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

Notes to pp. 93–97 215
14. For the study requested by Maurice Strong and presented to the preparatory
committee suggesting the separation of the adjustable “technical part” from the
more permanent “diplomatic part” of an international treaty, see Contini and Sand
1972.
15. For example, as Christian A. Herter, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State
for Environmental Matters, explained about a then-recent attempt to reach an
agreement on control of oil pollution of the oceans: “It is very difficult to persuade
a number of countries that normal spillage-cleaning of tanks, this kind of thing-in
the ocean produced a very serious threat in terms of the total ocean . . . a certain
amount of scientific information was produced by experts pointing out the hazards
to marine life of oil pollution. But it was perfectly clear that more scientific information
and research on this topic was required, and the lack of it made the political
process more difficult.” (“Statement,” in U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation in the Human Environment through the
United Nations: March 15 and 16, 1972 (92nd Congress, 2nd session), p. 45)
16. For a detailed discussion of Brazil’s position at the Stockholm conference, see
Guimarães 1991, pp. 147–159.
17. See, e.g., Cowan 1970.
18. This symbolic advantage of completing a dumping convention was also apparent
to Hunter (1972, p. 17).
19. Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Canada, Chile, Cuba,
Cyprus, Denmark, France, Ghana, Iceland, Iran, Italy, Japan, Madagascar, Malta,
Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Soviet Union,
Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Arab Republic, United States, Yugoslavia.
20. “Report of the First Session of the Inter-Governmental Working Group on
Marine Pollution, London. 14–18 June 1971,” A/CONF.48/IWGMP.I/5 (June 21,
1971), p. 3.
21. “Address by the Secretary-General of the Conference—Mr. Maurice F. Strong,”
Annex IV to A/CONF.48/IWGMP.I/5, p. 2.
22. “Report of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Marine Pollution on Its
Second Session,”A/CONF.48/IWGMP.II/5 (November 22, 1971), p. 1.
23. Annex IV to A/CONF.48/IWGMP.I/5, p. 6.
24. According to Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Environmental
Affairs Christian A. Herter Jr.: “It was not felt in London that at this point it was
possible to deal with what you might call coastal and estuarine pollution because
there are enormously complicated problems involving jurisdictional boundaries
and all sorts of things, and as you are fully aware, the so-called law of the sea conference
is designed to deal with these problems of territorial jurisdiction. . . . It was
felt if we can get anything done at Stockholm at all, let’s keep it fairly simple.”
(“Statement,” in U.S. Senate, International Conference on Ocean Pollution, p. 35)
25. The U.S. draft reads: “No party shall issue permits for the transportation of such
material for dumping if the dumping thereof in the ocean would unreasonably
degrade or endanger human health, welfare or amenities, or the marine environment,