206 



As offshore exploitation of the oceans' mineral resources grows, pollution 

 generated from submersibles, fixed towers, and floating platforms and other 

 craft will become an increasingly serious problem. Indeed, most major oil pol- 

 luting incidents off the United States coasts in recent years have been associ- 

 ated with operations of offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and the Santa 

 Barbara Channel. The regulation by any future law of the sea regime of such 

 equipment is speculative, and, at best, far in the future ; even if the law of the 

 sea conference is successfully concluded in the next two years, an additional 

 period of years would pass before machinery is established and substantive 

 rules on stnicture pollution adopted. It makes eminent sense to provide for 

 regulation of all floating "structures" on the sea now and to do so in a single 

 Convention whose focus is prevention of pollution (as opix>sed to promotion of 

 ocean development.) 



If the I.aw of the Sea regime now being negotiated ultimately covers structures, 

 and if subsequent rules promulgated under the regime are preferable to the ones 

 in the Convention, then, of course, the law of the sea rules can merely super- 

 sede the Convention. 



Broad application of the Convention further requires that all .ships be sub- 

 ject to its coverage, regardless of the trades in which they are engaged. Regu- 

 lation 5 of Annex I now provides that only ships which are engaged on "inter- 

 national voyages" are subject to certification procedures. This is an undue limi- 

 tation on the certification requirement. Ships which engage in coastwise trade but 

 travel in international waters, because they engage on sliorter voyages and enter 

 many harbor areas during their lives, present at least as equal a threat of pol- 

 lution as ships which engage in the long haul trades. Not only is a higher acci- 

 dental risk associated with frequent entry into narrow, shallow and crowded 

 harbor areas, but, additionally, operational discharges from tank ships in the 

 coastwise trade, insofar as such discharges are made near to biologically seu.sitive 

 bays and estuaries, pose grave environmental hazards. 



(c) Application to Militaty Vessels 



Military vessels represent a substantial portion of the world's fleet. Many 

 such vessels are tankers which are equipped to carry fuels and other i^etroleum 

 products. Article 3 of the Convention now exempts military vessels from its 

 application. We believe that this exemption is inappropriate and unwise. Any 

 legitimate concern by the Department of Defense could be accommodated if mili- 

 tary vessels are made subject to the Convention's regulatory requirements, but 

 are immune from the enforcement powers of foreign governments. There is no 

 justification for these vessels, which are often not warships, and which may be 

 engagetl in trades which are virtually indistinguishable from those of commer- 

 cial vessels, not to be subject to substantial restrictions with regard to their 

 discharge of oil and other polluting siibstances. 



I might add that traditionally, in the past, military vessels liave been subject 

 to the prescriptions of bhe.se conventions, but immune from foreign jurisdiction. 

 In the last few years, the Department of Defense has undertaken a massive 

 campaign to place itself outside all environmental regulation. It insisted that 

 it be totally exempted from the Ocean Dump Convention and the World Herit- 

 age Trust Convention. When the United States negotiates environmental con- 

 ventions now, a primary objective is that military vessels be subje<'t to no rules 

 or i"egulations ; and foreign governs are led to believe that our country's highest 

 priority is to see that its military be allowed to pollute at will. 



(d) No Reservations 



TVTiether or not a Contracting State may make reservations or not make res- 

 ervations to the Convention is at present an open question. Article 14 currentl.v 

 contains two alternatives, one which provides for reservations and one which 

 does not. It is obvious to us that if reservations can be made willy nilly. the 

 force of the entire Convention is vitiated. If it is to be a strong Convention, it 

 must contain a general prohibition against a state's making reservations both 

 to the requirements of the Convention and to the madatory and optional Annexes. 



v. CONCLUSION 



Ship-goneraed pollution is not a problem which is limited to any one country. 

 An oil spill off the coast of West Africa can wash up weeks later on the beaches 

 of New Jersey. A "Liberian" tanker may in fact be (and probably is) owned by 



