363 



vene the purposes of the Convention. This raises the question of whether the 

 Convention should have been expanded to apply to such vessels. During the Lon- 

 don Conference the United States indicated that it required an explicit military 

 exemption clause and others agreed to this position. Indeed, it is questionable 

 whether the Convention could have obtained the requisite endorsement of the 

 major powers, without such an exemption. It was the U.S. view, which others 

 shared, that subjecting the operations of military and related craft to interna- 

 tional regulation would be inconsistent with the operational freedom necessary 

 to permit such vessels to carry out their missions. We also felt coverage of mili- 

 tary vessels would represent an undesirable precedent from the standpoint of 

 U.S. national security interests. Accordingly, an amendment of tlie Convention 

 to now permit the coverage of U.S. military vessels would be contrary to the 

 stated U.S. position. 



Moreover, the exemption is not expected to weaken the Convention's effect when 

 one recognizes that each party is required to operate such excluded vessels and 

 aircraft in a manner consistent with the Convention's purpose. 



IX. General Conclusions 



Overnll and assuming bro<d adherence, the Convention would severely re- 

 strict the dumping of toxic substances into the marine environment and establish 

 a worldwide consciousness, that dumpings of all sorts should be a matter of gov- 

 ernmental concern and regulation. This should hive a salutory effect on states 

 that are not parties to the Treaty as well as those that are. 



Moreover, as noted, the Convention places great stress on the need of the par- 

 ties to "harmonize" their practices. Apart from minimizing adverse environ- 

 mental effects, such harmonization should serve to equalize the economic costs 

 that each nation will have to bear in complying with the provisions. The U.S. 

 recently enacted legislation, for the first time, regulating its own ocean dumi>- 

 ing activities. Thus, the proposed Convention should tend to assure that a number 

 of other countries abide by comparable practices. 



It is recognized that the regulation of ocean dumping offers at best the manage- 

 ment of approximately 109^ of the pollutants entering the world's ocean. This 

 Convention is. however, riewed as a first step in the direction of international 

 management of a common global resource. 



Draft Environmental Impact Statj^mrnt — Proposed Bill To Implement the 

 International Convention Relating to Intervention on the Hioh Seas 

 IN Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 



I. BACKGROUND 



In 1967 the Tnrrcy Canyon was the thirteenth largest ship afloat. She was 

 registered in Lil)eria, owned by a Bermuda-basetl subsidiary of the Union Oil 

 Company, chartered by British Petroleum and operated by an Italian crew. 



On March 18, 1967 the Torrry Canyon ran aground in international waters off 

 the coast of England. About half of the vessel's cargo or 60.000 tons of crude oil 

 were released into the Atlantic causing oil pollution damage of several millions 

 of dollars in England and France. The remainder of the cargo was either de- 

 stroyed as a result of actions taken by the British Government or remained 

 within the wreck. 



Substantial legal questions arose as a result of the accident. Since the ship 

 was in international waters, it was not c'ear under international law whether the 

 British Government had the right to act against the ship to prevent, mitigate, or 

 eliminate pollution damage. The Government did take action against the ship 

 but only after ten days of delay because of legal uncertainty. 



As a result of the accident, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Or- 

 ganization. (IMCO), a United Nations Specialized Agency with headquarters 

 in London, intensified deliberations on the problems of oil poUution. Subse- 

 quentlv, the IMCO I^egal Committee drafte^l two conventions. The first, the In- 

 ternational Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in cases of Oil 

 Pollution Casualties, concerns the right of a coastal state to take action against 

 a vessel in order to prevent oil ]>ollution and the right of the vessel owner to 

 receive compensation for unjustified action. The second, the International Con- 

 vention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, establishes the liability 



26-282 O - 74 - 25 



