Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:59:21.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marine Pollution under the Law of the Sea Convention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Alan E. Boyle
Alan E. Boyle*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Laws, Queen Mary College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is now 30 years since the conclusion of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil marked the international community’s first serious attempt to cope with the increasing scale of marine pollution. Since then, pollution of the seas by oil, chemicals, nuclear waste and the effluent of urban industrial society has continued to grow and to cause ever more serious damage to the living resources and ecology of the marine environment and to the shores of coastal states. The control, reduction and elimination of marine pollution has become one of the major issues in the contemporary law of the sea and it has proved to be a complex task, requiring the creation of a new and growing body of international law. This process, though in certain respects still incomplete, has reached its potentially most significant stage of codification and development through the provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention of 1982.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , April 1985 , pp. 347 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985

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 Done at London, May 12, 1954, 12 UST 2989, TIAS No. 4900, 327 UNTS 3.

2 A draft convention was drawn up at an international conference held in Washington in June 1926, but it was not opened for signature. A further attempt to convene an international conference in 1935 was not successful. See M’Gonigle, R. & Zacher, M., Pollution, Politics and International Law 81-83 (1979)Google Scholar.

3 For surveys of the problem and of the literature, see in particular Schachter, & Serwer, , Marine Pollution Problems and Remedies 65 AJIL 84 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R. M’Gonigle & M. zacher, supra note 2; Abecassis, D., Oil Pollution from Ships (1978)Google Scholar; The Impact of Marine Pollution (Cusine, D. & Grant, J. eds. 1980)Google Scholar; Petaccio, , Water Pollution and the Future Law of the Sea 21 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 15 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, supra note 1, as amended in 1962, 17 UST 1523, TIAS No. 6109, 600 UNTS 332, in 1969, 28 UST 1205, TIAS No. 8505, and in 1971, 2 New Directions in the Law of the Sea 589 (Lay, Churchill & Nordquist eds. 1973) [hereinafter cited as New Directions]; the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, done at London Nov. 2, 1973, reprinted in 12 ILM 1319 (1973), with protocol, done at London Feb. 17, 1978, 17 ILM 546 (1978) [hereinafter cited as MARPOL Convention].

5 The International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, done at London Dec. 29, 1972, 26 UST 2403, TIAS No. 8165 [hereinafter cited as Dumping Convention].

6 The International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, Brussels, Nov. 29, 1969, 26 UST 765, TIAS No. 8068, with protocol, London 1973, 4 New Directions, supra note 4, at 451 (Churchill & Nordquist eds. 1975).

7 The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, Brussels, Nov. 29, 1969, reprinted in 64 AJIL 481 (1970), with protocol, London, Nov. 19, 1976, reprinted in 16 ILM 617 (1977).

8 See sections II and III infra.

9 See generally R. M’Gonigle & M. Zacher, supra note 2, ch. 4.

10 See especially the Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Act 1970, and the U.S. note of objection, 1 New Directions, supra note 4, at 199 and 211 (Lay, Churchill & Nordquist eds. 1973).

11 See section IV infra.

12 Declaration on the Human Environment and Marine Pollution Recommendations, 2 New Directions, supra note 4, at 712 and 718.

13 Id., Recommendations 86 and 92.

14 Id., Recommendations 87-91.

15 The Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution, done at Barcelona Feb. 16, 1976, reprinted in 15 ILM 290 (1976), with protocols, Athens 1980, 19 ILM 869 (1980), and Geneva 1982; the Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution, Kuwait, Apr. 24, 1978, 17 ILM 511 (1978); the Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment, Jeddah 1982, reprinted in New Directions (Simmonds loose-leafed. 1983), Doc. J. 19; the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area of the South-East Pacific, Lima 1981, id., Doc. J.18; the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean, Cartagena 1982, id., Doc. J. 17; the Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region, Abidjan 1981, id., Doc. J.4.

