J 57 JILI 2015 48 17ba041 Nluoacin 20211020 043258 1 23

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Wednesday, October 20, 2021

Printed For: Harshit Joshi, National Law University Orissa
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57 JILI (2015) 48
Protecting the Marine Environment: Understanding the Role of International Environmental Law and
Policy
PROTECTING THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND
POLICY
by
Tony George Puthucherril*
ABSTRACT
After providing an introductory overview of some of the major threats to the marine environment, including
climate change and sea level rise, this article focuses upon the specific global and regional legal efforts to address
marine pollution from the perspective of three sources, namely, land based sources, vessel based sources and
ocean dumping. Thereafter, it assesses the adequacy of existing international environmental legal regimes for
regulating marine pollution. The article forwards recommendations to create a more robust international legal
regime to address problems confronting the marine environment.
I. Introduction
ON MARCH 8, 2014, MH370, a Malaysian Boeing aircraft mysteriously disappeared with its passengers and crew,
while travelling on a routine flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. This led to one of the biggest search hunts in
human history for the missing jet; first in the Gulf of Thailand and then in the South China Sea; later extended to
the Strait of Malacca and to the Andaman Sea. Subsequently, the search shifted to the southern part of the Indian
Ocean. In all these places, floating objects were found in the waters, which raised the false alarm. In actuality, these
turned out to be nothing more than mere rubbish - fishing nets and equipment, shipping containers, lost buoys, and
seaweed. Practically, the search for the elusive jet shifted the spotlight to one of the major problems confronting
mankind, one, that is conveniently forgotten, and never given the attention that it warrants, namely, the problem of
offloading trash in the oceans. It is estimated that nearly 250,000 tons of trash float in the oceans.1 As one
commentator pointed out, “[t]he ocean is like a plastic soup, bulked up with the croutons of these larger items”.
Page: 49
This paper identifies and offers an overview of some the basic international marine environmental protection law
instruments that provide normative guidance to states to address some of the pressing issues that confront the
coastal and the marine environment. Based on this analysis, it will identify some of the primary reasons for the
continual degradation of the coastal and marine environment from a legal perspective and will ultimately offer
suggestions to ensure that both the present and the future generations are not denied of an opportunity to enjoy a
cleaner and healthier coastal and marine environment.
II A brief account of the state of the health of coastal and marine environments and the threats that they
face
Regardless of whether we are “coastal” or not, oceans play a fundamental role in our lives through its life-
sustenance and other functions. A series of complex ocean processes contributes to oxygen generation, ensures
climate regulation, maintains the carbon cycle and facilitates nutrient cycling. Ocean spaces offer manifold
opportunities for realizing sustainable development objectives - food security, trade promotion, employment and
avenues for tourism and cultural progress. As well, oceans serve as a medium for transport, support communication
facilities, provide genetic and renewable energy sources, and the world's marine production is overwhelmingly
coastal-based. A series of diverse ecosystems like, wetlands, mangroves, coral reefs and sea-grass beds, provide
necessary breeding, nursery and feeding grounds for marine life and supports a wide range of other functions.
Until recently, the focus was on coastal ecosystems and their governance, as these areas essentially fall under
national jurisdiction. Very little was known about the secrets of the deep.2 With recent advancements in deep-sea
technology, one can now probe and exploit the potentialities seized by areas that lie beyond national jurisdiction -
exploiting fisheries, genetic resources, hydrocarbons and other minerals, shipping, waste disposal, laying pipelines
and cables, carbon sequestration, and ocean fertilization. In short, due to the wide range of ecosystem goods and
services that the coastal and oceanic environments provide, and the vital roles that they play in supporting food
security, alleviating poverty, promoting cultural values, securing public health, ensuring coastal protection and in
providing employment, states, all over, are increasingly looking to the “blue economy”, to sustain and fuel their
economic growth and secure sustainable development.
Page: 50
It is to tap into this tremendous possibilities afforded by oceans and the coasts, that more half of the world's
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
population live within 100 kilometers of the coastline; a figure that continues to grow with each passing year. It
goes without saying that a host of activities accompany this mammoth human presence on the coastal zone, thereby
placing coastal and marine ecosystems under severe stress. Unsustainable coastal development, urbanization,
harmful tourism practices, intensive and destructive aquaculture and fishing, land-based sources of marine pollution,
unscientific garbage disposal and untreated domestic sewage releases, coastal landfills, riverine discharges, run-offs
from industrial, agriculture and aquaculture operations, municipal wastewater, atmospheric deposition, dumping,
dredging, accidents and oil spills from shipping and offshore installations, are, but a few illustrations of human
activities that can adversely impact coastal and marine ecosystems and related habitats. Some of these aspects are
elaborated below.
The state of the marine environment depends considerably on activities carried out on land. In fact, the primary
source of pollution of the marine environment is human activity in coastal areas and in inland regions.3 Most of the
pollutants that emerge from diffuse and point sources finally end up in coastal and marine waters, including the
deepest parts of the sea. It is estimated that between 35 to 40 percent of the world's urban population contribute
directly to coastal marine pollution. In fact twenty-one of the world's 33 megacities are coastal contributing majorly
to the problem.4 One of the primary agents of marine pollution is wastewater. In developing countries, nearly 90
percent of all wastewater that is discharged directly into rivers, lakes or the oceans is untreated. The wastewater can
carry pathogens, organic compounds, synthetic chemicals, nutrients, organic matter and heavy metals, which lead to
eutrophication and the formation of de-oxygenated dead zones in ocean areas. Already, dead zones cover an area as
large as 245,000 kilometre.5 Pollution and eutrophication can also affect coral reefs, sea grass beds, etc. reducing
their resilience and rendering them more vulnerable to climate change.6 While wastewater and sewage carry these
pollutants into the sea, heavy metals, especially mercury, and halogenated hydrocarbons, such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dichloro diphenyl
Page: 51
trichloroethane (DDT) and similar semi-volatile compounds, are also globally distributed via the atmosphere and
these also end up primarily in the oceans. It is estimated that nearly 80 percent of PCBs and 98 percent of DDT and
related compounds enter the ocean through the atmosphere.7 Wastewater-related emissions of methane and nitrous
oxide contribute to global climate change. All these pollutants can potentially lead to the loss of habitat, increase
floating trash and debris, lead to reductions in numbers of species that live in these waters, contaminate fish and
shellfish, and affect recreational and commercial opportunities. As well, many of these toxins contaminate seafood,
which eventually find its way into the bloodstream of humans who consume such seafood. Already, several marine
mammals and other sea creatures show high presence of industrial compounds, especially PCBs in their bodies.
