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

214 Notes to pp. 90–93
3. For the published “basic paper” commissioned by the secretariat and produced
at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), see Serwer
1972, pp. 178–207.
4. For the published UNITAR report concerned with marine pollution, see
Schachter and Serwer 1971.
5. Similarly, an American economist’s account of one of the many environmental
meetings prior to Stockholm reads: “The United States is still about five years ahead
both in the dimensions of its problem and in the public awareness of what is happening.
. . . The most radical and iconoclastic voices raised on behalf of the environment
at the conference came from the Americans. . . . That David Brower of the
Friends of the Earth should respond that way was not too surprising, but that such
Establishment types as Stewart Udall, former Secretary of the Interior, or the scholarly
Raymond Fosberg of the Smithsonian Institution should share his views puzzled
otherwise sophisticated Europeans.” (Goldman 1971, pp. 358–359) On the
characteristic “doom-and-gloom” emphasis in American ecology debate and the
U.S. influence on the international environmental movement, see McCormick 1989,
pp. 69–87. For an overview of early American “environmental globalism” or
“world-order environmentalism” literature, see the appendix to Falk 1971.
6. Francesco Di Castri, “Statement,” in U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, and
House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics, International
Environmental Science: May 25 and 26, 1971 (92nd Congress, 1st session), p. 37.
7. See also Castro 1972, pp. 237–252.
8. See “Problems of Environment in India,” reprinted in U.S. Senate, Committee on
Commerce, and House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics,
International Environmental Science: May 25 and 26, 1971 (92nd Congress, 1st
session), pp. 222–229. See also Summary of the Indian National Report, in The
Human Environment, Volume 2—Summaries of National Reports. Submitted in
Preparation for UN Conference on the Human Environment (Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, 1972), pp. 35–40. China did not prepare a
national report for the Stockholm conference.
9. See “Environment and Development: The Founex Report on Development and
Environment,” International Conciliation 586 (January 1972), pp. 7–37. For a good
discussion, see Juda 1979, pp. 90–107.
10. “The World View in Stockholm,” Newsweek, June 12, 1972.
11. A columnist in Nigeria’s Lagos Daily Times offered this view: “The idea of family
planning as peddled by the Euro-American world is an attempt to keep Africa
weak.” (quoted in “The World View in Stockholm,” Newsweek, June 12, 1972)
12. See CESI Note/13, UN Centre for Economic and Social Information (November
10, 1970), p. 5.
13. The so-called Oslo Convention, which regulates dumping in the North Sea,
pioneered the use of black and gray lists. As in the negotiations on global ocean
dumping regime, the negotiators followed the advice of GESAMP. For the black
and gray lists adopted in the Oslo and Paris Conventions, see Bjerre and Hayward
1984, pp. 142–157.