Source: http://bernaerts-sealaw.com/_A/a/125-131.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 09:56:42+00:00

Document:
(g) Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), 1973.
The Convention refers only to generally accepted international regulations, pro�cedure, and practice (Art. 94, Para. 5) or uses similar wording, e.g., (Art. 211, Para. 2) but never specifically to any established conventions. There was a two-fold purpose to this method. On the one hand, it avoids a situation where states parties to the 1982 Convention would be bound to conventions which they have not ratified, and, on the other hand, opens several possibilities for interpretation as shown by the following example: when in regard to general safety of ships the 1982 Convention requires the flag state to �conform to...international regulations,� (Art. 94, Para. 5) there is a certain leeway for freedom of interpretation, a deliberate measure to lessen the burden on developing countries trying to establish their own shipping industry. But it can easily be imagined that a precise determination would not be simple one way or the other.
The part of the Convention dealing with the global regime for the prevention of pollution is one of the most detailed in the entire document, regulating the obligations, responsibilities, and powers of the states. (Part XII) There are two possible reasons for this. One is that pollution prevention law is a new legal field which is not burdened with older legal concepts; but of greater impact have undoubtedly been the shocks following disastrous tanker accidents and the growing concern that unless action is taken to stop the spread of pollution from vessels and other sources the marine environment will suffer serious and long-term damage. A major step towards the implementation of global and regional regulations and measures for the prevention of pollution and for the general protection and preservation of the marine environment was taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 in Stockholm . Following this conference, many regional agreements negotiated under the auspices of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) were prepared.
The 1982 Convention defines pollution (Art. 1, Subpara. 1(4)) and establishes a general duty to protect the marine environment and the measures to be taken, (Art. 192; Art. 194) and outlines methods of co-operation, including monitoring and technical assistance. (Art. 197-206).
With respect to various sources of pollution, the Convention adheres closely to the policy of legislation, followed by enforcement. The pollution regulations can be divided into two parts: (a) pollution from the sources �land-based�, (Art. 207; Art. 213) �sea�bed", (Art. 208; Art. 209) atmosphere, (Art. 212) and all kinds of dumping, (Art. 1, Subpara. 1(5); Art. 210; Art. 216; Art. 214; Art. 215) and (b) pollution from vessels, except warships and other governmental vessels in non-commercial service (Art. 236). Pollution matters in the second case are separate from the other sources in that provisions are implemented supplementary to the basic concept of legislation and enforcement in order to balance the interests between the flag state and the coastal state with respect to their jurisdiction.
- Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships.
International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, Brussels 1969.
- Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, Brussels , 1952.
In compliance with the general obligations of all member states as laid down in the United Nations Charter to maintain peace and security and strengthen universal peace, (UN Charter, Art. 1) the 1982 Convention affirms these principles, (Preamble; Art. 138; Art. 301) but also goes further by reserving �the high seas for peaceful purposes�, (Art. 88) opening the Area exclusively for peaceful purposes, (Art. 141; Art. 147, Subpara. 2(d)) and requiring that marine scientific research be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes. (Art. 240, Subpara. (a); Art. 246, Para . 3) However, it is hard to see where these noble sentiments have a practical legal impact. In the third decade of the existence of the United Nations (1975-1985) alone, there were about fifteen fishing disputes, thirty major demarcation diputes, and a similar number of major military operations. The oceans are �packed� with military equipment and electronic devices. Some argue that this is necessary to maintain peace; others, of course, see it as a threat to peace. These contradictory viewpoints reflect the fact that the Convention is a compromise at the lowest common denominator, and as long as the phrase �for peaceful purposes� is not defined more precisely, its impact will depend on the politics of the moment and it will not develop any authority of its own. However, the mere fact that the phrase exists and is used in the Convention can lend weight to arguments and further demand for a definition of �peaceful purposes� in order to make the expression applicable.
All in all, the Convention is a law which aims to establish and maintain justice for all, and as such will be of benefit for all. But as it is also a political document, there are some subjects more related to substantive goals rather than- simple regulation. Provisions of a regulatory nature can provide justice only when applied to relations among partners with equal footing in a social and economic system; the wider any existing gap between partners is, the less law will be able to provide justice. There is at the moment a considerable economic gap between the northern and southern hemispheres of our globe, and it is essential for the peace and security of the world that measures be provided to close this gap. The Convention incorporates to this end three substantive measures.
