348 



monize" their practices to prevent pollution by dumping. They also undertake 

 to consult with each other closely, (drawing on the advice (;t' the appnjpriate 

 scientific bodies) on the implementation of the Convention — and most especially 

 its scientific and technical aspects. 



Each party acknowledges that "in accordance with the principles of inter- 

 national law, States bear responsibility for damage to the environment of other 

 States or to any other area of the environment caused by dumping of wastes and 

 other matter, and undertake to develop procedures for the assessment of liability 

 and for settlement of disputes regarding dumping.'' 



The Convention also encourages parties in common geographical areas to enter 

 into regional dumping agreements which may apply more stringent criteria or 

 prohibitions to dumping within the region. All parties are required to cooperate 

 with parties to such regional agreements, in order to harmonize the procedures 

 to be followed by the contractual parties to the different conventions concerned. 



Further, each party is required to take appropriate measures to ensure compli- 

 ance with the provisions of the Convention by all vessels and aircraft registered 

 in its territory, or loading in its territory matter to be dumped, and by all vessels, 

 aircraft, and fixed and floating platforms under its jurisdiction believed to be 

 engaged in dumping. How-ever, the Convention does not apply to vessels and air- 

 craft "entitled to sovereign immunity under international law."' Rather it obliges 

 parties to take appropriate measures to see that such vessels and aircraft which 

 they own and operate "act in a manner consistent with the object and purpose" 

 of the Convention, and to inform the Organization called for by the Convention 

 accordingly. 



The working papers for the London Conference did not contain any mention of 

 an emergency exception clause ; a provision permitting the dumping of a pro- 

 hibited substance as defined in Annex I to the Convention should extenuating 

 circumstances justify such disposal under carefully controlled procedures. The 

 Oslo Convention on the Control of Marine Pollution by Dumping from ships and 

 aircraft does, however, contain an emergency clause. In particular, in emergency 

 where land disposal poses unacceptable danger or damage, a party is obliged to 

 consult the Commission (secretariat for the Oslo Convention) and thereafter in- 

 form the Commission of the steps taken. 



During the recent London Conference it was clear, after some debate, that the 

 concept of an emergency clause — with proper safeguards — was acceptable to most 

 delegations. The formulation agreed upon is found in Article V, Paragraph 2 of 

 the Convention, which provides that a Party may : "issue a special permit as an ' 

 exception to Article IV la, in emergencies, posing unacceptable risk relating to 

 human health and admitting no other feasible solution." Before doing so, how- 

 ever, the party is obliged to consult any other country or countries that are likely 

 to be affected and the Organization to be established by the Convention. Con- 

 sultation in this case has been interpreted to mean more than advising or in- 

 forming; it is intended to include at least a two-way exchange. (It also was 

 agreed that such consultations could be i)erformed by telephone or telegram if 

 time is very limited.) The Organization, in turn, after consulting other interested 

 parties or organizations is to promptly recommend to the party the most appro- 

 priate procedures to adopt. The party is expected to follow these recommendations 

 to the maximum extent feasible "consistent with the time within which action 

 must be taken and with the general obligation to avoid damage to the marine en- 

 vironment" and is obliged to inform the Organization of the action it takes. 



The United States accepted this formulation with the understanding that 

 situations would be covered by the clause which did not necessarily require 

 immediate action. In particular, and for the record, the U.S. delegate stated: 



"The United States understand that the. word "emergency" as used in Article 

 V, 2 (b), refers to situations requiring action with a marked degree of urgency, 

 but is not limited in its ai)plication to circumstances requiring immediate action." 



In the formulation of the emergency clause, it was understood tint "binnnn 

 health" as referred to in the clause would include those aspects of the environ- 

 ment which could affect the health of present or future generations. It also was 

 agreed that the other means of disposal that might be considered as an alternate 

 to ocean dumping in such situations sbonld be witbin somo bounds of re^^on 

 regarding costs and the phrase "admitting no other feasible solution" in Article 

 V was accepted as reflecting that understanding. However, concern was ex- 

 pressed several times by some delegations that this economic criterion could be 

 exploited beyond reason, and could make tbe Convention useless. The consultation 

 with the Organization and with other parties now called for by the Article was 

 accepted as a practical means of limiting such unreasonable use of this clause. 



