—The possibility of routing merchant ships and 

 providing for traffic separation in certain areas 



— EstabUshment of prohibited areas or areas to be 

 avoided by ships of certain classes and sizes in 

 order to reduce the risk of oil pollution or 

 dangerous cargoes in case of accidents 



-International standards of training and certifica- 

 tion of officers and crew 



—New methods for removal of oil from the sea 



—New agents for absorbing or precipitating the oil 



—New chemicals and mechanical agents for pro- 

 tecting coastal areas from pollutants, including 

 construction and use of booms, emulsifiers, etc. 



—How deliberate marine pollution can be detected 

 in order that it may be penalized 



—Extent to which States may take measures of 

 self-protection when threatened or affected by 

 casualties beyond their territorial seas 



—Liabilities arising from casualties involving dis- 

 charge of oil or other substances 



—Measures of international cooperation relating to 

 official inquiries and to ship casualties 



—Access and use of seaborne salvage equipment of 

 other flags within the territorial waters of states 



—Powers of surveillance and control by coastal 

 States to implement measures for strengthening 

 the safety of navigation and obviating marine 

 pollution.^* To date, IMCO has taken no action or 

 made any recommendation in any of these areas 

 deaUng with the technical and navigational aspects 

 of the problem.'^ 



b. The Convention for the Prevention of Pollution 



This Convention contributes Httle to the solution 

 of the massive oil spiU problem. 



Summaiy of Action Taken to Date by IMCO as a 

 Result of the Torrey Canyon Disaster, United States 

 Coast Guard Working Paper, Feb. 1, 1968; Report of UN 

 Secretary General, supra note 1, Annex XI, at 41-42. 



^For IMCO's activities with respect to these areas, 

 see Official Report of the United States Delegation to the 

 Fifth Session of the Subcommittee on Safety of Naviga- 

 tion of IMCO, London, March 19-22, 1968, at 5, NAV 

 V/11, April 3, 1968, Annex III. 



c. Part II of the Convention on the Territorial Sea 

 and the Contiguous Zone As indicated, there 

 is doubt about the power of the coastal State, 

 under Part II of this Convention, to punish or 

 impose Uability upon those responsible for a 

 massive oil spill. 



d. General Principles of International Law The 

 IMCO Legal Committee set up a working group to 

 consider the legal issues raised by the Torrey 

 Canyon case and, particularly, the following 

 questions submitted to it by the United Kingdom 

 representatives: (1) Under what circumstances 

 may a coastal State take measures to reduce 

 or limit damage? (2) What scope of action 

 should be permitted the coastal State? (3) Should 

 there be prior consultation between the threatened 

 State and the flag State of the offending vessel, or, 

 alternatively, should the threatened State merely 

 be required to give notice of intended action? (4) 

 Under what circumstances should a coastal State 

 be entitled to compensation for the expense of 

 action taken to protect itself? (5) Should the 

 vessel be entitled to compensation for damage 

 done to it in the process?^* 



The Legal Committee Working Group con- 

 cluded that the coastal state's authority should be 

 limited to casualties of a "major and catastrophic 

 nature." However, it did not agree on whether this 

 authority should be broadly stated to extend to all 

 incidents involving "grave and imminent danger" 

 to coastline, harbors, territorial sea or amenities, 

 or should be limited to incidents involving "dan- 

 gerous" or "noxious" cargoes listed as such. 



The Working Group agreed that when the costal 

 State is authorized to act, it is justified in taking 

 any action to combat the danger, including the 

 bombing of hulks, but the action should be 

 proportionate to the threatened damage and, if 

 not, compensation should be paid to the flag State 

 for the excesses. 



The Working Group did not' conclude that 

 existing principles of international law permitted 

 the coastal State to take such protective action, 

 but expressed the view that in any case a multi- 

 lateral agreement dealing with these problems was 

 desirable. 



38 



1/2. 



See IMCO, LEG/WG (I). I/WP. I and LEGAVG (I). 



VIII-89 