The first of these is, in particular, the dedication of the deep-sea area and its resources to all people (Art. 136-137) on the basis of �equal sharing� and, in general, the regime of the (Area. Part XI) Second, marine scientific research and marine technology are given a new dimension of importance, as almost 100 provisions, or one-third of the Convention, deal with various aspects and to varying degrees with these subjects. Finally, a complete Part of the Convention is dedicated to the devel�opment and transfer of marine technology (Part XIV) in order to encourage co�operation and the establishment of regional centres (Art. 275-277) by means of which research, training, and transfer of technology can be provided; this part is at all times to be read, interpreted, and practiced in accordance with the regime of marine scientific research and the regime of the Area.
These provisions aimed at reducing the economic differences between North and South are basically weak in spite of the impressiveness of the number, but they are nonetheless of significance because they have found their way into the charter of the oceans, require co-operation and transfer of technology, and impose considerable responsibility on international organizations.
The 1982 Convention is the Magna Carta of the law of the sea, and as such it provides only the general legal framework for all aspects of the use of the oceans. The framework contains considerable detail (which does not necessarily mean precision) with regard to some subjects, e.g., �innocent passage,� (Art. 17-32) deep sea mining, (Part XI) and pollution from vessels. (Art. 211; Art. 217-234) In contrast, the Con�vention provides no more than a programme for some subjects, e.g., enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, (Part IX) and in some cases does no more than make a statement without further elaboration, e.g., the phrase �reserved for peaceful purposes.� (Art. 88) But all provisions are intended to unify universal law and erect barriers against deviating national law, especially when it is less strict than international standards.
(c) One of the most significant instruments of unification is the compulsory dispute settlement system provided by the Convention. (Part XII) Decisions from these tribunals would in many respects be a great contribution to the law of the sea.
(d) Last but not least, reference should be made to the Preamble of the Convention, which calls for the achievement of justice and equal rights through the Convention, a goal which can only be reached by means of a highly unified law.
The Convention system for settlement of disputes (Part XV) must be seen against the background of the international mechanism for resolving conflicts. Basically, all nations observe the principles of international law and fulfil their obligations on a kind of honour system and in good faith; if a nation refuses to observe these principles � and neither diplomacy nor political pressure can effect a change � military power may well be the only mechanism available to force this nation to meet its obligations, as the international legal system has virtually no means of enfolding judicial decisions or contractual obligations (such as treaties or international conventions). This century has seen many attempts to develop systems for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. One such attempt relevant for the 1982 Convention was the establishment of the International Court of Justice by the United Nations Charter of 1945. The Court of Justice is a principal organ of the United Nations, and all,members of the United Nations may apply to the Court; but there is no general obligation to submit disputes to the Court of Justice.
The importance of the dispute settlement system provided by the Convention is that states parties which disagree on the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Convention are, at least to some extent, (Art. 286; Art. 297-298) bound to settle the dispute through courts or tribunals as described in the Convention. (Art. 287) A special dispute settlement system is designed for the activities in the sea-bed Area. (Art. 287; Art. 186-190) Within the general system, states have the choice among four fora, which include the International Court of Justice; (Art. 287, Subpara. 1(b)) the other three are (a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, (b) an arbitral tribunal, and (c) a special arbitral tribunal. (Art. 287, Para. 1) To a large extent, this is the restdt of compromises which made it easier for the states to swallow the bitter pill of surrendering a part of'their sovereignty in accepting a compulsory system by giving them a wider choice of the court or tribunal to which they might apply, depending on the trust they have in a particular judicial organ. The law of the sea dispute settlement system is urgently needed for the unification of the law of the sea. If one considers the complexity which has evolved in the law of the sea in only a few decades, the economic possibilities of the oceans, the importance of the seas for mankind, and the countless aspects which must be taken into account in achieving justice, one will be forced to the conclusion that a compulsory dispute settlement is essential.

References: Art. 194
 Art. 213
 Art. 209
 Art. 210
 Art. 216
 Art. 214
 Art. 215
 Art. 1
 Art. 138
 Art. 301
 Art. 147
 Art. 246
 Art. 217
 Art. 297
 Art. 186