Another major issue that impairs the quality of the marine environment is marine debris or litter. Carried by
currents and winds, marine debris is omnipresent in the oceans - floating on surface water, mixed in the water
column or lying on the seabed and is a visible sign of the deleterious impacts posed by human activities on the
marine environment.8 Marine debris generally includes discarded persistent, manufactured or processed solid
material and includes plastics, glass, metal, styrofoam, rubber and lost or discarded fishing gear. Marine debris can
originate from both land-based and from the sea-based sources. The main land-based sources of marine litter are
municipal landfills located on the coast, riverine transport of waste from landfills, discharges of untreated municipal
sewage and storm water, and wastes generated from industrial and tourism activities. As far as ocean-based sources
are concerned, oceangoing ships, offshore oil and gas platforms, drilling rigs and aquaculture installations, are the
primary culprits. Marine debris can severely impact marine wildlife (primarily, due to entanglement or entrapment
and ingestion), threaten marine and coastal biological diversity, and has the potential to transport invasive alien
species from one area to another.9 In studies involving the northern fulmar, it has been reported that out of 1295
dead beached birds collected during the period from 2003 to 2007, 95 percent of them had plastic in their
stomach.10
Page: 52
Millions all over the world depend on fisheries and aquaculture, either directly or indirectly, for their livelihoods
and food requirements. The fisheries sector has experienced phenomenal growth and it now generates employment
more than traditional agriculture.11 The fishing industry also supports a host of ancillary industries like shipbuilding,
the fishing gear industry, shipyard operations; aquaculture feed production, processing, packaging and transport.
Unsustainable exploitation of the living natural resources in the oceans including destructive fishing practices both
within and beyond national jurisdictional areas adversely impact marine biodiversity and the environment. Many fish
stocks have plummeted to the brink of collapse due to overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, use
of destructive fishing practices and gear, by-catch and discards and bottom fisheries.12 Studies point out that almost
one-third of global fish stocks are overexploited.13 Even discarded fishing gear, continue to snare fish (ghost fishing)
and pose navigational hazards at sea.14 For instance, in northern Australia, between 1996 and 2002, 290 marine
turtles were found entangled in derelict nets in a 70 kilometre stretch of beach.15
Apart from what has been identified above, the loss of valuable spawning grounds and nursery habitats, like the
clearing of mangroves, compound the problem, posing serious threats to several marine species. While most fishing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is concentrated in coastal waters, with technological innovations, there is growing interest in deep-sea fishing. And
here, oceanic seamounts, which are “unique islands of deep-sea biodiversity” around which many of the deep-sea
species aggregate, are highly vulnerable to fishing.16 In sum, all over, the state of marine living resources and
marine biodiversity are in serious decline, and fishing emerges as the prime reason for the same.17
The operation of the shipping industry contributes significantly to marine pollution. The ever-increasing volume of
shipping enhances the risk for accidental vessel source
Page: 53
pollution. In addition, vessels may illegally discharge into the oceanic environment, untreated sewage, and garbage.
The loss of cargo containing dangerous substances, spills, washing cargo tanks, ballast water discharges, the
breaking of cast-off ships, and wrecks also contaminate the marine environment.
Tourism, particularly visits to pristine marine environments, poses significant threats. Tourist cruise ships can, on
an average, generate 4,500 kilograms of waste a day and many of this ends up in the marine environment. In
addition, the anti-fouling hull paints used by these ships is responsible for the introduction of harmful chemicals like
tributyltin, to pristine environments such as the Antarctic.18 Off late, there is growing tourism to hydrothermal vents,
which negatively impact vent animals and their habitats.
There has been a proliferation of offshore exploration and exploitation activities including extraction of aggregates
in a manner that affects the health of the marine environment. In addition, the numerous pipelines on the ocean
floor that carry oil and gas remain potential ticking time bombs. Increased offshore oil and gas exploitation activity
is a risky business. As of now, hydrocarbons are regularly being extracted from water depths of 1,500 meters to
2,000 meters. New technological innovations are pushing the limits, increasing the ability to extract resources from
the deepest sea floor.19 However, such developments also raise serious concerns relating to the security of these
platforms and underwater facilities. As the deepwater horizon incident, which led to nearly five million barrels of
crude oil being spilt into the sea demonstrated, such spills can lead to catastrophic consequences and are difficult to
contain. Again the de-commissioning of offshore oil and gas structures pose many environmental concerns.20
Anthropogenic activities like commercial and non-commercial shipping, the use of air guns for seismic surveys,
military sonar, underwater detonations and construction, resource extraction and fishing activities and offshore wind
farms, and other technology used to capture marine renewable energy, can lead to increasing levels of underwater
noise, which can pose serious threats to marine living resources, including death, injury, and stranding of marine
animals. For instance, it has been found that noise generated by seismic air guns reduce catch rates by 40 to 80
percent, severely impacting the distribution and abundance of fish stocks. Catch rates do not return to normalcy
even days after the noise has abated.21
Page: 54
Given the centrality of the internet and electronic communications in modern life, there has been an exponential
growth in the laying of fibre-optic submarine cables.22 While these cables may not pose significant threats to the
marine environment per se, the electromagnetic waves that they can generate may impact the marine environment.
As well, tidal - and wave-powered generators and power cables create electromagnetic fields, which can affect
species that depend on natural fields for guidance.23
Power plants including nuclear power plants situated in coastal areas pose significant threats to the coastal and
marine environment as was made clear when radioactive wastes leaked from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
plant in Japan, taking a severe toll on the marine environment. With proposals for floating nuclear power plants to
be placed on large barges and towed to their destination and anchored offshore, concerns have been expressed
about the possibility of using the sea to dump radioactive wastes.24
The leading characteristic of the Arctic marine environment is sea ice and through ocean currents, winds and
rivers, the Arctic marine environment interacts biologically with the rest of the world. Consequently these exchanges
bring a wide range of pollutants into the Arctic Ocean, including radionuclides, heavy metals, POPs and
hydrocarbons. These harmful chemicals affect arctic wildlife. In addition, increased shipping, commercial fishing, oil
and gas exploration and physical disturbance also have a telling effect on this pristine environment. What makes
shipping and oil extraction from Arctic waters a dangerous prospect is that cleanup of oil spills in ice-covered waters
is practically impossible. Increases in ultraviolet radiation and climate change also lead to dramatic consequences on
the Arctic marine ecosystem.25 On the other hand, the Antarctic continent is essentially a frozen land mass
surrounded by the Southern Ocean, and in this sense, it offers a contrast to the Arctic environment. Nevertheless,
the problems that confront both these regions are in essence, the same.26
With climate change and sea level rise, all the problems that confront the marine environment as identified
above, stand to be magnified like never before. Climate change impacts will exacerbate existing stresses on marine
resources and ecosystems. Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have increased manifold times, and an
already over-polluted ocean has absorbed nearly 30 percent of this
Page: 55
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification. In addition, the oceans have warmed; ice is melting,
leading to sea level rise. Climate change is expected to result in changes in salinity, wave conditions and ocean
circulation. Coastal populations, all over, will disproportionately suffer from the adverse impacts of climate change on
the oceans. In particular, small island developing states that are excessively reliant on marine ecosystems and
resources are acutely vulnerable to climate change and, in particular, to sea level rise.27
Cumulatively, these changes and perturbations in the marine environment will severely restrict the ability of
mankind to depend on the oceans and its resources for sustainable development. Already, the pollution of the
oceanic environment in the oceans has reached such high levels that the impacts of these degradations are there for
all to see. The increasing number of dead zones, frequent outbreaks of harmful algal blooms leading to mass
mortality of fish and marine mammals, increases in the number invasive species, decreased catch and collapse of
fisheries, and increasing coral bleaching events are symptomatic of a degraded marine environment.
In sum, it is no exaggeration to state that the coastal and marine ecosystems all over the world stand highly
deteriorated, and are severely polluted - they are in crisis. Given the trans-boundary nature of marine and coastal
ecosystems, and the fact that issues that affect the health of the marine environment impinge human development,
well-being, and good governance, the role of law, specifically, that of international law is particularly significant.
