Preventing pollution from ships - reflections on the 'adequacy' of existing rules

Review of European Community and International Environmental Law

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 21-28

  Ringbom, Henrik ^a,b  

^a ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b EUROPEAN COMMISSION   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LAW OF THE SEA; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; MARITIME TRANSPORTATION; POLLUTION CONTROL;

EID: 0033026486     PISSN: 09628797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9388.00174     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. UNCLOS entered into force on 16 November 1994 and is presently ratified, or acceded to, by 128 states.
2. See in particular Articles 94 and 211(2).
3. E.g. Articles 21(2), 211(5) and 211(6).
4. IMO Resolutions A.500(XII) and A.777(18). As Professor Birnie has pointed out, the rationale of these resolutions appears to be in conflict with the precautionary approach, which is gaining ground in most other areas of international environmental law, see Patricia Birnie, The Status of Environmental "Soft Law": Trends and Examples with Special Focus on IMO Norms', in H. Ringbom (ed.), Competing Norms in the Law of Marine Environmental Protection - Focus on Ship Safety and Pollution Prevention (London, Kluwer Law International, 1997) 31 at 53.
5. As of 1 November 1998 the ratification figures for SOLAS were 138 states representing 98% of the world tonnage; for MARPOL Annexes I and II (oil and noxious liquid substances): 106 states (94%); for Annex V (garbage): 91 states (82%). Source: IMO website: 〈www.imo.org/imo/convent/summary.htm〉.
6. It is to be noted, however, that the exact level of acceptance which a rule needs in order to qualify as 'generally accepted' is far from clear-cut. Several intricate legal questions are raised by this kind of regulation by reference, such as the exact level of approval which is required for a rule to be accepted for this purpose, or the position of the various forms of 'soft law' instruments which, sometimes in obscure ways, are referred to in the conventions. These questions have not been addressed by the courts yet, but at least among academics there seems to be quite a broad consensus about a rather progressive interpretation of the scope of such references. See in particular Bernard H. Oxman, The Duty to Respect Generally Accepted International Standards', New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 24 (1991) 109;
7. Erik Franckx, The ILA Survey on Coastal State Jurisdiction with Special Reference to Regional Rules' in Ringbom (ed.) n. 4 above, 59
8. and Erik Jaap Molenaar, Coastal State Jurisdiction over Vessel-Source Pollution, (London, Kluwer Law International, 1998) 140-184.
9. See references in Henrik Ringbom, 'Environmental Protection and Shipping - Prescriptive Coastal State Jurisdiction in the 1990s', Marius No. 224 (Oslo, Nordisk Institutt for Sjørett, 1996) 37-40.