The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, Helsinki, Mar. 22, 1974, reprinted in 13 ILM 546 (1974), is not a UNEP agreement but is similar in form to subsequent agreements. See generally Boyle, , Regional Pollution Agreements and the Law of the Sea Convention in The Law of the SEA And International Shipping: An Anglo-Soviet Post-Unclos Assessment (Butler, W. E. ed. 1985)Google Scholar.

16 See Schneider, , Codification and Progressive Development of International Environmental Law at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Environmental Aspects of the Treaty Review 20 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 243 (1981)Google Scholar.

17 Arts. 194-196, 207-212, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/122 (1982), reprinted in 21 ILM 1261 (1982) [hereinafter cited as Convention].

18 Id., Art. 199. See generally Kiss, , Co-operation for the Control of Accidental Marine Pollution 23 German Y.B. Int’l L. 231 (1980)Google Scholar; and Boyle, supra note 15.

19 Convention, Art. 197.

20 Id., Art. 198.

21 Id., Art. 200.

22 Id., Arts. 202-203.

23 Id., Arts. 204-206. UNEP has several such schemes in operation, notably GEMS and GESAMP. See UN Doc. A/CONF.62/C.3/L.23 (1975), 4 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records 207 [hereinafter cited as Official Records]; and V. Pravidic, Gesamp (UNEP 1981).

24 Convention, Art. 235. See section IV infra.

25 See generally R. M’Gonigle & M. Zacher, supra note 2, chs. 4 and 6; Gold, & Johnston, , Ship Generated Pollution in Law of the Sea: Proceedings of the Law of the Sea Institute (13th Conference) 157 (1979)Google Scholar; and see also the statement of the UK delegate in 4 Official Records, supra note 23, at 82.

26 MARPOL Convention, supra note 4, Art. 2(4), Ann. 1, Reg. 21; Dumping Convention, supra note 5, Art. III(1)(a). Some regional conventions now subject seabed installations to control as land-based sources of pollution: see the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources, done at Paris Feb. 21, 1974, Art. 3(C)(iii), reprinted in 13 ILM 352 (1974); the Baltic Sea Convention of 1974, supra note 15, Art. 2(2); and the Athens Protocol of 1980 to the Mediterranean Sea Convention, supra note 15, Art. 4(2). It is not clear how far these can be treated as “international” standards.

27 Art. 24, Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Apr. 29, 1958, 15 UST 1606, TIAS No. 5639, 516 UNTS 205. Pollution control would be included only insofar as it fell under the heading of “sanitary regulations.”

28 See Allott, , Power Sharing in the Law of the Sea 77 AJIL 1 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Id. at 10-11.

30 Convention, Arts. 207-212.

31 Id., Art. 211(2).

32 Id., Art. 211(4) and (5). See section III infra.

33 Convention, Arts. 207(1), 208(1), 210(1), 211(2), 212(1).

34 Id., Art. 211(2).

35 Id., Art. 208(3).

36 Id., Art. 210(6).

37 Id., Arts. 208(5), 211(1). Curiously, Article 210(4) on clumping only requires states to “endeavour” to establish global and regional rules. On the significance of this phrase, see below.

38 See below for further consideration of this point.

39 Convention, Arts. 207(1) and 212(1).

40 Article 207(5) does specify, however, that regulations on land-based pollution should cover the release of “toxic, harmful or noxious substances.”

41 Convention, Arts. 207(4) and 212(3).

42 See Reports of the United States Delegation to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 47-51, 74 and 89 (Nordquist, M. & Park, C. eds. 1983)Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as U.S. Delegation Reports]. The main discussion of these issues was at Caracas in 1974, Geneva in 1975 and the UN Sea-bed Committee in 1973. See also Article 194(1) of the Convention, which requires states to protect the marine environment by using the best practicable means “in accordance with their capabilities”; this allows a flexible standard according to the capabilities of less-developed states. See also note 46 infra.

43 Notably, the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.

44 See references in note 42 supra; see generally Kindt, , The Effect of Claims by Developing Countries on the Law of the Sea International Marine Pollution Negotiations 20 VA. J. Int’l L. 313 (1979)Google Scholar; Okidi, C., Regional Control of Ocean Pollution (1978)Google Scholar.

