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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Interest-Based Regime Analysis 99 situation and serve as evidence of the utility of international co-operation to protect the oceans. Proposals with regard to the control of ocean dumping are a specific step for which preparation should go forward with urgency.” (A/CONF.48/IWGMP.I/5, p. 13) A global ocean dumping convention appeared to be within reach in the immediate future. The Ottawa Session The second session of the IWGMP took place in Ottawa on November 8–12, 1971. It was attended by representatives from 41 states and representatives from the Stockholm secretariat, GESAMP, the FAO, UNESCO and its IOC, the WHO, UNITAR, the WMO, IMCO, and the IAEA. 27 In general discussion, the IWGMP “reaffirmed the importance of urgent and effective action against marine pollution, especially by dumping” (“Report of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Marine Pollution on Its Second Session,”A/CONF.48/IWGMP.II/5 (November 22, 1971), p. 7) Although recent progress toward regional institution building was welcomed by the IWGMP (the Oslo Convention, officially the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, had been drafted October 22, 1971), many states were in agreement that action at a global level was necessary in order to link together and complement regional arrangements. Moreover, several developing countries thought that the Oslo Convention should not serve as a model for the global dumping convention. Instead, it was crucial that a convention not have loopholes that would allow developed countries to dump substances that under no circumstances should be dumped. This point was repeated during the final negotiations at the London Conference, particularly by the developing countries (memo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, December 6, 1972, p. 3). But a global convention should, on the other hand, not hinder the industrialization of developing countries. Brazil had made this clear at the first session. 28 In addition, some of the smaller Western European countries, including the Netherlands and Finland, were concerned about the risk of excessively vague rules of exemption from the lists of substances banned by a global convention (memo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, December 6, 1972, p. 3). To that end, a drafting group set up on an open-ended basis produced a number of provisional articles. Several draft articles took a firmer prohibitory and restrictive stance than the first U.S. draft convention. 29 Moreover, although not yet specified, a
100 Chapter 6 distinction between “general permits” and “special permits” was made. 30 In addition, dumping of a number of substances was directly prohibited. Importantly, disagreement as to whether radioactive waste should be regulated by the convention had emerged. Draft articles put mentions of radioactive wastes in brackets, indicating that the issue was unresolved. 31 “North-South” conflicts did not significantly influence the Ottawa session. Anticipating the coming conflict, Spain recognized among several identified “duties of international cooperation” the need for assistance from “states at higher levels of technological and scientific development” to states that would request it (A/CONF.48/IWGMP.II/5, Annex 4, paragraph 11). Time did not permit discussion of this principle. The Reykjavik Session The Ottawa session had decided that the IWGMP should meet again and should attempt to draft a convention on ocean dumping before the Stockholm conference. In the words of the meeting report, the session held in Reykjavik on April 10–15 , 1972, was convened “in the hope that agreement on concrete global action might be reached before