171 



understanding this mornino; that he is not so scheduled at this time. 



Senator Hollixgs. That is right. We have been briefed informally. 

 T have been in conference with him and we will hear from him on 

 the record later. 



Mr. Traix. My only point there is to indicate that he is the author- 

 itative source for this committee on the technical law of the sea aspects 

 of these questions. 



In some respects the imminence of the LOS Conference creates risks 

 for the October negotiations. For example, some nations whose views 

 on jurisdictional issues differ from our own may — for tactical or other 

 reasons — attempt to force premature decisions on jurisdictional mat- 

 ter at the October IMCO Conference. 



As you know, we narrowly averted a major danger in that regard 

 at the Ocean Dumping Conference last November. We are hopeful 

 that good sense will again prevail in October, and that debates on 

 the scope of coastal State prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction 

 will take place where they properly belong — in the law of the sea 

 discussions at Geneva and Santiago. That will leave the London con- 

 ference free to direct its full attention to the problem of vessel-source 

 pollution ; and 4 weeks is certainly not too long a period in which to 

 develop the necessai-y controls. 



In other respects, the imminence of the LOS negotiations maj^ 

 yield benefits in October. We cannot ignore the fact that the principle 

 that, apart from flag state standards, only internationallv prescribed 

 environmental controls can apply to vessels on what has traditionally 

 been considered the high seas is under serious attack at the Law of 

 the Sea Conference preparatory meeting. This is a principle which 

 we strongly support. 



The most credible way to safesruard that principle is to demonstrate 

 that international environmental standards can effectively protect the 

 world's oceans and coastlines from vessel-source pollution. The 

 October conference, in other words, may well be the proving ground 

 fov oui- theoi'v t)i,it TMCO can meet coastal state concerns about anti- 

 pollution standards for vessels. 



That is why I stated a moment ago that the Geneva session of the 

 Seabeds Committee may convince some of the reluctant maritime 

 nations to become more forthcoming on environmental issues. 



In lifi-ht of what will be stroTi.'r coastal s<"fite pT'essuro for standard- 

 setting authority over broad expanses of oceans — an arrangement 

 which would be inadequate from an environmental point of view as 

 well as unsatisfactory to other interests important to us — the mari- 

 time nations should be persuaded that the proper response is to work 

 through IMCO to establish a system of international regulation which 

 contains stringent antipollution standards, facilitates their enforce- 

 ment, and is readily adaptable to new circumstances. 



We should consider where we presently stand with respect to these 

 three criteria — the stringency, enforceability and adaptability of in- 

 ternational maritime antipollution standards. 



Concerning the substantive technical regulations in the fifth draft 

 of the new IMCO Convention, LT.S. negotiators have advanced sev- 

 eral important proposals. All are reflected in one form or another in 

 the fifth draft. 



