135 



attempting to deal, has been referred to one of three subcommittees of that group 

 along with the questi-m of arrangements for scientific research in the oceans. It 

 has been overshadowed, however, by the issues of navigation, commercial exploi- 

 tation of fish and minerals, and territorial rights — those great economic and stra- 

 tegic concerns for putting the ocean to use in one's own national interest which 

 engendered the negotiations in the first place. Only recently has this subcommit- 

 tee begun to discuss the possible shape of articles on environmental protection 

 which might be included in a law of the sea treaty. While it is too early to pre- 

 dict what those articles might eventually be, one can hazard an educated guess 

 as to what sort of things they will attempt to do in respect of environmental pro- 

 tection if the discussions continue on their present course : 



The treaty may well establish a quite generally stated obligation on the part 

 of the states to protect the marine environment, as well as to cooi^erate in the 

 development of multilateral efforts toward this end in the future. 



It may well confer on an international mechanism established to manage the 

 exploitation of seabed resources beyond the zone of national control the author- 

 ity to establish environmental protection regulations with respect to exploita- 

 tion activities. It may give this mechanism the authority to establish minimum 

 standards applicable in an exclusive economic resource zone or other area in 

 which mineral exploitation is under the management of the coastal state. 



It will probably address questions of the scope and content of the authority 

 of the coastal state with respect to environmental regulation off its own coasts. 

 One such question is the establishment of standards relating to pollution from 

 vessels within a coastal zone, and the relationship between this coastal state 

 authority and the traditional authority of the flag state or state of registry of 

 the vessel with respect to the estab'ishment and enforcement of such standards. It 

 may well address the question of conferring other prerogatives on the coastal 

 state — such as the right to establish an exclusive environmental protection zone 

 (perhaps as a part of an exclusive economic resource zone). And it may well make 

 six'cial provisions for the rights of coastal states that are adjacent to straits, as 

 regards the environmental protection measures with which vessels navigating 

 those straits must comply. 



(4) The law-of-the-sea treaty may well enunciate a general principle of state 

 responsil)ility and liability for injury to the marine environment of other states, 

 thus turning into treaty law the general principle included in the Stockholm 

 Declaration of Principles on the Human Environment, to the effect that states 

 have "the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction are 

 controlled and do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas 

 beyond the limits of national jurisdiction." (It is now considerably more doubtful 

 that a law of the sea treaty would raise to the level of treaty obligation the 

 principle of responsibility for injury to the marine environment beyond the limits 

 of the national jurisdiction of any state, despite the obvious importance of this 

 principle. ) 



More important than what a law of the sea conference now seems likely to do 

 for the environment is what it seems unlikely to do, if present trends continue : 



(1) There is little present likelihood that a treaty will establish any inter- 

 national regulatory authority for the protection of the marine environment 

 generally. Rather, if it creates any international regulatory function at all, that 

 function will probably be limited to only part of the ocean — the open ocean 

 beyond the coastal state's resource zone, and possibly that zone itself in some 

 limited degree. It will probably be similarly restricted to only one form of 

 activity — exploitation of mineral resources. It is likely to defer, explicitly or by 

 implication, to IMCO as the focus for such international resulatory authority 

 as may exist for other forms of oceap pollution, in particular pollution from 

 vessels. 



(2) Nor is it likely to lay the necessary groundwork, in this constitutional 

 law of the oceans, for eflf*^ctive exercises such a?* international regulatory func- 

 tion in the future by oblisratins: states to conform their own regulations as well 

 as their own conduct to international regulations promulgated. In any event, 

 such a provision is of questionable value if no mechanism authorized to develop 

 such regulations in the future is simultaneously created. 



(3) As to injuries to the marine environment from activities which take place 

 on land, the law-of-the-sea treaty will probably have little to say, aside perhaps 

 from enjoining states in general terms to take measures designed to prevent such 

 threats, which should take into account any international guidelines which may 

 be developed. 



26-282 O - 74 - 10 



