(b.) It should be noted, too that Article IV's 

 exception of the escape of oil resulting from 

 damage to a ship or unavoidable leakage eliminates 

 to a large extent the application of the Convention 

 to such disasters as the Torrey Canyon. 



(iv) Enforcement When it accepted the Conven- 

 tion, the United States recommended amendment 

 of the enforcement provisions (Article VII) of the 

 Convention. The United States National Commit- 

 tee for the Prevention of Pollution of the Seas by 

 Oil has pointed out: 



Unless uniform penalties are provided, some ves- 

 sels violating the provisions of the Convention may 

 be able to escape punishment. For instance, in the 

 event that a country does not prescribe effective 

 penalties in its legislation, a vessel under its flag, 

 although cited for discharging oil in a prohibited 

 zone, would not be penalized. Further, some coun- 

 tries might be unable to enforce laws executed 

 consequent to their acceptance of the Convention. 

 Some countries do not now (1959) prescribe any 

 penalties. During the eighteen month period end- 

 ing in April, 1957, thirty-one foreign vessels of 

 thirteen countries were found by the Coast Guard 

 to have caused oil pollution in U.S. waters. Of the 

 thirteen countries, only three had laws under 

 which their vessels could be penalized. 

 It has been suggested that the Convention might 

 be modified to state that the penalties assessed 

 against violators would be those of the country 

 affected by the violation rather than those of the 

 country of registry of the vessel concerned. ^ ^ 



Sections 6-8 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1961 

 provide penalties as required by Article XI of the 

 Convention: a fine of not more than $2,500 nor 

 less than $500, or imprisonment for not more than 

 one year, or both. Furthermore, clearance of a 

 ship may be withheld from any United States port 

 until the penalty is paid and the penalty con- 

 stitutes a hen on such ship recoverable by libel in 

 rem in the district court of the United States for 

 any district within which the ship is found. 



In addition, the Coast Guard may take appro- 

 priate action against the license of the master or 



any licensed officer guilty of polluting and, to 

 enforce the Act, may board and inspect any ship 

 in a prohibited zone or in a port of the United 

 States. Punishment for failing to maintain the 

 required oil record book is also prescribed. 



Despite these penalties, the Coast Guard has 

 had difficulty enforcing the Act. The vastness of 

 the prohibited zone makes detection a serious 

 problem. Unless the offending vessel is caught in 

 the act of violating the law, it is difficult to 

 determine and assign responsibility. Further, most 

 wilful discharges of oil are done under cover of 

 darkness, making detection next to impossible. 



Moreover, it is difficult, if not impossible, to 

 secure convictions in United States courts on the 

 basis of complaints made by foreign countries 

 concerning violation of the Convention in the 

 prohibited zones. Even actual photographs of ships 

 dumping oUy wastes have not constituted suffi- 

 cient evidence; a bottle of the liquid has been 

 required, together with other supporting evidence. 

 There is no reason to assume that United States 

 complaints to foreign governments against foreign 

 ships for violations of the Convention, would not 

 be similarly handled. 



FinaUy, many vessels flying flags of conven- 

 ience seldom visit their "home" ports where action 

 could be taken. These vessels would appear im- 

 mune, for all practical purposes, from the 

 Convention.^ * 



c. Part 11 of the Convention on the Territorial 

 Sea and the Contiguous Zone It is questionable 

 whether the "sanitary regulations" referred to in 

 this international Convention include regulations 

 against the pollution of the sea and if they 

 do, whether the authority then conferred upon the 

 coastal State to punish violators of such regula- 

 tions "within its territory or territorial sea" would 

 extend to punishing a foreign vessel for discharging 

 oil into the sea beyond the 3-mile zone because 

 the oil spreads into the 3-mile zone. 



No domestic legislation presently asserts power 

 to punish such an act. In their report to the 

 President in February 1968, the Secretaries of the 

 Interior and Transportation recommended that the 



"Id. at 5. 



^^Id. at 10. 



VIII-87 



333-092 0-69— 23 