45 See the regional seas agreements cited at note 15 supra; the Paris Convention, supra note 26; and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution done at Geneva, Nov. 13, 1979, 18 ILM 1442 (1979). Under these agreements, land-based pollution in Europe is subjected to stricter and more detailed standards than elsewhere; other regional agreements merely commit states to taking “all appropriate measures” without further elaboration. The Athens Protocol of 1980 on land-based sources of pollution in the Mediterranean, supra note 15, sets detailed standards but allows for flexibility to accommodate the diverse levels of development and capacity in the region. None of the Conventions sets specific standards for airborne pollution. See generally Boyle, supra note 15.

46 Article 207(4) specifically allows states to take account of “characteristic regional features, the economic capacity of developing States and their need for economic development” when regulating land-based pollution.

47 Dumping and seabed operations may be the subject of regional controls, but the Convention requires that they conform to international standards. See Convention, Arts. 208(3) and (5), 210(4) and (6).

48 See, e.g., id., Arts. 21(2) and (4), 39(2)(a) and (b), 41(3), 53(8), 60(5) and (6), 94(2) and (5), 211(5), 217, 226. See generally Bernhardt, , A Schematic Analysis of Vessel-Source Pollution: Prescriptive and Enforcement Regimes in the Law of the Sea Conference 20 Va. J. Int’l L. 265 (1980)Google Scholar; van Reenen, , Rules of Reference in the New Convention on the Law of the Sea 12 Neth. Y.B. Int’l L. 3 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vignes, , La Valeur juridique de certaines règles, normes ou pratiques mentionées au TNCO comme “généralement acceptées,” 1979 Annuaire Français de Droit International 712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 2 Timagenis, G., International Control of Marine Pollution 603-07 (1979)Google Scholar.

49 See U.S. Delegation Reports, supra note 42, at 131-33; and Schneider, supra note 16.

50 Convention, Art. 211(5); and see below.

51 See, e.g., G. Timagenis, supra note 48, at 606.

52 This is the position adopted by van Reenen, supra note 48, who argues that “generally accepted rules” are those which meet the test for customary law applied in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (FRG/Den.; FRG/Neth.), 1969 ICJ Rep. 3 (Judgment of Feb. 20); cf. Bernhardt and G. Timagenis, supra note 48, who reject this interpretation.

53 The 1954 Convention, which entered into force in 1958, has 67 ratifications; the 1972 London Dumping Convention, which entered into force in 1975, has 52 ratifications.

54 The MARPOL Convention entered into force in October 1983, and has 12 parties.

55 See below.

56 Cf. G. Timagenis, supra note 48, at 606, who notes the possible objection that small minorities of states would be able to impose their wishes on others.

57 For the view that “standards” is simply another term for regulations, rules or norms, see remarks of the Swedish delegate, July 17, 1974, 2 Official Records, supra note 23, at 323.

58 Trail Smelter arbitration, 3 R. Int’l Arb. Awards 1905 (1941); Corfu Channel case, 1949 ICJ Rep. 4 (Judgment of Apr. 9); Lac Lanoux arbitration, 12 R. Int’l Arb. Awards 281 (1957). See below.

59 See Bernhardt, supra note 48, who argues that the ambiguity of the phraseology of the Convention in using rules of reference may in effect give states a power to set their own standards.

60 See 2 Official Records, supra note 23, at 317-20; U.S. Delegation Reports, supra note 42, at 47-51, 74 and 89; R. M’Gonigle & M. Zacher, supra note 2, ch. 6.

61 Arctic Waters Pollution Act 1970, in 1 New Directions, supra note 4, at 199; U.S. reply, id. at 211; and see Pharand, D., The Law of the Sea of the Arctic, with Special Reference to Canada (1973)Google Scholar.

62 See Convention, Arts. 21 and 56(1).

63 Id., Arts. 56, 60, 80, 208.

64 Id., Art. 210.

65 See id., Arts. 56 and 211(5). Article 234 gives coastal states special powers in ice-covered areas, on which see below.

