to develop environmental standards to govern the 
operations, and would thus avoid the possibility of 
“flags of convenience”; 
e establishes, in effect, a new legal rule that tech- 
nical international rules and standards on protect- 
ing the marine environment will become binding 
on all states once they are generally accepted; 
® establishes the principle that port states may 
prosecute foreign flag ships for discharges in vio- 
lation of applicable international standards, re- 
gardless of where the discharge occurred; 
® expands the coastal state powers to enforce anti- 
pollution laws within the 200-mile zone consistent 
with International Conventions; and 
e provides legal protection of arrested vessels by 
requiring prompt release of vessels, reasonable 
bond, avoidance of danger to the vessel, nondis- 
crimination, a “statute of limitations on prosecu- 
tions,” avoidance of multiple prosecutions for the 
same offense in different jurisdictions, “recognized 
rights of the accused,” monetary penalties only, 
notice to the flag state and “any other state con- 
cerned” of measures being taken, and _ liability 
of the state for enforcement measures which “were 
unlawful or exceeded those reasonably required 
in the light of available information.” 
In an attempt to address the significant global en- — 
vironmental problems the United Nations held a 
Conference on the Human Environment in June 
1972 in Stockholm. A product of the Stockholm 
Conference was the “Declaration on the Human En- 
vironment,” which included recommendations, some 
of which address specifically the problems of marine 
pollution. These included: (1) that governments 
“accept and implement controls on marine pollu- 
tion”; (2) that governments support marine research, 
particularly the Global Investigation of Pollution in 
the Marine Environment (GIMPE) and the Inte- 
grated Global Ocean Station System (IGOSS); (3) 
that the United Nations-sponsored Joint Group of 
Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollu- 
tion “evaluate the toxicity of potential marine pollu- 
tants and their sources and pathways in the marine 
environment”; and (4) that the governments support 
the 1973 Law of the Sea and the IMCO Marine Pol- 
lution Conferences. Among the achievements of the 
Stockholm conference was the creation of the UN 
Environmental Program (UNEP), which was estab- 
lished to initiate and coordinate environmental 
projects undertaken by the UN agencies, drawing 
where necessary on the “Environment Fund” (which 
is supported by voluntary contributions from gov- 
ernments) to help finance international environ- 
mental activities.** A major component of the UNEP 
program focuses on the marine environment, and it 
has initiated a number of regional conventions to 
protect heavily polluted marine seas. The most ad- 
vanced of these is the Convention for the Protection 
of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, which 
was brought into force in February 1978, 2 years 
after it was signed at Barcelona, Spain. 
The solution to worldwide ocean pollution prob- 
lems must come from cooperative action among the 
maritime and coastal nations. Uniformly stringent 
global standards are a goal of the future. Imple- 
mentation of the standards, however, wili remain the 
responsibility of the sovereign states. It is unlikely 
that enforcement authority will be delegated to an 
international organization in the foreseeable future. 
Some states that feel while uniformity among nations 
is a desirable goal, international agreements on pollu- 
tion control and environmental standards tend to 
seek the level of the lowest common denominator. 
The conventions administered through the Inter- 
Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization 
are cases in point. The effectiveness of the pollution 
convention, for example, has been criticized because 
the standards of the international agreement are less 
stringent than the U.S. standards.** More recently, 
IMCO has formed a Marine Environment Protection 
Committee, which has improved its effectiveness. 
Although international agreements are, by necessity, 
compromise or consensus settlements, they are often 
one of the most effective means of protecting the 
world’s environment. Recent examples of effective 
international agreements regarding marine environ- 
mental protection are the 1973 International Con- 
vention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 
(1973 MARPOL), the 1974 International Conven- 
tion for the Safety of Life at Sea (1974 SOLAS), 
and the Protocols to both of these Conventions 
resulting from the 1973 International Conference on 
Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention. These 
agreements were developed under the auspices of 
IMCO. 
Governmental Efforts to Control or Mitigate Marine Pollution 
The United States was among the first nations to 
recognize the potential danger of marine pollution. 
Congress acted early using the commerce clause of 
the Constitution to regulate and protect the public 
waters. Recognizing that the growth in urban areas 
during the 1870s and 1880s produced noticeable 
pollution in the harbors of many northeastern cities, 
the Congress enacted the first pollution statute, the 
Act of June 29, 1888, for the purpose of barring 
“Ibid., p. 40. 
™ Richard Frank. “Environmental Consequences of Deep-Sea 
Mining,” in Law of the Sea: Conference Outcomes and Problems 
of Implementation, Edward Miles and John K. Gamble, Jr. 
(eds.). Cambridge, Mass., Bollinger Publishing Co., 1977, 452 p. 
VI-8 
