234 



vention by all signatory nations in the event of even minor strife anywhere in 

 the world. The only rationale for this provision would be to suspend operation in 

 limited ocean areas affected by hostilities for reasons of safety of life or vessel. 

 However, the Article does not provide for such limited suspension and, in any 

 event, the regulations to each of the Annexes which provide that discharges for 

 the purposes of securing the safety of a ship, saving life at sea or resulting from 

 damage to the ship or its equipment are excepted from the prohil)itions of the 

 Convention, seem to provide sufficient flexibility to cover wartime conditions. 



(vi) 0>w Convention Only. — Footnote 1 to the Title of the Convention sug- 

 gests that there is a possibility of some fragmentation of the regulation of ship- 

 generated pollution. Our basic position, as stated in the Fourth Draft Com- 

 ments at pp. 2-3, is that ship-generated pollution should be regulated in a single, 

 comprehensive Convention, and we can perceive no sound reason for the creation 

 of several agreements. With respect to amendments in particular, a single, com- 

 prehensive Convention has substantial advantages, since improved, fast, broadly 

 applicable amendment procedures could be most successfully negotiated if nego- 

 tiated once, i.e., for application to a comprehensive Convention and its Annexes 

 rather than to several conventions. Moreover, considerable economies of time and 

 effort can be realized by all parties in negotiating a single agreement. 



(vii) All State Accession. — Effectiveness of the Convention is further enhanced 

 by the widest possible adherence to it. Thus, we believe that the United States 

 should support and advocate the "all states" accession clause in Article 13, para. 

 1, and urge that the bracketed language in such provision be retained. 



(viii) No Reservations.— We believe, as stated in the Fourth Draft Comments 

 at p. 14, that the Convention should contain a general pi'ohibition against a 

 state's making reservations to the requirements of the Convention and to the 

 mandatory and optional Annexes. It is obvious that if reservations can be made 

 willy-nilly, the force of the entire Convention will be vitiated. Alternative (i) of 

 Article 14 is therefore absolutely essential to a strong Convention and we urge 

 the United States to oppose any inroads into this principle. 



(ix) Mandatory Annexes. — As stated in our Fourth Draft Comments at p. 13. 

 we believe that any Annex which regulates actual or potential major sources of 

 pollution should be made mandatory. It is obvious that Annexes I and II must 

 remain mandatory, or the Convention will have little meaning. Making Annexes 

 III through V mandatory would be desirable. At the least, as a quid pro quo for 

 agreeing that such Annexes may remain optional, the United^ States should 

 insist that Annexes I and II work a real and substantial improvement in the 

 regulation of vessels which carry oil and harmful chemicals. 



2. SPECIFIC COMMENTS 



In addition to the three major areas of concern outlined above, we have the 

 following specific comments on the Fifth Draft, referenced to the appropriate 

 Article or Regulation : 



ARTICLES 



Preamble, para. 4- — As indicated in our Fourth Draft Comments at pp. 1-2, we' 

 believe that the United States should oppose "replacement" of the 19.'i4 Conven- 

 tion by means of any provision in the Convention which would jiurport to 

 abrogate it upon entry into force. All the numerous parties to the 1954 Convention 

 may not promptly become or perhaps ever become party to the present Conven- 

 tion, and, in those ocean areas in which coastal states have no power to regulate 

 foreign flag vessels the only regulation would arise under the 1954 Convention. 

 Tims we urge the United States to support adoption of the language suggested 

 in Footnote 3 in order to make clear that the 1954 Convention is only superseded 

 by the present Convention as between contracting parties to both Conventions. 



Article 2. para. 2. — The answer to the question of whether the word "authority" 

 is better than the word "jurisdiction" in the definition of "Administration" (See 

 Footnote 4) depends, in our view, upon which of these two words would provide 

 the most expansive authority to regulate. Most probably it is the word "author- 

 ity", since it is possible that a platform could be owned or operated by nationals 

 of one Contracting State, thereby falling under its "authority", but be operated 

 in an area under the "jurisdiction" of another Contracting State. Since the word, 

 "authority" would therefore allow for double enforcement, its inclusion in the 

 final Convention is consistent with the general flag state/port or coastal state 

 enforcement scheme and would appear preferable. 