Arrays of international agreements and instruments have been forged to assist the states in the protection of the
marine and coastal environment. The discussion in the next part is an overview of the international law relating to
the protection of the marine environment.
III International law relating to marine environmental protection: An overview
For long, one of the fundamental propositions in ocean law was the inexhaustible nature of ocean resources and
their ability to assimilate and absorb pollutants of all hues and types. Even though realization that this was
essentially incorrect and misleading, oceans continue to be used as receptacles into which wastes are dumped. In
fact, pollution of the oceans was one of the freedoms that states enjoyed for long. In the early days of the
development of the law of the sea, the concern was on accessing ocean spaces and its resources. In several ways,
this trend towards securing jurisdiction indirectly furthered the cause of marine environmental protection; for
Page: 56
states could exercise greater control over ocean spaces and resources under its jurisdictional ambit. In due course,
as part of the need to optimally utilize these resources, states developed an interest in maintaining the
environmental quality of that ocean space under its control. Moreover, some of the principles and rules of customary
international law were also found pertinent to the protection of the marine environment like the principle of sic
uteretuo, or good neighbourliness,28 even though, there were inherent limitations in using this concept as normative
solution to the multifaceted issues confronting the marine environment.
As far as the development of the international law relating to protection to the marine environment is concerned,
the initial focus was on oil spillage and pollution. Emphasis on this stream was occasioned by high profile leaks from
tankers and ships, even though land based sources of marine pollution remains as the single most important
contributor of pollution to the marine environment. In 1926, an international conference was convened to deal with
oil pollution damage. However, it was not until the aftermath of the second world war, that environmental matters in
relation to the sea became a matter of concern. The 1958 Convention on High Seas required states to take measures
to regulate oil pollution and prevent pollution ensuing from the dumping of radioactive wastes. It also incorporated
general prohibitions on the abuse of rights and provided some basis for limiting land-based pollution or dumping,
which interfered with fishing or other legitimate uses of the seas.
Marine environment protection received a real fillip with the 1972 Stockholm Conference, which incidentally also
laid the foundations of modern international environmental law and related legal regimes. Principle 6 of the
Stockholm Declaration emphasized the general principles relating to pollution and provided that the discharge of
toxic or other substances and the release of heat should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment.
Principle 7 specifically addressed the problem of marine pollution by declaring that states should take all necessary
steps to prevent pollution of the seas by substances liable to create hazards to human health and harm to living
resources, aquatic life and damage to amenities or capable of interfering with other legitimate uses of the sea. In
addition, recommendations 86 to 94 of the Stockholm Action Plan also addressed marine pollution. In fact,
recommendation 86 provides that states adhere to and implement existing instruments to combat marine pollution
and develop further norms both at the national and international level, to effectively prevent marine pollution. More
importantly, the conference stressed on limited capacity of the sea to assimilate wastes to render them harmless
and its ability to regenerate.
Page: 57
The year 1972 also saw the development of a new international instrument entitled the Convention on Prevention
of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. This was followed by the adoption of the International
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships (MARPOL), a comprehensive code that addresses all kinds of
marine pollution caused by ships. The MARPOL was brought into force as response to a series of tanker spills during
that period and it applies to nearly all of the world's merchant tonnage. As will be seen subsequently, it has
contributed greatly to ensure a significant decrease in pollution from international shipping. This period also laid the
foundation for the spadework that culminated in the drafting of the third United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982. As a constitution for the oceans, the UNCLOS unsurprisingly lays down an imposing and
comprehensive legal architecture to deal with all aspects of ocean governance. Part XII of UNCLOS, 1982 consists of
45 articles and is a self-contained code that elaborates provisions for the protection and preservation of marine
environment from various kinds of marine pollutants. It establishes positive obligation on states to protect and
preserve the marine environment.29 States are called upon to protect the marine environment from pollution and
other forms of environmental degradation from all possible sources, to co-operate to that end on a regional or global
basis, to adopt contingency plans for emergency response and to ensure that recourses are available for prompt and
adequate compensation to redress damage caused to the marine environment. Most pertinently, states are enjoined
to co-operate on a global or regional basis directly or through competent international organizations in formulating
and elaborating international rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures for the protection of the
marine environment. In addition, detailed rules regarding the management of the “Area”, its resources, and
protection of its marine environment are contained in part XI. The area includes the seabed, ocean floor and subsoil
that lie beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, which are treated as part of the common heritage of mankind.
But perhaps, the need for marine environmental protection received strongest indication at the regional level. In
response to the Torrey Canyon incident, eight European nations joined together to give effect to the principle of co-
operation to combat marine pollution in the North Sea. In 1969, they signed the first regional convention dedicated
to the problem of marine pollution i.e., the agreement for cooperation in dealing with pollution of North Sea by oil.
In September 1971, another regional instrument that emphasized co-operation in terms of initiating measures
against pollution of the sea by oil was signed at Copenhagen, by Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. These two
conventions essentially deal with oil pollution and were inapplicable to the broader problem of marine pollution. In
1972, twelve European
Page: 58
states signed the OSLO Convention, which specifically addressed the problem of marine pollution caused by
dumping of wastes from ships and aircraft. The regional approach to the management of the seas and controlling
marine pollution received a fillip with the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) launching the specific
regional seas programme for the management and governance of the regional seas. The regional seas programmes
represent an important milestone in effectuating cooperation between states to protect the shared marine
environment. The dominant regulatory model that emerged under its auspices is characterized by a specific
overarching convention tailored to cater to the requirements of a particular region supported by a series of
agreements including protocols and action plans devoted to addressing specific problems like the dumping of
wastes, or controlling land based sources of pollution.30
The regional seas programmes provide a key forum for the development of polices relating to marine
environmental protection. It has facilitated cooperation between states, led to the development of tailor-made
conventions, protocols and action plans suited to a particular region, and at a practical level led to the development
of measures by states including the enactment of laws to protect the marine environment.
Page: 59
Apart from these specific international law and regional level instruments, a series of other international
environmental law instruments offer normative guidance to addressing marine pollution and the conservation of
marine biodiversity, namely, the law relating to international watercourses, biodiversity protection law, wetland
protection, law relating to the control of toxic materials and their use. As far as the law relating to international
water courses are concerned, the Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses,
1997, which applies to the uses of international watercourses specifically calls upon water course states to either
individually or where appropriate, in cooperation with other states, take all measures necessary to protect and
preserve the marine environment, including estuaries, taking into account generally accepted international rules and
standards. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 1979 (Migratory Species
Convention) assumes relevance in the context of marine migratory species. The conference of the parties to this
convention has adopted several resolutions that impinge on protection of the marine environment and its
biodiversity. For instance, the tenth conference of parties (COP) adopted resolution 10.4, dealing with “marine
debris” calling on member states to identify hotspots for debris accumulation and implement national plans of action
to address and report on the problem of marine debris.31 Again, the tenth COP also adopted a resolution detailing
“[f]urther steps to Abate Underwater Noise Pollution for the Protection of Cetaceans and other Migratory Species.”32
The eleventh COP has adopted resolutions relevant to the “management of marine debris”,33 and “Future CMS
Activities Related to Invasive Alien Species.”34 The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as
Waterfowl Habitat, 1971 (Ramsar Convention) is also particularly relevant. Essentially, this convention commits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contracting parties to work towards the wise use of all their wetlands; designate suitable wetlands to be added to
the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance for their effective management; and cooperate
internationally with regards to transboundary wetlands, shared wetland systems and shared species.