66 Id., Arts. 211(5) and 220(3), (5) and (6).

67 Id., Arts. 211, 217.

68 See, in particular, U.S. Delegation Reports, supra note 42, at 131-33; compare the positions of the Canadian and British delegations in 2 Official Records, supra note 23, at 312-20; 4 id. at 82-86; and 6 id. at 101. See also the Bulgarian delegate’s remarks, 6 id. at 112.

69 Convention, Art. 15.

70 See also id., Art. 211 (4).

71 Id. Parties to the 1973 MARPOL Convention, supra note 4, are obliged by its Article 4(2) to prohibit violation of the Convention by vessels within their jurisdiction, but they are not debarred from adopting stricter standards.

72 Convention, Arts. 24 and 211(4).

73 Art. 21(2). See U.S. Delegation Reports, supra note 42, at 131-33. The standards most likely to fit this provision are those established by the I MO in the Safety of Life at Sea Conventions of 1960 (done at London June 17, 1960, 16 UST 185, TIAS No. 5780, 536 UNTS 27), and 1974 (done at London Nov. 1, 1974, reprinted in 14 ILM 959 (1975)), the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers of 1978, Cmd. No. 7543, and a number of ILO Conventions. See Churchill, R. & Lowe, A., The Law of the Sea, ch. 12 (1983)Google Scholar.

74 Presumably the IMO. There is an obligation under Article 211(1) to establish international standards for routing schemes. Such standards have been developed by the IMO: see the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, done at London Oct. 20, 1972, 28 UST 3459, TIAS No. 8587, reprinted in 4 New Directions, supra note 4, at 245; and IMO Res. A.378 (X) (1977) and A.428 (XI) (1979).

75 For a detailed survey of traffic separation and vessel management schemes, see Gold & Johnston, supra note 25, at 164-78. See also Fitch, , Unilateral Action versus Universal Evolution of Safety and Environmental Protection Standards in Maritime Shipping of Hazardous Cargoes 20 Harv. Int’l L.J. 127 (1979)Google Scholar.

76 See Popp, , Recent Developments in Tanker Control in International Law 1980 Can. Y.B. Int’l L. 3 Google Scholar. For a critical analysis of this part of the Convention, see R. M’Gonigle & M. Zacher, supra note 2, at 244-45.

77 Convention, Art. 56.

78 Id., Art. 58.

79 This interpretation is consistent with Article 4(2) of the 1973 MARPOL Convention, supra note 4, which requires states to apply its provisions to areas within their jurisdiction. “Jurisdiction” for this purpose now probably includes the economic zone, under the terms of Article 9(3), which provides: “The term ‘jurisdiction’ . . . shall be construed in the light of international law in force at the time of application or interpretation of the present Convention.” See also the vessel pollution provisions of the UNEP regional seas agreements, supra note 15. These require coastal states to ensure effective implementation or compliance with internationally recognized rules in the area covered by each agreement, which in most cases includes the economic zone.

80 Convention, Art. 211(5).

81 See above.

82 See references in note 49 supra. State practice on the application of pollution regulations in the economic zone varies, and much of the legislation either contains no reference to pollution control or merely gives power in general terms to make regulations. See Burke, , National Legislation on Ocean Authority Zones and the Contemporary Law of the Sea 9 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 289 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Krueger, & Nordquist, , The Evolution of the 200-Mile Exclusive Economic Zone: State Practice in the Pacific Basin 19 Va. J. Int’l L. 321 (1979)Google Scholar. Burke notes that over one-third of the zone legislation examined by him asserts authority exceeding that provided for by the Law of the Sea Convention.

85 Convention, Art. 211(6). Under Annex 1, Reg. 10 of the MARPOL Convention, supra note 4, the Mediterranean, Black, Red and Baltic Seas and the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman are designated as special areas where no discharge of oil, oily mixtures or other noxious substances is permitted save in very restricted circumstances. These are all enclosed or semi-enclosed seas.

