362 



platforms at sea for deliberate disposal." It applies to the deliberate disposal of 

 vessels, aircraft and platforms as well, but does not apply to the placement of 

 matter for a purix)se other than disposal, or to disposal, "incident to or derived 

 from the operation of vessels or aircraft and their equipment, other than the 

 cargo of vessels or aircraft operating for the purpose of disposal of matter or 

 the products derived from the treatment of such cargo on board . . ." 



The Convention would therefore not affect such operational procediires as tank 

 washings and bilge pumpings, which do in fact cause significant quantities of 

 oily residues and other potentially noxious substances to be discharged into the 

 oceans each year. The regulation of these discharges is, however, being actively 

 pursued by the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) 

 in its preparations for a proposed 1973 Conference designed to reach agreement 

 to minimize or eliminate such discharges. The effective control of these discharges 

 requires detailed regulation of vessel construction and operating procedures, 

 and any attempt by the Ocean Dumping Conference to handle such problems only 

 would have duplicated the intensive work of the IMCO and could have delayed 

 substantially the satisfactory conclusion of the London Conference, including 

 the development of a broadly acceptable convention. 



In addition, the preliminary working groups for the 1973 United Nations Law 

 of the Sea Conference are developing international controls over ocean platforms, 

 installations and equipment engagetl in the uses and exploitation of the Seabed. 

 Any attempt by the recent Ocean Dumping Conference therefore to have pre- 

 empted the work of these United Nations bodies would have been counter- 

 productive and would only have delayed the conclusion of a dumping agreement 

 while the complex technical and legal aspects of regulation of these activities 

 were worked out. 



It also must be noted that under Article XII of the Convention, the Parties 

 have committed themselves to protect the marine environment against pollution 

 causefl by a number of activities other than ocean dumping. International con- 

 trols over land discharges into the atmosphere, into rivers or directly into the 

 sea should be pursued, and in the long run may be necessary to make possible 

 the survival of the marine ecosystem. However, establishing such controls will 

 require a long process of developing international technical machinery and 

 institutions, resolving legal questions regarding international regulation of 

 domestic activities, and achieving broad political acceptance. Therefore, the 

 introduction of these aspects of the marine pollution problem into the London 

 Conference only would have postponed indefinitely international controls over 

 ocean dumping. 



2. National Discretion in Granting Dumping Permits- The Convention allows 

 considerable latitude to the domestic aiithorities of the Parties in granting per- 

 mits or approvals for the dumping of various materials. The dumping of Annex II 

 materials is left to the discretion of each Party, subject to the requirements that 

 the criteria of Annex III be considered and that no dumping be permitted of 

 material determined by that Party to be as deleterious as Annex I materials. More 

 control might be provided by the transfer of particular Annex II substances to 

 Annex I ; by the empowering of some international body such as the IMCO or 

 GESAMP to monitor national dumping and to issue recommendations whenever 

 the continued dumping of particular substances in particular areas appears 

 hazardous ; or by the adoption of detailed restrictions on the location, water 

 depth, containerization, concentration, and the like, of the dumping of particular 

 Annex IT materials. Each of these approaches would meet with strong resistance 

 from industrialized countries concerned with i)reserving a reasonable of flexibility 

 for their domestic authorities in weighing the alternatives to ocean disposal in 

 each case with the environmental hazards of dumping at sea : indeed it is doubtful 

 whether the U.S. itself could have tolerated greater restraints on its flexibility. 

 Accordingly, it is believed that the subject Convention strikes a reasonable bal- 

 ance between the need to move to a prudently regulated international machinery 

 and the need to provide states with a degree of discretion in balancing, on a 

 case by case basis, the benefits of sea in contrast to land disposal. 



3. Vessels and Aircraft Cot-ered. — The Convention includes all waterborne and 

 airborne craft, but do<'S not apply to ves.sels and aircraft "entitled to sovereigji im- 

 munity under international law :" each Party does, however, i)ledge to "ensure 

 by the adoption of appropriate measures that such vessels and aircraft owned or 

 operated by it act in a manner consistent with tlie obje<'t and punio.st^ of this Con- 

 vention . . ." This exception exempts military craft and certain other craft in 

 government noncommercial service, and instead leaves their dumping activities 

 within the control of their flag state, subject to the general duty not to contra- 