Page: 60
Several coastal wetlands around the world have been designated as Wetlands of International Importance. As with
the Migratory Species Convention, the Conference of Parties to the Ramsar Convention has also adopted several
resolutions that impinge on the protection of the marine environment and its biodiversity. The Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, 1973, aims to ensure that international trade in
specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. It seeks to secure this objective by banning
commercial international trade in an agreed list of endangered species and by regulating and monitoring trade in
others that might become endangered. A licensing system deals with the import, export, re-export and introduction
from the sea of species covered by this convention. Some of the marine species listed under this convention includes
certain varieties of sea turtles, great whales, the basking and whale sharks, and the entire genus of seahorses and
dolphins.
The generation of toxic chemicals as a byproduct of industrialization is a major cause for concern. Several organic
pollutants and polychlorinated biphenyls, bioaccumulates, are persistent and pose serious risks to the marine
environment. The international community has developed a few global legal regimes to address the dangers posed
by these toxic chemicals. The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, 1998 which applies to banned or severely restricted chemicals and
severely hazardous pesticide formulations aims to control he international trade in hazardous chemicals and
pesticides through a prior informed consent procedure. Its objective is to promote shared responsibility and
encourage cooperative efforts among parties involved in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals to
protect human health and the environment from potential harm and contribute to their environmentally sound use.
This is accomplished by facilitating information exchange about their characteristics, by providing for a national
decision-making process on their import and export and by disseminating these decisions to parties.35 A prior
informed consent procedure (PIC) applies to chemical listed in annex III. Accordingly, countries of potential imports
are given the option of consenting to or prohibiting to the imports. However, only forty chemicals have been listed in
annex III and are subjected to the PIC procedure.36 The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Page: 61
Pollutants, 2001 is another major convention in this regard, which “mindful of the precautionary approach”, seeks to
protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants.37 The convention has narrow scope in
relation to the chemicals targeted for elimination or control and leaves considerable leeway for the continued use and
emission of some POPs.38 The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal, 1989which as its title suggests seeks to regulate the transboundary movements of hazardous
waste between nations, and it specifically seeks to prevent the transfer of hazardous waste from developed to
developing countries. The Basel Convention is relevant to marine environmental issues as it applies to the export of
hazardous wastes by sea.39
Mercury, once anthropogenically introduced, tends to be persistent; it bioaccumulates, and is able to effect long-
range atmospheric transport. Consequently, this heavy metal poses severe risks to human health and to the
environment, and in particular to the Arctic ecosystem, rendering its regulation a matter of global concern. To
address these issues and to control the anthropogenic releases of mercury throughout its lifecycle, the UNEP has
recently adopted the Minamata Convention on Mercury, 2013. This convention seeks to protect human health and
the environment from anthropogenic emissions and release of mercury and its compounds.40
At the Earth Summit of 1992, national governments adopted the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development with a set of principles to guide sustainable development. These principles recognize that the only way
to ensure long-term economic progress is to link it with environmental concerns. Essentially, the Rio Declaration
builds on the Stockholm Declaration adopted at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.
Chapter 17 of agenda 21 of the Reo Declaration, as its title suggests, namely, “Protection of the Oceans, all Kinds of
Seas, Including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas and the Protection, Rational Use and
Development of their Living Resources”, places marine environment as a central pillar of the sustainable
development agenda. It identifies seven programme areas, namely: (1) integrated management and sustainable
development of coastal areas, including exclusive economic zones; (2) marine environmental protection; (3)
sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources of the high seas; (4) sustainable use and conservation of
marine living resources in national jurisdiction
Page: 62
areas; (5) addressing critical uncertainties for the management of the marine environment and climate change; (6)
strengthening international, including regional, cooperation and coordination; and (7) sustainable development of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
small islands.
One of the most significant outcomes of the Rio Earth Summit was the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992
(CBD). Since the accent of this instrument was on terrestrial biodiversity, the CBD was criticized for its failure to
include the coastal and marine environment within its regulatory ambit. Nevertheless some of the general principles
and tools envisaged in the CBD emerge important in the quest for marine biodiversity conservation. In particular, an
important strategy envisaged in the CBD is the constitution of protected areas.41 As well, to overcome the criticism
of its overly land-focus, the second conference of the parties adopted decision II/10 on the “Conservation and
Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity” or the Jakarta mandate which envisages facilitating
research and monitoring activities on the value and effects of marine and coastal protected areas or similarly
restricted management areas on sustainable use of marine and coastal living resources. States have the obligation to
protect and preserve the marine environment, by taking measures to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems
as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life.
In 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development adopted the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.
Oceans, seas, islands and coastal areas form a core area of concern in the plan. They address, in particular: (a)
enhancing effective coordination and cooperation, including at the global and regional levels, between relevant
bodies including at the global and regional levels; (b) achieving sustainable fisheries; (c) promoting conservation
and management of the oceans; (d) advancing implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection
of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities and the Montreal Declaration, with particular emphasis on
municipal wastewater, the physical alteration and destruction of habitats, and nutrients; (e) enhancing maritime
safety and protection of the marine environment from pollution; (f) take into account the potential for environmental
and human health impacts of radioactive wastes; and (g) improve the scientific understanding and assessment of
marine and coastal ecosystems as a fundamental basis for sound decision-making.
In addition to these specific legal instruments and the stipulations that they espouse, given the complex
interactions that take place between multiple drivers and the environment, certain fundamental principles of
international environmental law exert tremendous normative and practical influence in realizing a principled
approach to marine
Page: 63
environmental protection which is sine qua non for sustainable development. Some of the more prominent among
these principles are: permanent sovereignty over natural resources; the principle of precaution; inter and intra-
generational equity; the principle of good neighborliness; equitable utilization and apportionment; prior information,
consultation and early warning; the common heritage of mankind; duty to co-operate in solving trans-boundary
environmental problems; environmental impact assessment; ecosystem approach and integrated management;
common but differentiated responsibilities. And here, these various principles are bound together by the overarching
framework of sustainable development.
In addition, there are a suite of management tools like environmental impact assessments, area-based
management tools, including marine protected areas and marine spatial planning, management of land-sea
interactions, watershed and catchment planning and management, gear restrictions and promotion of cleaner
production and environmentally sound technologies, as well as pollution prevention and control that are finding
growing acceptance as possible solutions in a broad package among these management tools, area-based
management has emerged as a very valuable mechanism to further conservation goals. It promotes the sustainable
use of marine biodiversity by furthering an ecosystem and a precautionary approach. A wide range of area-based
management tools has been devised - “emission control areas”, “world heritage sites”, “marine protected areas” and
their networks, “special areas and particularly sensitive sea areas”, “fisheries closures, “ecological networks”. These
tools seek to achieve a variety of objectives, like the protection and preservation of marine ecosystems and
biodiversity from pollution, restoration of habitats and recovery of species, and the conservation, sustainable use and
management of marine resources. As well, they encompass varying degrees of protection ranging from regulation of
multiple uses, to stringent prohibition.42
IV Understanding marine pollution law
Marine pollution has been defined as “… the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy
into the marine environment (including estuaries) resulting in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources,
hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities including fishing, impairment of quality for use of sea water,
and reduction of amenities.”43 From this wide language, it is clear that marine pollution can have several sources.
