Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO

Interest-Based Regime Analysis 97
vent marine pollution. Yet, in addition to drawing up a comprehensive plan
for preservation of the marine environment, it was decided to single out
particular aspects of marine pollution for which it might be possible to conclude
a treaty at the Stockholm conference (A/CONF.48/IWGMP.I/5, p. 5).
A U.S. draft convention (“Regulation of Transportation for Ocean
Dumping Convention”) and regional arrangements to protect seas or
groups of seas were the main topics mentioned in this connection. Although
discussions on regional arrangements would have to wait until the next session,
since detailed proposals did not exist, widespread support for a global
arrangement for dumping control was expressed. 24
Under the U.S. draft convention, the convention would apply to dumping
by all means of transportation; other sources of marine pollution (for
instance, land-based sources, such as pipelining from the coast) would be
excluded from the convention. Transportation of all materials from land
for the purpose of dumping at sea would be prohibited unless a permit was
issued by relevant state authorities. For that purpose, each state should
establish criteria for the issuance of dumping permits. These criteria, which
gave rise to debate, generally should be designed to “avoid degrading or
endangering human health, jeopardizing marine life, and economic uses of
the ocean” (A/CONF.48/IWGMP.I/5, p. 6). States should then notify an
international registry as to the kinds and amounts disposed of, the location
of the disposal site, and other relevant data.
The question of the prohibitory and restrictive stance (or lack of same)
of the U.S. draft convention stirred debate. A number of states believed that
the convention should primarily prohibit ocean dumping and should consider
for disposal only those materials “whose harmless effects could be
demonstrated in the light of existing knowledge and experience” (ibid., p.
6). Referring to the work done by GESAMP, it was suggested that whereas
dumping of some substances might be prohibited, dumping of others might
be allowed, subject to a license. Other countries found the suggestions of the
U.S. draft more acceptable.
The U.S. draft did not distinguish between permitting and prohibiting
ocean dumping. 25 Sweden, which in January of 1972 passed a law prohibiting
ocean dumping altogether, found it too lax. Moreover, the criteria
for issuance of dumping permits left too much discretion to individual
states. Canada suggested that elements of the GESAMP definition of marine
pollution be incorporated in the U.S. proposal. Since the draft convention