554 



outside the framework of the Convention. Political conflict based on the 

 legality of such a proposal under the Convention could also be avoided. 

 Although it is to be hoped that any institutional developments under the 

 Convention associated with sub-seabed disposal are given careful and full 

 deliberation, use of this sort of procedure would also simplify their 

 adoption, since amendments to the Annexes can be made by the simplified 

 technical amendment procedure used for the incineration amendments; in 

 addition, no further domestic measures would be necessary to ratify such 

 amendments . 



The marine incineration amendments indicate one way in which efforts 

 could be made through international organizations to facilitate agreement 

 on an international regime for a new proposal like sub-seabed disposal. 

 These amendments secured multilateral recognition of incineration opera- 

 tions and regulation of them without the political conflict that could have 

 arisen had the parties proceeded to make unilateral interpretations of the 

 Convention. Thus, specific standards for various operations connected 

 with sub-seabed disposal, developed by standing international organizations 

 or through structured consultations, may represent a method of interpreting 

 existing legal obligations under multilateral agreements like the Ocean 

 Dumping Convention in relation to this emerging proposal. In the field 

 of disposal of radioactive wastes at sea, the IAEA has issued a definition 

 of HLW within the Annex I prohibition and a set of recommendations con- . 

 ceming dumping operations, as authorized by Annex II. IAEA would logi- 

 cally provide a forum to deal with other aspects of HLW disposal such as 

 sub-seabed disposal, espcially in relation to its other functions under the 

 Ocean Dumping Convention. IMCO and the NEA could also provide a forum for 



