

163 Baltic Convention, Art. 11, Annex VI.

164 Id., Arts. 12(1), 14.

166 Id., Art. 15.

167 id., Art. 12(5).

168 Proposals for majority vote met with resistance by some participants at the Helsinki Baltic Conference, (the U.S.S.R., for example). Koschwitz, supra note 19, at 236.

169 See note 97 supra.

170 Baltic Convention, Art. 13(d).

171 id., Art. 13(b)(c).

172 Id., Art. 13(a)(e)(f).

173 Id., Annex B, Res. 7.

174 See Interim Commission Report 1977.

175 Ibid. The 1978 meeting of the Interim Commission is scheduled for November 14–17, 1978.

176 Baltic Convention, Art. 17. Cf. ICNT, Art. 236(3). It has been noted by a commentator that the text is not clear on whether these rules should regulate the international responsibility of states acting in contravention of the Baltic Convention or civil-law liability of individuals, or perhaps both. See Lopuski, J., Prawne problemy wspńlpracy w zakresie korzystania z Battyku, [Legal Problems of Cooperation in the Utilization of the Baltic] Spbawy Miedzynarodowe (No. 6) 110, at 117 (1975)Google Scholar. The Interim Commission construes the Article as referring to states. See Interim Commission Report 1977, at 30.

177 Baltic Convention, Art. 18.

178 1973 IMCO Convention, Art. 10; Protocol 2. 1974 Paris Convention, Art. 21; Annex B.

179 Baltic Convention, Art. 6(7).

180 Id., Art. 9(3).

I81 Id., Annex IV, Reg. 2.

182 Id., Annex IV, Reg. 5(F) (G).

183 1973 IMCO Convention, Arts, 4, 6.

184 Baltic Convention, Annex IV, Reg. 2.

185 See ICNT, Arts. 56(l)(b)(iii); 221(1). And see further Alexander, L. M. & Hodgson, J., The Impact of the 200-Mile Economic Zone on the Law of the Sea, 12 San Diego L. Rev. 569 (1975)Google Scholar.

186 General agreement on environmental cooperation, including protection of marine environment, was subsequently included in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe at Helsinki, August 1, 1975, 14 ILM 1292, at 1308 (1975).

187 Alexander, supra note 6, at 97–98.

188 Mediterranean Pollution: The Tie That Binds, supra note 93;Trashing the Persian Gulf, 4 The Interdependent, October (No.9) 1977, at 7.Two AntiPollution.

189 See, e.g., ICNT, Art. 123 (Cooperation of States bordering enclosed or semienclosed sea)B Art. 198 (Cooperation on a global or regional basis).

190 The provisions of the Baltic Convention are without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the signatories under treaties concluded previously as well as under treaties which may be concluded in the future, furthering and developing the general principles of the Law of the Sea. Baltic Convention, Art. 21 ; Annex B, Res. 6. On the relationship between the global and regional approaches see Janis, W. M., The Roles of Regional Law of the Sea, 12 San Diego L. Rev. 553–568 (1975)Google Scholar ; Okidi, Ch. O., Toward Regional Arrangements for Regulation of Marine Pollution: An Appraisal of Options, 4 Ocean Dev. & Int'l. L. J. 1–25 (1977)Google Scholar. See also Alexander, supra note 6, at 105–06, Sebek, supra note 41, at 468

191 The framework for assessing the soundness of marine regional planning, suggested by Alexander(supra note 6, at 86–87, 109), provides good guidelines for venturing an answer to this question. This framework is partially adopted here to assess the Baltic marine regionalism in managing pollution.

192 See text at notes 7–10supra.

193 See note 98supra