However, the most prominent ones are land-based sources; vessel source; ocean dumping; deep seabed resources
exploration
Page: 64
and development; and atmospheric pollution.44 The sections below provide a detailed analysis of the law relating to
the protection of the marine environment from the prospective of three prime sources of marine pollution, namely,
land-based; vessel source; and ocean dumping.
Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While developmental activities on land are critical to the socio-economic progress of countries, as seen earlier,
land-based activities contributes as high as 80 percent of marine pollution. Although the effects of this pollution are
predominantly experienced to in coastal areas, negatively impact the socio-economic progress of a nation, its
repercussions are increasingly being felt in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
At the international level, even though the 1958 Law of the Sea Conference adopted four separate conventions,
none of these instruments specifically dealt with the problems posed by land based sources, even though there were
indirect references.45 The issue of marine pollution from land-based sources was first addressed at a regional level
with the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources, 1974 (Paris Convention), which
focused on the protection of the marine environment in the North-East Atlantic. Subsequently, it was merged with
the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, 1972 to create the
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, 1992 or the “OSPAR
Convention”. Perhaps the most significant cause came in form of the regional seas which as seen earlier was
programmes initiated and mobilized by the UNEP since 1974 and has emerged as an important pathway to address
issues posed by land-based sources.
Nevertheless, it was the UNCLOS, 1982 that laid the bedrock for a comprehensive framework for marine
environment protection. Specifically from the perspective of land-based sources of marine pollution, the relevant
articles are 194, 207 and 213. Article 194 imposes an obligation on states to take all measures necessary to prevent,
reduce and control pollution of the marine environment and clearly identifies land-based sources as a source of
pollution. Article 207 requires states to adopt laws and regulations “to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the
marine environment from land-based sources, including rivers, estuaries, pipelines and outfall structures” and to
establish global and regional rules with regard to land-based sources of pollution. Specifically, article 207(4)
UNCLOS expects states “to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and
procedures to prevent, reduce and
Page: 65
control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.” Article 213 then imposes an obligation on
states to enforce the laws adopted according to article 207.
These mandates in the UNCLOS spurred the development of the Montreal Guidelines for the Protection of the
Marine Environment against Pollution from Land-Based Sources. The UNEP was the driving force behind the Montreal
Guidelines, 1985, which seeks to assist national governments in the development of “appropriate bilateral, regional
and multilateral agreements and national legislation for the protection of the marine environment against pollution
from land-based sources.”46 These guidelines, which are recommendatory in nature, essentially sets out a check-list
of basic provisions rather than a model agreement, from which governments can select, adapt or elaborate upon, as
appropriate, to meet the needs of specific regions. Basically, it draws on the common elements and principles
embodied in part XII of the UNCLOS, the Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based
Sources, the Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, and the Athens
Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-Based Sources.
The guidelines reiterate the primary obligation of states to protect and preserve the marine environment. In other
words, while exercising their sovereign right to exploit their natural resources, states are reminded of their duty to
prevent, reduce and control the pollution of the marine environment.47 States, either individually or jointly are to
adopt, all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution from land-based sources.48 They also have
the duty to ensure that discharges from land-based sources within their territories do not pollute the marine
environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of their national jurisdiction.49 Some of the other major
provisions in these guidelines relate to establishment of marine protected areas and reserves to protect certain areas
from pollution,50 the need to conduct environmental assessments for major projects situated in coastal areas,51
scientific and technical cooperation between states,52 assistance to developing countries,53 etc.
Page: 66
Despite the Montreal Guidelines, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held
in Rio de Janeiro in its agenda 21 emphasized that “[t]here is currently no global scheme to address marine
pollution from land-based sources”. To resolve this glaring gap, agenda 21 called upon “[t]he UNEP Governing
Council … to convene, as soon as practicable, an intergovernmental meeting on protection of the marine
environment from land-based activities”. It is this mandate that led to the Washington Conference in 1995, which
adopted the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities
(GPA) and the Washington Declaration on Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities
(Washington Declaration). The Washington Declaration expressed the intention of the participating states to protect
the marine environment from pollution by land-based activities by implementing the GPA. The GPA was adopted to
protect the marine environment from land-based activities by assisting states in taking action individually or jointly
within their respective policies, priorities and resources, leading to the prevention, reduction, control and/or
elimination of the degradation of the marine environment, as well as to its recovery from the impact of land-based
activities.54 The adoption of the GPA by 108 states and the European Commission “reflects the resolve of States to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
address the serious impacts of land-based sources of pollution and physical degradation of the coastal and marine
environments.”
With the GPA, the Montreal Guidelines now stands replaced. The GPA is also a non-binding framework and it is a
road map that seeks to address the problems posed by land-based sources at the global, regional and national
levels. It provides guidance to national and/or regional authorities to devise and implement sustained action to
prevent, reduce, control and/or eliminate marine degradation from land-based activities. Even though the GPA
contains no substantive provisions, it is structured into four parts, namely, actions at the national level, regional
cooperation, international cooperation and specific actions for different source categories like sewage, persistent
organic pollutants, radioactive substances, heavy metals, oils, nutrients and litter. The document identifies and
provides a description of the problem, establishes objectives and priorities, and provides a description of action that
should be taken to address the problem. The UNEP acts as the prime catalyst for the development of this framework,
in particular by entering into partnerships with international organizations and by convening intergovernmental
meetings. According to UNEP, nearly 72 countries have already developed or are in the process of developing a
national plan for the implementation of the Global Programme of Action.55
Page: 67
The GPA is not a static document; it focuses on action. Accordingly, the first intergovernmental review meeting on
the implementation of the GPA resulted in the “Montreal Declaration in the Protection of the Marine Environment
from land-based Activities” (Montreal Declaration). The Montreal Declaration identified three core areas for action.
The first relates to the mainstreaming the global programme of action;56 the second is on oceans and coastal
governance;57 and the third relates to financing the global programme of action.58 Some of the actions identified in
relation to oceans and coastal governance include, supporting “integrated management model for oceans and coastal
governance as an important new element of international environmental governance,”59 institutional cooperation
between river-basin authorities, port authorities and coastal zone managers;60 technology development and
transfer;61 “incorporate coastal management considerations into relevant legislation and regulations pertaining to
watershed management,” particularly in relation to transboundary watersheds.62
The second session of the intergovernmental review meeting on the Implementation of the GPA was held at
Beijing in 2006. It resulted in the Beijing Declaration on furthering the implementation of the GPA for the Protection
of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities. This declaration called upon parties to commit themselves to
further implement the GPA (during the period between 2007-2011) by applying the ecosystem approach;
establishing partnerships at the national, regional and international levels; by cooperating at the regional and
interregional levels; by mainstreaming the GPA into national development planning and budgetary mechanisms.63 In
addition, the document identifies various actions at the national, regional, international and at the UNEP level.
At the third session of the intergovernmental review meeting on the implementation of the GPA for the Protection
of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities held at Manila, in 2012, the parties adopted the “Manila
Declaration on Furthering the Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the
Page: 68
Marine Environment from Land-based Activities”.64 The Manila Declaration views the GPA “as a flexible and effective
tool for the sustainable development of oceans, coasts and islands, and for human health and well-being” and
reiterates commitment to its implementation at the international, regional and national levels. Furthermore, this
declaration sought inter alia to devote energies on “delta management”, develop an integrated management “ridge
to reef” approach, recommended the establishment of a global partnership on marine litter, and support the global
partnership on wastewater.