the [Stockholm conference]” (“Report of the Intergovernmental Meeting on Ocean Dumping,” IMOD/4 (April 15, 1972), p. 2). Because regional cooperation appeared unlikely in view of the complexity of the problems and the short time available for negotiation, the meeting was convened under the more indicative working title “Intergovernmental Meeting on Ocean Dumping.” It was attended by representatives from 29 states and by observers from the FAO, the IMCO, and the IAEA. 32 The meeting established a drafting group, which was presented with a negotiation text consisting of the draft convention proposed by the United States, draft articles produced at the previous meeting, the Oslo Convention, and draft articles proposed by Canada. To prevent pollution of the sea, the United States suggested that “the Parties pledge themselves to take all feasible steps.” The Oslo Convention and the text from the previous meeting agreed that “the Contracting Parties pledge themselves to take all possible steps.” Canada proposed that “Parties pledge themselves to prevent the pollution of the sea” (“Composite Articles on Dumping from Vessels at Sea,” Canadian Delegation, April 7, 1972). After considering the various drafts and the proposal of the drafting group, the meeting reached agreement on this formulation of article 1: “Each Party pledges
Page 1 and 2:
Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea P
Page 3 and 4:
Global Environmental Accord: Strate
Page 5 and 6:
© 2001 Massachusetts Institute of
Page 8:
Series Foreword A new recognition o
Page 11 and 12:
x Preface International Climate and
Page 14 and 15:
1 Introduction In this book I seek
Page 16 and 17:
Introduction 3 aimed to identify ca
Page 18 and 19:
Introduction 5 that I document cont
Page 20 and 21:
Introduction 7 may not fit easily i
Page 22 and 23:
Introduction 9 many regime analysts
Page 24 and 25:
Introduction 11 broad range of nons
Page 26 and 27:
Introduction 13 international organ
Page 28 and 29:
Introduction 15 caught my attention
Page 30 and 31:
Introduction 17 my understanding of
Page 32:
Introduction 19 prohibition even th
Page 35 and 36:
22 Chapter 2 it enters the body, th
Page 37 and 38:
24 Chapter 2 most important being r
Page 39 and 40:
26 Chapter 2 (McDougal and Burke 19
Page 41 and 42:
28 Chapter 2 mainly disposed of in
Page 43 and 44:
30 Chapter 2 In 1983, in response t
Page 45 and 46:
32 Chapter 2 Table 2.3 Status of lo
Page 47 and 48:
34 Chapter 2 In a world searching f
Page 49 and 50:
36 Chapter 3 War, Machiavelli’s T
Page 51 and 52:
38 Chapter 3 of international organ
Page 53 and 54:
40 Chapter 3 constructed. For examp
Page 55 and 56:
42 Chapter 3 order to pave the way
Page 57 and 58:
44 Chapter 3 It seems quite plausib
Page 59 and 60:
46 Chapter 3 constrained to take ca
Page 61 and 62: 48 Chapter 3 change. For instance,
Page 63 and 64: 50 Chapter 3 involving large number
Page 65 and 66: 52 Chapter 3 begin.” The consumer
Page 67 and 68: 54 Chapter 3 advocate policies only
Page 69 and 70: 56 Chapter 3 for a regime that refl
Page 72 and 73: 4 Scientific Advice and Ocean Dumpi
Page 74 and 75: Knowledge-Based Regime Analysis 61
Page 86 and 87: 5 Ocean Dumping and U.S Domestic Po
Page 88 and 89: Power-Based Regime Analysis 75 seri
Page 90 and 91: Power-Based Regime Analysis 77 Grou
Page 92 and 93: Power-Based Regime Analysis 79 the
Page 94 and 95: Power-Based Regime Analysis 81 said
Page 96 and 97: Power-Based Regime Analysis 83 be t
Page 98 and 99: Power-Based Regime Analysis 85 Poll
Page 100 and 101: 6 Negotiating the Global Ocean Dump
Page 102 and 103: Interest-Based Regime Analysis 89 e
Page 104 and 105: Interest-Based Regime Analysis 91 S
Page 106 and 107: Interest-Based Regime Analysis 93 c
Page 108 and 109: Interest-Based Regime Analysis 95 1
