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

Notes to pp. 100–105 217
appeared in Article 12: “Nothing in this convention supplants any recommendations
designed to regulate the disposal of any material adopted by the International
Atomic Energy Agency.” (A/CONF.48/IWGMP.II/5, pp. 9–12)
32. Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Federal
Republic of Germany, Finland, France, Ghana, Iceland, India, Iran, Ireland, Ivory
Coast, Japan, Kenya, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal,
Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, United States.
33. See article 6 in the U.S. draft (Canadian Delegation, “Composite Articles on
Dumping from Vessels at Sea,” April 7, 1972).
34. The parties to the Oslo Convention had agreed that the convention should not
cover oil and radioactive materials. Article 14 (“The Contracting Parties pledge
themselves to promote, within the competent specialized agencies and other international
bodies, measures concerning the protection of the marine environment
against pollution caused by oil and oily wastes, other noxious or hazardous cargoes,
and radioactive materials”) indicated only that the member states agreed to
cooperate within the relevant forums; oil and radioactive materials accordingly were
not listed in the annexes. (memos, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, December
13, 1971, and May 1, 1972) For the text of the Oslo Convention, see Convention
for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, ILM
11 (November 1972), pp. 262–266. In 1992, the Oslo Convention merged with the
so-called Paris Convention to create the Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR).
35. See article 11 in Text of Draft Articles of a Convention for the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping (IMOD/2, April 15, 1972).
36. Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany,
France, Iceland, India, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Spain,
Sweden, United States.
37. See “Intergovernmental Meeting on Ocean Dumping. London, 30 and 31 May,
1972,” A/CONF.48/C.3/CRP.19/ (June 6, 1972), annex C (b).
38. Clearly, the ocean dumping convention was perceived to be at the top of the
list of concrete accomplishments in Stockholm: “To take the positive things first:
the conference resolved to establish an international convention on marine dumping.”
(Hawkes 1972b, p. 1308)
39. Commenting on the draft convention on ocean dumping, developing countries
insisted that “the Articles failed to distinguish between developed and developing
countries in terms of their relative capacity to pollute the oceans. It was feared
thereby that an unfair burden would be imposed on developing countries in the
event of such a convention coming into force. It was pointed out that an international
law to control dumping must, in the first place, avoid authorizing present
practices of dumping by industrialized countries, a possibility which has been
protested by a large majority of States already.” (quoted from Friedheim 1975, p.
179)
40. Eighty countries participated.
41. See also Timagenis 1980, pp. 193–195.