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

Changing the Global Ocean Dumping Regime 141
ernment) differed from domestic policy. Hegemonic leadership was absent,
but, despite the realist claim to the contrary, this did not mean that regime
rules, principles, and norms had little influence on states or that states could
pursue their individual policy goals.
The Netherlands delegation explained to the meeting that it was looking
for possibilities to avoid dumping from 1983 and intended to store waste
on land. Owing to difficulties in finding suitable disposal alternatives,
dumping in 1983 could perhaps not be avoided. Japan believed that sea disposal
of radioactive waste would not adversely affect the marine environment
when international regulations, which presently rested on firm
scientific basis, were followed. The Japanese government therefore strongly
opposed proposals for prohibiting sea disposal.
During informal negotiations among the various delegations, it became
clear that the proposal to amend the convention would not receive support
from a sufficient number of governments. Agreement was reached, however,
that the scientific basis of the proposal by Nauru and Kiribati should
be reviewed by an expert group. The results of such a study should be discussed
in 1985, at which time further action should be taken.
The transnational opposition’s attack on the scientific basis of radwaste
disposal thus failed, but the regime provided anti-dumping nations with
other ways of protecting their interests. Spain proposed a moratorium resolution
(according to the London Convention, resolutions require a simple
majority) that meant a suspension of all dumping at sea pending completion
of such an expert group study of effects of dumping of low-level
radioactive waste on the marine environment and human health (LDC
1983a, Annex 3: Resolution LDC.14(7) Disposal of Radio-Active Wastes
and Other Radio-Active Matter at Sea). In a subsequent roll call vote, which
the United States and Britain failed to block, 19 countries—Spain, Portugal,
the Nordic countries, Ireland, Canada, and almost all developing countries—voted
in favor of the Spanish proposal (Curtis 1983a,b). 38 (See table
8.1.) The sponsors of the moratorium resolution easily persuaded the developing
countries 39 to support the moratorium (interview, José Juste Ruiz,
November 29, 1991). The group of countries considering or involved in
dumping voted against the resolution. Five countries abstained. Although
the moratorium resolution was not legally binding on governments, several
delegations indicated that it was morally binding. The nuclear industry,
among others, thus expected that continued ocean dumping would