Interestingly, the recommendations arrived at the different review meetings have spurred the development of
several important initiatives, like the global partnership on marine litter and the global wastewater initiative. The
Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML) was launched in 2012, with the UNEP serving as its secretariat. The
“Honolulu Strategy: A Global Framework for the Prevention and Management of Marine Debris” acts as a framework
to support the implementation of this partnership. The Honolulu Strategy lays down a template to focus global
efforts to address the problems posed by marine debris. It provides for a comprehensive and global collaborative
effort to reduce the ecological, human health, and economic impacts of marine debris. The strategy is organized by a
set of three overarching goals, namely, goal A which seeks to reduce the amount and impact of land-based litter and
solid waste introduced into the marine environment; goal B, which seeks to reduce the amount and impact of sea-
based sources of marine debris, and goal C which is about reducing the amount and impact of accumulated marine
debris on shorelines, in benthic habitats and pelagic waters.65 As far as the Global Wastewater Initiative (GWI)
launched in 2013 is concerned, it seeks to promote the wastewater agenda by sharing information, lessons learned
and best practices for wastewater management, including environmentally sound technologies among stakeholders.
The GWI also intends to bring about a paradigm shift in world water policies; by emphasizing that wastewater can
be a valuable resource for future water security.66
Another major programme in this regard is the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management (GPNM). This is
essentially a global partnership of governments, scientists, policy makers, private sector, NGOs and international
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
organizations. The UNEP/GPA co-ordination office acts as its secretariat and its primary objective is to reduce the
amount of excess nutrients that enters the environment.
Page: 69
As seen earlier, international attempts at regulating land-based sources of marine pollution (LBSMP) received
concrete focus at the regional level through a series of binding hard-law instruments negotiated and adopted at this
level. Beginning with the Paris Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land Based Sources, 1974, and
the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1974(Helsinki Convention,
revised in 1992), the regional approach received precise articulation with the launching of the UNEP regional seas
programmes, initiated in the wake of the 1972 Stockholm Conference. The primary objective of this program is to
address issues relating to the degradation of the coastal and the marine environment while at the same time seeking
to ensure the sustainable management of these resources, by involving neighbouring countries who share a common
body of the ocean space in comprehensive and specific actions to protect their shared marine environment.
Presently, more than 143 countries participate in 13 regional seas programmes established under the auspices of
UNEP. In addition, there are five more partner programmes for the Antarctic, Arctic, Baltic Sea, Caspian Sea and
North-East Atlantic Regions. As mentioned earlier essentially, the regional seas programmes function through a
convention supported by action plans and protocols dealing with specific issues. Even though all these programmes
reflect a similar approach, some of these, have been modified by the concerned national governments to respond to
their particular environmental challenges and developmental priorities.
As stated above, most of the regional seas programmes receive normative support either from a specific
convention (e.g., Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean
Region, 1983), tailor-made to suit the specific requirements of a particular region or from an action plan (e.g., South
Asian Seas Action Plan, 1995). In most cases, these regional conventions, spell out provisions aimed at protecting
the marine environment and some directly target LBSMP control. For instance, some of the key provisions in the
Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution, 1978 are
article 6 (deals with pollution from land-based sources); article 4 (pollution from ships); article 5 (pollution caused
by dumping from ships and aircraft); article 7 (pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the bed of the
territorial sea and its sub-soil and the continental shelf); article 8 (pollution from other human activities like land
reclamation, coastal dredging, etc.); article 9 (co-operation in dealing with pollution emergencies); article 11
(environmental assessment); and article 13 (liability and compensation for damage to the marine environment). In
addition, there are specific protocols under these regional areas programmes devoted to LBSMP control, like the
protocol for the Protection of the Marine Environment against Pollution from Land-Based Sources, 1990, which
basically illuminates and contextualizes the provisions in the Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation
Page: 70
on the Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution, 1978, in relation to LBSMP control. This protocol
recognizes the danger posed to the marine environment and to human health by pollution from land-based sources
and the serious problems that coastal waters face due to the release of untreated or insufficiently treated domestic
and industrial discharges. Accordingly, it seeks to strengthen existing measures to prevent, abate and combat
pollution on a national and a regional basis. Some of the major provisions in this protocol relate to pollution
abatement source control,67 industrial location planning programmes,68 watercourses management,69 environmental
impact assessment,70 combined effluent treatment,71 and responsibility and liability for damage.72
Vessel based sources of marine pollution

As an efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly method of transporting goods around the world, international
shipping makes a significant contribution to sustainable trade international trade and to the world economy.
Although shipping is responsible for a comparatively small percentage of the pollution that enters the world's
oceans, and is the least environmentally damaging form of commercial transport, pollution incidents from ships and
the shipping industry can pose serious negative impacts on the marine environment and related biodiversity. Ever
since hydrocarbon products began to be transported through the seas, the possibility of accidental oil spills has
increased considerably, necessitating regulation. The volume of crude oil and related products shipped in takers
stand at a staggering 2,400 million tonnes. Threats to the marine environment from shipping arise not only from
polluting accidents, but also from operational discharges, chemical residues and ballast water; physical damage to
marine habitats; the use of toxic anti-fouling paints on ships hulls; intense underwater anthropogenic noise; and
recycling of ships. In addition, the increase in offshore exploration and exploitation of oil and gas has underlined the
need for precautionary measures.
Article 211 of the UNCLOS specifically mandates that states either through the competent international
organization (In the instant case, this is the International
Page: 71
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maritime Organization (IMO)) or through diplomatic conferences shall establish international rules and standards to
prevent, reduce and control vessel source pollution of the marine environment. In securing cleaner oceans and in
realizing this mandate, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations specialized agency,
established way back in 1948 has taken the lead. Presently, the IMO administers nearly 53 instruments, out of
which, nearly 23, has protection of the marine environment as a necessary objective. The IMO is primarily concerned
with abating pollution from vessel-source and from ocean dumping. A landmark in its quest to protect the marine
environment came in the form of the establishment of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) as a
permanent subsidiary organ of the IMO Assembly in 1973. Subsequently in 1975, the MEPC was institutionalized as
an organ of IMO through an amendment of the IMO Convention. Since then, virtually all negotiations relating to the
creation of new legal instruments and amendment of existing ones that deal with shipping and the marine
environment fall within the jurisdictional competence of IMO, facilitated through the MEPC.
As far as the primary international instruments that regulate international shipping for cleaner oceans is
concerned, the UNCLOS again emerges as the primordial instrument that provides a broad normative framework for
regulating shipping and in moderating its impacts on the marine environment and here article 211 is relevant. In
implementing the international framework on shipping, it is the flag states, which takes the necessary measures to
ensure safety at sea with regard to the construction and the manning of ships, ensuring appropriate labour
conditions and the training of crew.73 These measures conform to generally accepted international regulations,
procedures and practices, as developed by IMO and also by the International Labour Organization.74 However, flags
of convenience and open registries pose several serious limitations for the fructification of effective flag state control.