84 Convention, Art. 234.

85 R. M’Gonigle & M. Zacher, supra note 2, at 246-47.

86 Maritime state influence in the IMO has in the past been considerable. See id., chs. 3 and 7; and Fitch, supra note 75.

87 In practice, many states apply regulations in the territorial sea that do not exceed the 1954 or 1973 Conventions on pollution. See, e.g., New Zealand, Marine Pollution Act 1974, No. 14; Malta, Marine Pollution (Prevention and Control) Act 1977, Act No. XII, §4; United Kingdom, Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971, ch. 59; and Merchant Shipping Act 1979, ch. 39, §20; but cf. United States, Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-217, 91 Stat. 1566 (codified in scattered sections of 33 U.S.C.).

88 For an analysis of the role of the IMO in formulating standards for vessel pollution, see Gold & Johnston, supra note 25, at 157; and Churchill, The Role of I.M.C.O. in Combating Marine Pollution, in The Impact of Marine Pollution, supra note 3, at 73.

89 Significantly, Article 211(5) gives the coastal state legislative power in the economic zone only “for the purpose of enforcement as provided for in section 6.”

90 Art. 19, Convention on the Territorial Sea, supra note 27.

91 See R. Churchill & A. Lowe, supra note 73, at 74-76.

92 Art. 4(2), MARPOL Convention, supra note 4; Art. 7(1) and (2), Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping, supra note 5.

93 MARPOL Convention, supra note 4, Art. 6(2). See also Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in Implementing Agreements on Maritime Safety and Protection of the Marine Environment, Paris 1982, reprinted in 21 ILM 1 (1982), which provides for port state inspection in Europe.

94 MARPOL Convention, supra note 4, Arts. 4(1) and 6(4).

95 See generally R. M’Gonigle & M. Zacher, supra note 2, ch. 6; Birnie, Enforcement of the International Laws for Prevention of Oil Pollution from Vessels, in The Impact of Marine Pollution, supra note 3, at 95; Abecassis, D., Oil Pollution From Ships, ch. 4 (1978)Google Scholar; Lowe, , The Enforcement of Marine Pollution Regulations 12 San Diego L. Rev. 624 (1975)Google Scholar. See also GA Res. 34/183(1979).

96 Convention, Arts. 213, 214, 216, 217(1), 222.

97 Id., Art. 217(1).

98 Id., Art. 217(2).

99 Id., Art. 217(3).

100 Id., Art. 217(4), (5), (6), (7).

101 Id., Art. 217(8).

102 See owe, supra note 95; and Bernhardt, supra note 48, at 313.

103 Convention, Art. 220(2). This is subject to the right of innocent passage.

104 Id., Art. 220(6).

105 Id., Art. 220(5).

106 Id., Art. 220(3).

107 Id., Art. 220(1).

108 Id., Art. 218.

109 Id., Art. 218(2).

110 Id., Art. 228(1).

111 Id.

112 Id. The right of preemption does apply to coastal state proceedings in respect to EEZ violations.

113 R. M’Gonigle & M. Zacher, supra note 2, at 249.

114 3 R. Int’l Arb. Awards 1905 (1941).

115 1949 ICJ Rep. 4 (Judgment of Apr. 9).

116 12 R. Int’l Arb. Awards 281 (1957).

117 See generally Schneider, J., World Public Order of the Environment, ch. 6 (1979)Google Scholar; Jenks, , Liability for Ultra-hazardous Activities 117 Recueil Des Cours 99 (1966 I)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldie, , Liability for Damage and Progressive Development of International Law 14 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 1189 (1965)Google Scholar; Goldie, , International Principles of Responsibility for Pollution 9 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 283 (1970)Google Scholar; Quentin-Baxter, , Preliminary Report on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law, [1980] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, pt. 1, at 247 Google Scholar, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/Add.1(pt.1). See also Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, reprinted in 11 ILM 1416, 1420(1972).

118 See references in note 117 supra; and see also Handl, The Environment, International Rights and Responsibilities, 74 ASIL PROC. 223 (1980).

