557 



In addition to such nebulous but still primary rules, the actions of 



States that have an international environmental effect may generate secon- 



52 



dary legal consequences. These secondary rules define the legal conse- 

 quences both of failure to act in accordance with primary rules and also 

 of cases in which the relevant primary obligations were observed but 

 legally cognizable effects nevertheless occurred. Thus, a State may be 

 held responsible for certain actions with international environmental con- 

 sequences; this responsibility could entail an obligation to take appropriate 

 steps to restore the situation or to pay damages. Recent authoritative work 



has even included a notion of international crimes which would include inter 



54 

 alia massive pollution of the oceans or atmosphere. While no international 



criminal machinery exists at present, an action which falls into this cate- 

 gory could have serious legal and political consequences for the acting 

 State . 



With regard to marine pollution specifically, the draft, negotiating 

 text of UNCLOS III carries over the definition of pollution from the 

 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. This definition, which is reproduced 

 here, appears to contain much the same ambiguity with regard to sub-seabed 

 disposal as the Ocean Dumping Convention. 



"Pollution of the marine environment" means the introduction 

 by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into 

 the marine environment (including estuaries) which results or 

 is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living 

 resources and marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance to 

 marine activities, including fishing and other legitimate uses of 

 the sea, impairment of quality for use of sea water and reduction 

 of amenities. 5^ 



The negotiating text, officially referred to as the Informal Composite 



Negotiating Text/Revision 2 (ICNT/Rev. 2) , also states a general obligation 