Flag states particularly its flags of convenience are found least concerned about pollution incidents that occur beyond
its maritime territories and for more registration they are reluctant to enforce the law against vessels that are
registered under its flag. However, a series of maritime accidents the Torrey Canyon, Exxon Valdez, Amoco Cadiz,
Prestige and Erika led to public uproar against loopholes in the existing regime of flag state control, which led to the
enactment of new regulations in some of the developed nations to tighten port state control. Some of the IMO
treaties also began to slowly recognize the right of coastal states to intervene and monitor shipping. Port state
jurisdiction received credence via a proposal submitted by the United States to the sea-bed
Page: 72
committee of the United Nations General Assembly. In the meantime to ensure effective implementation of the
MARPOL 73/78, more powers had to be given to the port states. In fact, MARPOL73/78 specifically provides that:75
… the port officials in the contracting states may inspect a foreign vessel in order to verify whether it has
discharged in any sea area harmful substances in violation of the regulations annexed to the convention.
Furthermore, the MARPOL also empowered a party (or the port state) to enact law, prohibiting violations of the
requirements of the convention within its jurisdiction and establish sanctions for the same.76 The concept of port
state control however received precise crystallization in the UNCLOS.77 Essentially port state control refers to the
right of a state to exercise jurisdiction over vessels that enter its ports and to deny them entry in case of non-
compliance with requirements relating to construction, design, manning, discharge, etc.78 When the vessel is at port
states can carry out investigations and even detain and enforce measures against vessels for violation of these
standards, even if a particular incident has happens on high seas, when the vessel is at its port.79 The port state can
also detain and prevent the vessel from sailing further, or can require it to proceed to the nearest repair yard to cure
deficiencies.80 UNCLOS also recognizes the competence of port states to prescribe port entry conditions in its internal
waters subject to its due publicity81 and while creating such laws, states are obligated to give effect to the generally
accepted international rules and standards.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, which was adopted in London on
November 2, 1973 as amended by Protocol 1978, (MARPOL 73/78), is the most comprehensive legal instrument that
seeks to prevent pollution of the sea from ships. Its prime objective is to create a verifiable and enforceable regime
to prevent the discharge of pollutants from ships. MARPOL consists of VI annexes; each annex regulates and controls
specific types of pollution. In fact, the MARPOL consists of two types of regulations. Firstly, it specifies technical
regulations that deal with the design and construction of ships as well as onboard equipment. For example, after the
Exxon Valdez oil spill, certain regulations were
Page: 73
adopted, which requires double hull for tankers and it also specifies the phasing out of single hull tankers.82 Second,
the MARPOL specifies discharge standards in relation to distinct categories of harmful substances. These are oil and
oily water (annex I); noxious liquid substances carried in bulk (annex II); harmful substances carried by sea in
packaged form (annex III); sewage from ships (annex IV), garbage from ships (annex V); and air pollution from
ships (annex VI). An overview of the some of the basic features of these annexes is provided below.
Annex I of the MARPOL Convention deals with oil pollution from ships. This annex is highly technical and is
regularly amended to reflect new requirements and developments in this area. It contains 37 regulations and several
appendices and deals with the whole range of oils but excludes petrochemicals, which fall under annex II. Some of
the salient features of this annex include incorporation of an oil discharge criteria via regulation 34 dealing with the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
discharges in and outside special areas, recognition to the load on top (LOT) system to reduce the discharge of bilge
water into the oceans, a requirement that tankers of over 20,000 deadweight tonnage are to carry segregated ballast
tanks (SBT), and utilizing the crude oil washing system as an alternative to the SBT on new tankers of over 20,000
deadweight tonnage. In addition, ships are to carry on board a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan and there is
provision for port state control and detention to ensure compliance.83 There are detailed regulations regarding
controls on the discharge of oil.84
Given that chemicals are transported in large quantities through the oceans, annex II of the MARPOL outlines
“regulations for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances in bulk”, which as the title suggests applies to
all ships certified to carry Noxious Liquid Substances (NLS) in bulk. It elaborates certain discharge standards and
mechanisms for the control of (NLS). Interestingly, NLS is divided into four categories, namely, categories X, Y & Z,
and other substances. As far as operational discharges of residues of NLS is concerned, chapter 5 spells out detailed
rules and in cases of pollution arising from an incident involving NLS, the rules are contained in chapter 7. Ships of
150 gross tonnage and above which carry NLS in bulk are to carry on board a shipboard marine pollution emergency
plan for NLS.85 Discharge of NLS into the Antarctic is totally prohibited.86
Annex III specifies “regulations for the prevention of pollution by harmful substances carried by sea in packaged
form”, which applies to all ships carrying harmful
Page: 74
substances in packaged form. Harmful substances are those identified in the International Maritime Dangerous
Goods Code.87 This annex lays down a framework for adequate packing, marking, labeling, documentation and
stowage of such packages.88 Jettisoning is prohibited except to ensure the safety of the ship or life at sea.89 Port
states are conferred with the power to inspect and detain the ship to ensure that it complies with the regulations.90
Annex IV regulates sewage discharges into the oceans by ships by providing for sewage treatment plants on
vessels, by obligating ports and terminals to provide for sewage reception facilities and by means of surveys and
certification. Every sea going vessel must have an International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate, issued by
the concerned flag state. Annex V prohibits the discharge of all garbage which has been defined to mean “all kinds
of food wastes, domestic wastes and operational wastes, all plastics, cargo residues, incinerator ashes, cooking oil,
fishing gear, and animal carcasses generated during the normal operation of the ship” into the sea.91 It stipulates
the development of a garbage management plan, which is to provide written procedures which the crew is to follow
for minimizing, collecting, storing, processing and disposing of garbage, including the use of the equipment on
board.92 In addition, a garbage record book is also to be maintained.93
Taking into account the possibility of pollution to the marine environment from and through the atmosphere, the
UNCLOS in article 212(1) calls upon states to adopt necessary laws and regulations. Furthermore, states are to
“endeavour to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent,
reduce and control such pollution”.94 In pursuance of this mandate, the IMO in 1997 adopted a new annex, namely,
annex VI to the MARPOL for prevention of air pollution from ships, which came into force in 2005.95 The annex
generally prohibits
Page: 75
the deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances96 and restricts the use of some ozone-depleting substances.
It prescribes emissions standard for nitrogen oxides emitted from marine diesel engines97 and sulphur oxide content
limit in fuel as well as requirements for exhaust gas cleaning systems or technologies to limit sulphur oxide
emissions.98 This Annex also prescribes technologies to reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Shipboard incineration stands regulated. The incinerations of certain substances like polychlorinated biphenyls;
refined petroleum products containing halogen compounds, exhaust gas cleaning system residues, are prohibited.99
The annex also includes regulation for reception facilities to deliver excess sulphur and halons under certain
circumstances, requires installation of exhaust gas cleaning systems to reduce its emissions etc.100
Another important feature of the MARPOL annexes is that annex I, annex II, annex IV and annex V refer to certain
sea areas, as “special areas”. This is because of their peculiar oceano graphical and ecological conditions juxtaposed
against the severe threat due to increased sea traffic that these areas face. Accordingly, these annexes provide for
special mandatory measures, which seek to provide a higher level of protection to these sea areas than others for
preventing sea pollution.
