126 



One needs, in explaining why, to take a brief look at what this 

 Conference can be expected to do, as regards protection of the marine 

 environment. 



It will do a few things. If present tendencies continue, it will prob- 

 ably enunciate a principle of state responsibility and liability, that 

 is, a sort of tort liability between states for damage by one state to 

 the environment of another state. In so doing it will be responding to 

 an instruction of the Stockholm Conference. 



It will probably resolve some issues relating to the competing or 

 concurrent authority of the coastal state and the flag state to establish 

 standards regarding vessel pollution within an area of coastal state 

 control extending perhaps to 200 miles. 



It may well address the question of whether it is permissible under 

 the treaty for a coastal state to declare an environmental protection 

 zone extending well beyond its territorial waters, and perhaps to this 

 distance of 200 miles or greater. 



And in respect to the exploitation of seabed resources, it is quite 

 conceivable that the Conference will adopt a fairly specific environ- 

 mental regulatory mechanism regarding those operations and this 

 mechanism is likely to have jurisdiction at least in the international 

 area which will be established beyond a fairly wide zone of coastal 

 state control. 



All of these are things which need to be addressed, and in general 

 which need to be done. But more important from the point of view 

 of environmental protection is what the Conference seems unlikely to 

 do if present trends continue. 



It seems to me that there is little present likelihood that a treaty 

 will establish any international regulatory authority for the protection 

 of the marine environment generally : that is, generally from a geo- 

 graphic point of view, including the areas beyond national jurisdiction 

 as well as within it, and generally from the point of view of the sources 

 of injury to the environment, including activities that take place on 

 land as well as activities taking place in the ocean itself, involving 

 vessels or otherwise. 



It will probably defer to the existing ajrency, IMCO, with respect 

 to any regulatory authority regarding vessel pollution. 



The treaties seem unlikely to lay the necessary groundwork for the 

 creation of this kind of regulatory function in the future, by obli- 

 gating states to conform their own conduct and tlieir own regulations 

 to such international measures as may be adopted in the future. 



As to injuries to the marine environment which take place from 

 activities on land, the treaty will very likely have little to say, aside 

 perhaps from a very general injunction to states to do what is neces- 

 sary to put an end to such activities and thereby protect the marine 

 environment. 



It is unlikely, and not surprisingly so, to create any international 

 enforcement capacity, inasmuch as it is unlikely to create any inter- 

 national mechanism for creating and promulgating regulations giving 

 rise to the question of enforcement. 



Finally, I would raise the question as to what all this adds up to as 

 concerns the risks and opportunities for protection of the marine 

 environment which the law of the sea ne.<rotiations prei=ent. It is clear 

 that the conflict between the tAvo contending approaches, freedom of 

 the seas on the one hand, and the extension of territoriality on the 