Page 110 and 111: Interest-Based Regime Analysis 97 v
Page 114 and 115: Interest-Based Regime Analysis 101
Page 122 and 123: 7 Explaining Regime Formation Build
Page 124 and 125: Explaining Regime Formation 111 ori
Page 126 and 127: Explaining Regime Formation 113 dem
Page 128 and 129: Explaining Regime Formation 115 Tim
Page 130 and 131: Explaining Regime Formation 117 Pow
Page 132 and 133: Explaining Regime Formation 119 mot
Page 134 and 135: Explaining Regime Formation 121 tri
Page 136 and 137: Explaining Regime Formation 123 blo
Page 138 and 139: Explaining Regime Formation 125 enc
Page 140 and 141: Explaining Regime Formation 127 At
Page 142 and 143: Explaining Regime Formation 129 inp
Page 144 and 145: 8 Changing the Global Ocean Dumping
Page 146 and 147: Changing the Global Ocean Dumping R
Page 162 and 163:
Changing the Global Ocean Dumping R
Page 164 and 165:
Changing the Global Ocean Dumping R
Page 166 and 167:
9 Explaining Regime Change The Chan
Page 168 and 169:
Explaining Regime Change 155 engage
Page 170 and 171:
Explaining Regime Change 157 adopt
Page 172 and 173:
Explaining Regime Change 159 Yet th
Page 174 and 175:
Explaining Regime Change 161 to tha
Page 176 and 177:
Explaining Regime Change 163 Schola
Page 178 and 179:
Explaining Regime Change 165 First,
Page 180 and 181:
Explaining Regime Change 167 compan
Page 182 and 183:
Explaining Regime Change 169 al. 19
Page 184 and 185:
10 Conclusion Since the 1960s a num
Page 186 and 187:
Conclusion 173 mon, moreover, the U
Page 188 and 189:
Conclusion 175 entrepreneurs, in co
Page 190 and 191:
Conclusion 177 nomic arrangements o
Page 192 and 193:
Conclusion 179 nalized by other soc
Page 194 and 195:
Conclusion 181 It should also be ac
Page 196 and 197:
Conclusion 183 likely to be influen
Page 198 and 199:
Conclusion 185 sidered of paramount
Page 200 and 201:
Looking Back and Looking Ahead Conc
Page 202 and 203:
Conclusion 189 importance of agreei
Page 204 and 205:
Conclusion 191 social and economic
Page 206:
Conclusion 193 costly and unwise so
Page 209 and 210:
196 Key Events 1993 Results of stud
Page 211 and 212:
198 Notes to pp. 5-18 12. The Conve
Page 213 and 214:
200 Notes to pp. 25-30 13. Informat
Page 215 and 216:
202 Notes to pp. 35-42 2. On policy
Page 217 and 218:
204 Notes to pp. 46-51 31. For exam
Page 219 and 220:
206 Notes to pp. 61-64 4. Barry Com
Page 221 and 222:
208 Notes to pp. 67-74 27. See P. H
Page 223 and 224:
210 Notes to pp. 75-78 10. See also
Page 225 and 226:
212 Notes to pp. 82-83 September 9,
Page 227 and 228:
214 Notes to pp. 90-93 3. For the p
Page 229 and 230:
216 Notes to pp. 97-100 ecological
Page 231 and 232:
218 Notes to pp. 106-115 42. On the
Page 233 and 234:
220 Notes to pp. 122-127 the Pacifi
Page 235 and 236:
222 Notes to pp. 134-135 Draft Envi
Page 237 and 238:
224 Notes to pp. 140-145 36. Hollis
Page 239 and 240:
226 Notes to pp. 150-158 73. See LC
Page 241 and 242:
228 Notes to pp. 165-182 19. “The
Page 243 and 244:
230 Notes to pp. 189-192 24. The LC
Page 245 and 246:
232 References Birnie, Patricia W.,
Page 247 and 248:
234 References Cooper, Richard N. 1
Page 249 and 250:
236 References Finnemore, Martha, a
Page 251 and 252:
238 References Haas, Peter M. 1990a
Page 253 and 254:
240 References Jervis, R. 1976. Per
Page 255 and 256:
242 References LDC. 1983b. Critical
Page 257 and 258:
244 References Miles, Edward L. 198
Page 259 and 260:
246 References Pearson, Charles S.
Page 261 and 262:
248 References Rosenau, James N. 19
Page 263 and 264:
250 References Spiller, Judith, and
Page 265 and 266:
252 References U.S. Senate. 1971. O
Page 268:
Interviews Cited Aarkrog, Asker, He
Page 271 and 272:
258 Index Environmental nongovernme
Page 273 and 274:
260 Index Oceanic Society, 135 Ocea
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?