It is also not clear under existing international 

 law whether the coastal State may recover dam- 

 ages for the costs it incurs to prevent or minimize 

 the threatened damages from a massive oil spill. 



Finally, existing admiralty principles of liability 

 based upon fault^^ are inadequate to enable the 

 victims of a massive oil spill to recover damages. 

 Furthermore, even in cases of fault, such recovery 

 may be limited by the provisions of the Inter- 

 national Convention Relating to the Limitation of 

 Liability of Seagoing Ships of 1957, to which the 

 United States is not a party, or by the Act for 

 Limitation of Vessel Owner's LiabiHty."" 



Whether there should be liability to compensate 

 for damages occasioned by a massive oil spill, even 

 in the absence of anyone's fault, whether systems 



of compulsory insurance should be devised to 

 cover such habiUty and whether and the extent to 

 which UabUity should be limited are all questions 

 requiring the most careful consideration. 



e. United States Action In the meantime, we are 

 informed by Mr. Max N. Edwards, Assistant 

 Secretary for Water Pollution, Department of the 

 Interior, the President has ordered the most 

 effective system devised to discover and report a 

 pollution incident, stop the spread of oil, clean up 

 and dispose of the pollutants, and institute avail- 

 able legal action to recover cleanup costs. The 

 plans will operate in our inland, coastal and 

 territorial waters, the contiguous zone and the 

 high seas beyond this zone, if a threat exists to 

 United States waters, shores or continental shelf. 



See generally, Gilmore & Black, Admiralty 434-42 

 (1957). 



'*°46 U.S.C.A. §181-95 (1958). 



VIII-90 



