part1
The Preventive Conventions
CHAPTER 1
International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 and Protocol of 1973
Section I â The Convention of 1969
1 The History of the Convention
On 18 March 1967, the Torrey Canyon, a single screw tanker built in 1959 of 61,263 gross tons and 48,437 net tons, with a deadweight capacity of 120,890 tons on her winter marks, loaded with 119,328 tons of crude oil shipped by BP Trading Limited of the United Kingdom, her ultimate destination being Milford Haven, Wales, ran aground on the Seven Stones reef between the Scilly Isles and Lands End. In the opinion of the Board of Investigation set up by the Liberian Government, the stranding was due solely to the negligence of the master.
The stranding damaged many of the cargo tanks and by 20 March it was estimated that 30,000 tons of oil had spilled into the sea. On 25 March, oil began to arrive on Cornish beaches, 100 miles of coastline being affected. On 26 March high seas and strong winds caused the ship to break her back, releasing an estimated further 30,000 tons of crude oil. Between 28 and 30 March, the ship was bombed by British Naval and Air Forces in order to open the remaining tanks and release the rest of the oil into the sea. The oil was then set on fire by dropping aviation fuel, napalm and sodium chlorate devices; it is believed that all the oil in the vicinity of the wreck was destroyed by 30 March. Some oil also reached the coast of Brittany, where it caused considerable damage.
Not long after the commencement of the work aiming at adopting uniform rules on the liability for oil pollution damage the attention was called within IMCO to the need to carry out studies aimed at adopting measures that could strengthen the safety of navigation and obviate the danger of pollution.1 Two alternative approaches were considered: either to recommend national action or to adopt international rules. These were the object of a guidance paper of the United States, in which the advantages and disadvantages of both alternatives were considered.2 Another guidance paper was submitted by the United Kingdom3 and comments thereon were submitted to the Working Group constituted by the IMCOâs Legal Committee by several governments.4 Such documents were considered by the Working Group at its first session and, at its second session, the Working Group, after discussing the agenda items,5 prepared a Report to the Council enclosing draft articles on the right of a coastal State to intervene in case of a casualty occurring outside its territorial sea which causes, or might cause, pollution by oil.6 The need for an international convention arose from the fact that pursuant to art. 6(1) of the International Convention on the High Seas 1958, no State could take police action beyond its territorial waters against ships flying a foreign flag: the jurisdiction over vessels when sailing on the high seas pertained exclusively to the flag State.7
The draft articles (except art. VIII) were adopted by the International Conference held in November 1969 with very few changes.
2 The Scope Of Application Of The Convention
Article I(1) states:
Parties to the present Convention may take such measures on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent, mitigate or eliminate grave and imminent danger to their coastline or related interests from pollution or threat of pollution of the sea by oil, following upon a maritime casualty or acts related to such casualty, which may reasonably be expected to result in major harmful consequences.
It is not easy to draw a distinction between the rules on the scope of application of the Convention and the rules that set out the conditions under which the measures necessary to prevent, mitigate or eliminate grave and imminent danger to the coastline or related interests from pollution or threat of pollution of the sea by oil may be adopted. It is suggested, however, that the rules that pertain to the scope of application of the Convention are those that relate to the notion of âmaritime casualtyâ, to the area in which the measures may be taken and to the notion of ship.
2.1 The notion of âmaritime casualtyâ
Maritime casualty is defined in art. II(1) as follows:
âMaritime casualtyâ means a collision of ships, stranding or other incident of navigation, or other occurrence on board a ship or external to it resulting in material damage or imminent threat of material damage to a ship or cargo.
During the Conference, the Canadian delegate objected to this definition, which had already appeared in the draft articles prepared by the Legal Committee, on the ground that the purpose of the Convention was not to protect the ship and cargo, but to protect the coastline and related interests; the coastal State should not be compelled to prove that the incident which had occurred had caused material damage to the ship.8 The Syrian delegate then suggested that the words âa ship or cargoâ at the end of the sentence should be replaced by âa coastal State or Statesâ.9 There followed a long and not very constructive debate, during which perhaps the most significant comment against the Canadian proposal was made by the Irish delegate, who stated that the words the deletion of which was suggested were essential, âotherwise a slight incident of navigation, such as a mere change of course, might be interpreted as justifying an interventionâ.10 Both the concern about the wording of this provision, and that about the effect of its suggested amendment had some justification. The definition of maritime casualty must be read into art. I(1) from which it appears that the danger must arise from either a casualty or acts related to such a casualty. The âmaterial damageâ is definitely a constituent element of the notion of âmaritime casualtyâ, even if it is not required that such material damage has occurred. It is sufficient that there is an âimminent threatâ of its occurrence, as would be the case for a tanker grounded on rocks in calm sea that has not suffered any damage, but would suffer significant damage if the weather had turned from calm to stormy. The danger may follow, rather than from a maritime casualty, from an act related to it, as would be the case if unskilful attempts to refloat a grounded ship were made. But, in any event, there must be either material damage or an imminent threat of material damage to a ship or her cargo. Since the cargo is oil, the damage to the cargo may occur in case of fire or of discharge of the oil into the sea. It appears that the type of occurrence to which the Convention does not apply is that of voluntary discharge of oil (or oil residues) from a ship except where it is made for the purpose of salving the ship.
The âmaritime casualtyâ must therefore involve a ship or her cargo. Its nature is described in rather loose terms, since reference is made, in addition to collision and stranding, to other incidents of navigation or other occurrence either on board a ship or external to it. âIncident in navigationâ is an expression previously used also in the 1952 Convention on Penal Jurisdiction: while in the contemporary Civil Jurisdiction Convention reference is made to collision only, in the Penal Jurisdiction Convention there is added, after collision, the reference to âother incidents of navigationâ. Although no explanation may be found in the travaux prĂ©paratoires for the reason of such addition, a precedent may be found in those of the 1910 Collision Convention, from which it appears that, following a proposal by the Belgian delegate to extend the scope of application of the Convention to other incident of navigation,11 there was in the draft convention an article â art. 13 â that provided that the Convention applied also to the making good of damages which a vessel has caused to another vessel, or to goods on board either of them by the execution of a manoeuvre or by the non-observance of regulations. It appears, therefore, that a similar meaning must be given to the phrase âother incident of navigationâ in the definition of âmaritime casualtyâ.
However the cause of danger of pollution is further extended by the subsequent words âor other occurrenceâ and the statement that such occurrence may take place either on board the ship or be âexternalâ to the ship. An occurrence on board may consist of a fire or of an explosion. An occurrence on the high seas external to the ship, that could justify the taking of measures against that ship, is more difficult to conceive.
2.2 The area in which the measures may be taken
The geographic scope of application of the Convention is the high seas. The reason for this is twofold. Pursuant to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, as amended, the coastal State has full competence to act within its territorial waters and, as previously stated, a State has, pursuant to art. 6(1) of the Convention on the High Seas 1958, exclusive jurisdiction over ships flying its flag.12
2.3 The notion of âshipâ
Article II(2) provides the following definition of ship:
âshipâ means:
(a) any sea-going vessel of any type whatsoever, and
(b) any floating craft, with the exception of an installation or device engaged in the exploration and exploitation of the resources of the sea-bed and the ocean floor and the subsoil thereof.
The first question that arises relates to the notion of âsea-going vesselâ. The reason why this reference has been made is unclear. Since, in fact, the Convention applies to measures taken on the high seas, there was no reason to qualify the relevant vessel as âsea-goingâ since it is obvious that such vessel was âgoingâ at sea, failing which the Convention would not apply. Since it would not make sense to exclude from the scope of ...