119 Goldie, Jenks and Schneider, supra note 117, argue that liability does not require fault; cf I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, ch. 20 (3d ed. 1979).

120 J. Schneider, supra note 117, at 163; see also the comments of the French and Jamaican delegates on July 17 and Aug. 5, 1974, respectively, 2 Official Records, supra note 23, at 330 and 364.

121 J. Schneider, supra note 117. See Corfu Channel case, 1949 ICJ Rep. 4; and Nuclear Tests Case (Austl. v. Fr.), 1973 ICJ Rep. 99 (Order of June 22).

122 The Commission’s reports on state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts and responsibility for acts not prohibited by international law are both relevant. See, on the latter, [1978] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, pt. 2, at 149, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1978/Add.1(pt.2); [1980] 2 id., supra note 117, pt. 1, at 247; and on the former, the Commission’s reports from 1969 onwards.

123 Convention, Art. 235(3).

124 Id., Art. 235(1).

125 Schneider, supra note 16, at 271-72.

126 Convention, Arts. 192, 194(1).

127 Id., Art. 194(1).

128 Id„ Art. 194(2).

129 Id., Art. 195.

130 Id., Art. 196.

131 See D. Abecassis, supra note 95, chs. 8, 9 and 10.

132 Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, with protocol, supra note 7; the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, done at Brussels Dec. 18, 1971, reprinted in 11 ILM 284 (1972), with protocol, done at London Nov. 19, 1976, 16 ILM 617 (1977).

133 The Convention on the Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships, Brussels 1962, reprinted in 57 AJIL 268 (1963); the Convention relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Materials, done at Brussels Dec. 17, 1971, reprinted in 11 ILM 277 (1972).

134 The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage resulting from the Exploration for and Exploitation of Seabed Mineral Resources, London 1977, reprinted in 6 New Directions, supra note 4, at 535 (Churchill, Nordquist & Lay eds. 1977). The problems of bringing proceedings for pollution from seabed operations are well illustrated by the litigation resulting from the IXTOC-I blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. See the agreement between SEDCO Inc. and the U.S. Government, 22 ILM 580 (1983).

135 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, supra note 7, Art. IX.

136 No discussion of this issue appears to be recorded in the published documents of the conference.

137 International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, supra note 6; extended to other forms of pollution by the Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil, London 1973.

138 Convention, Art. 221. A Russian proposal to incorporate a right of intervention was not accepted. For the text of this proposal, see UN Doc. A/CONF.62/C.3/L.25 (1975), 4 Official Records, supra note 23, at 212.

139 See Lucchini, , La Lutte contre la pollution des mers: évolution ou révolution du droit international 1978 Annuaire Français de Droit International 721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

140 Compare Art. 222 of the Informal Composite Negotiating Text, 8 Official Records, supra note 23, with the final text of Art. 221; and see 8 Official Records at 152; 10 id. at 100.

141 Convention, Art. 211(7).

142 MARPOL Convention, supra note 4, Art. 8 and Protocol 1; see also Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil, Bonn, June 9, 1969, reprinted in 9 ILM 359 (1970), and other regional seas conventions.

143 See Art. III of Protocol 1 of the MARPOL Convention, supra note 4.

144 Convention, Art. 198.

145 Corfu Channel case, 1949 ICJ Rep. 3; see also MARPOL Convention, supra note 4, Art. 8; and the regional conventions referred to at note 15 supra. See generally Kiss, supra note 18, at 249-50.

146 J. Schneider, supra note 117, at 89.

147 Id. at 13. See also Boyle, supra note 15.

148 Although the International Sea-Bed Authority will have responsibility under Article 145 for controlling pollution from activities on the deep seabed, the primary responsibility for adopting laws and regulations remains with states under Article 209.

149 See GA Res. 2997 (XXVII) (1972), 3000 (XXVII) (1972), 3133 (XXVIII) (1973), 3436 (XXX) (1975), and 36/192 (1981).

150 See UN Doc. A/CONF.62/27 (1974), 3 Official Records, supra note 23, at 43.