235 



Article 2, para. 3. — We assume that the broad definition of "harmful sub- 

 stance" includes radioactive substances, and we believe that any exclusion of 

 radioactive substances from the scope of the Convention would significantly 

 weaken it from an environmental and political point of view and should be 

 opposed by the United States. Moreover, if the International Atomic Energy 

 Agency has made or will make recommendations regarding radioactive dis- 

 charges, we urge that their application be made mandatory in the Convention. 

 If this solution is not feasible, we recommend the United States urge the adop- 

 tion of a resolution recommending formulation within a given period of time of 

 an annex relating to radioactive discharges. 



Article 2, para. 4(a). — The definition of "discharge" should include the lan- 

 guage suggested in Footnote 5 which may be useful in avoiding a possible 

 inference that a "release" means only an intentional or voluntary act. 



Article 3, para. 1. — Some states, such as the United Kingdom and the Nether- 

 lands, maintain the view that all parliaments of territories whose foreign rela- 

 tions they conduct, must act before ratification on behalf of any of them or the 

 metropolitan state itself can be deposited. The bracketed language, therefore, 

 would enable these states to ratify the Convention and then extend its application 

 to their territories. Consequently, it should be retained in order to facilitate the 

 earliest possible entry into force of the Convention. The same comments apply 

 to the bracketed language in Regulation 1, para. 8, to Annex 1. 



Article 10. — Of the three dispute settlement alternatives presented, we favor 

 adoption of Alternative II (arbitration), and believe that the dispute settlement 

 provisions, contrary to the suggestion in Footnote 44, should be made mandatory. 

 Alternative II would formalize a uniform arbitration procedure for handling 

 disputes. It is clearly preferable to Alternative III which is little more than an 

 exhortation to settlement and which would almost necessarily involve time 

 consuming and fruitless discussions over what method to employ for resolving 

 disputes. Moreover, reliance on the International Court of Justice — Alternative 

 I — would involve a commitment to a slow, arduous and cumbersome procedure 

 and would place highly tecTinical issues before a tribunal which has no special 

 expertise to resolve them. Arbitration, by contrast, which will give each state 

 party to a dispute the power of appointment over one member of the arbitra- 

 tion board and which, in all likelihood, would create a mechanism possessing 

 the technical expertise to enable it to resolve highly technical questions, appears 

 far the most sensible and least time wasting alternative. 



Article 17. — While we believe, as stated in our Fourth Draft Comments at 

 pp. 14-15, that provision should be made for uniformity and rapidity of accept- 

 ance of amendments, the Convention should include a provision to prevent 

 adoption of an amendment by way of tacit acceptance which would provide for 

 less stringent standards. 



We oppose inclusion of the bracketed materials in Paragraphs 3(a) (v), (b) (v) 

 and (c) (v) which would allow Contracting States to exempt themselves alto- 

 gether from giving effect to provisions of any amendment or to exempt them- 

 .selves from an amendment's application for a period not exceeding twelve 

 months from the date of entry into force of such amendment. To permit total 

 rejection of an amendment might well riddle the Convention with exceptions 

 and could substantially hamper its effectiveness, while even a twelve month 

 grace period, particularly with respect to changes in substantive requirements 

 embodied in the Annexes, would be undesirable since these should be given effect 

 as soon as possible so as to ensure the maximum feasible protection of the oceans. 



ANNEX I 



I 



Regulation 1, para. 1. — ^Since animal and vegetable oils can cause severe dam- 

 age to the marine environment, we favor the proposal in Footnote l(i) which 

 would include them in the definition of "oil". Further, we believe that the defini- 

 tion of "oil" should remain otherwise in its present form, with the listing of 

 substances in Appendix I not limiting the generality of the definition. 



Regulation 1, para. 5 {a). — The deletion suggested in Footnote 2 should be 

 opposed, since deletion of the language referring to a building contract might 

 well result in exempting a large number of ships from the operation of the 

 Convention. 



Regulation 1. para 10. — See our comments on Regulation 12. infra. 



Regulation 1, para. 17. — See generally our comments on discharge standards 

 at pages 5 to 7, supra. We would note additionally that the 15 ppm standard 