Similarly, annex VI also establishes certain emission control areas with more stringent controls on the emissions
of sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. In addition, marine areas vulnerable to damage by
international maritime activities can be designated as Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSA) pursuant to the IMO
guidelines for the identification and designation of PSSAs. Under these guidelines, a member government can
submit an application to IMO for designation of a PSSA. If two or more governments have a common interest in a
particular area, they can forward a co-ordinated proposal. Section 4, outlines the criteria for an area to be identified
as a PSSA, and these are: ecological; social, cultural, and economic and scientific and educational.101 Several marine
areas around the world have been designated as PSSAs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: 76
Since oil pollution was the prime area of concern, apart from MARPOL 73/78, the IMO has established a
comprehensive treaty regime to regulate different facets of oil pollution. One such is the International Convention on
Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response, and Cooperation (OPRC), 1990, which was adopted by the IMO at a conference
of leading industrial nations, in Paris which called for measures to prevent pollution from ships. Under this
convention, Parties are required to establish measures for dealing with pollution incidents, both nationally and in
cooperation with other states. Ships and operators of offshore installations are required to carry on board an oil
pollution emergency plan. The convention entered into force in 1995. In 2000, a Protocol relating to hazardous and
noxious substances was adopted by IMO to OPRC.
An important facet of the problem of marine pollution by the shipping industry is the issue of remediation. With
the objective of assuring prompt and adequate compensation in respect of damage caused by the pollution to the
marine environment, article 235 of the UNCLOS, provides that states shall co-operate in the further development of
relevant rules of international law. Accordingly, several conventions have been developed under the auspices of the
IMO that establishes a broad compensatory regime in situations where damage is caused to the marine environment
from oil and other pollutants. One of the most important conventions in this regard is the International Convention
on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 which provides for strict but limited liability for pollution damage
resulting from vessel discharges carrying oil in bulk as cargo. To complement the Civil Liability Convention, the
International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Status Compensation for Oil Pollution,
1971 (IOPC) was concluded. It creates a fund to pay oil pollution damages and shifts some of the ship owners's
liability to cargo owners. The IMO Civil Liability and Fund Conventions were strengthened by protocols adopted in
1984 and 1992. These instruments raised the limits of liability, established compulsory insurance requirements and
introduced the possibility of a direct action against insurers. The 1992 Protocol effectively established a new liability
regime known as the 1992 Civil Liability (CLC) and Fund Conventions. An agreement in 2000 increased the limits of
liability of the 1992 fund, and in 2003, a supplementary fund was added. The government body of the Oil Pollution
Compensation Funds's administers separate funds financed by levees on certain types of oil transported by sea.
These funds are available to settle compensation beyond applicable limits specified in the Civil Liability Convention
(CLC). The monetary limit of liability under the 1992 fund with the 2000 amendments is 203 million Special Drawing
Rights (SDR), inclusive of compensation paid under the CLC. The maximum amount available under the 2003
supplementary fund is 750 million SDR, inclusive of amounts paid under the CLC and other funds.
Bunker fuels are heavy fuel oils, which is used by the shipping industry to run its engines. However, given its
extremely viscous nature, the bunker oil has to be heated
Page: 77
before it is injected into the engines. Consequently, the texture and viscosity of the bunker fuel makes it ecologically
more dangerous and more difficult to clean. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution
Damage, 2001 (Bunkers Convention, 2001) was adopted to ensure that prompt and effective compensation is
available to persons who suffer damage caused by spills of oil that are carried as fuel in ships's bunkers. The
Bunkers Convention, 2001, establishes a liability and compensation regime. Generally, the ship owner is liable for
pollution damage caused by any bunker oil on board or originating from the ship.102 This convention requires ships
over 1000 gross tons to maintain insurance or other financial security and provides for direct action for compensation
against insurers.103
Given the high volume of hazardous and noxious substances (HNS) carried by sea-going vessels, and instances of
several spills, the IMO was prompted to take action due to the gaps in the marine liability system. These efforts
culminated in the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the
Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 1996 (HNS Convention), the HNS Convention establishes a
liability regime to compensate claimants in the event of spills involving HNS. Essentially, the HNS Convention seeks
to provide adequate, prompt and effective compensation for damage caused by incidents in connection with the
carriage of hazardous and noxious substances by sea. It creates a shared liability regime to compensate claimants
for damages arising from the international or domestic carriage of HNS by seagoing vessels. It combines the ship
owners's liability104 with the HNS Fund made up of contributions from the receivers or importers of HNS cargo.105 In
other words, the ship owner assumes liability in the first place, which is supplemented beyond a certain level by a
fund made up of contributions collected from receivers of HNS cargoes. A protocol to the HNS Convention was
adopted in 2010 revising the reporting requirements for packaged HNS goods. Neither the HNS Convention nor the
Protocol is in force. The IMO has also adopted the Convention relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime
Carriage of Nuclear Material, 1971 (NUCLEAR 1971) in conjunction with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Essentially, this convention provides that in case of damage caused by a nuclear incident occurring in the course of
maritime carriage of nuclear material, the operator of the nuclear installation will be liable for such damage. In
effect, this convention channelizes all liability on to the operator of the nuclear installation concerned; to the
exclusion of any other person's liability in effect the
Page: 78
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR 1971 removes one of the primary obstacles in the path of international nuclear trade.
Sea life such as algae, barnacles and molluscs attach to the hull and quickly cover parts of the ship that are
submerged below the water line. This leads to increased drag affecting the hydrodynamics of the ship thereby
increasing fuel consumption and costs. Such ships also unwittingly act as vectors facilitating the spread of aquatic
organisms and pathogens from one ecosystem to another. To combat this menace, anti-fouling paints have been
used to coat the bottoms of ships. From the early days of sail, chemicals such as lime and arsenic were used to
protect the hull. Even though new paint technologies were developed, it was necessary that the useful life of the
paint be prolonged as much as possible to minimize the need for dry docking for hull cleaning thereby reducing
costs. A breakthrough came with the development of self-polishing anti-fouling paints. More expensive than the
traditional paints, these thick coatings smooth out over time providing up to five years of protection between dry
dockings. These benefits are attributable to the chemical properties of their major ingredient, the organotin
compound tributyltin (TBT). An extremely toxic chemical, TBT persists in water, harming marine life and the marine
environment, and can even enter the food chain thereby endangering human health. The International Convention
on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001, recognizes the importance of “protecting the marine
environment and human health from the adverse effects of anti-fouling systems”. To this end, parties are to prohibit
or restrict the use of harmful antifouling systems on ships that fly their flag or those that operate under their
authority, as well as on ships that enter its ports, shipyards or offshore terminals. The list of antifouling systems that
are prohibited are listed in annex I of the convention and updated from time-to-time. This convention entered into
force in 2008.106
The spread of aquatic invasive species is one of the most significant environmental issues compensating the
marine environment. When introduced into a new environment, and if conditions are favourable, alien species may
turn invasive, especially if natural predators are absent and out-compete local marine species to severely impact
local biodiversity. As well, they may cause diseases to organisms in the new environment and even damage human
health. Even though there are several pathways like aquaculture and mariculture, sport fishing, tourism and ocean
research that introduces aquatic invasive species into new environments, the major one is through shipping and
exchange of ballast waters remains the primary culprit. Estimates point out that approximately 10 billion tons of
ballast water is transferred annually, and such huge quantities of water can potentially lead to the transfer of sea life
and other species
Page: 79
that may be ecologically harmful when released into a non-native environment.107 It is to regulate such introductions
that the IMO has concluded the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships's Ballast Water
and Sediments, 2004, which outline several measures for ballast water management. In fact, the primary purpose of
this convention is to prevent the potentially devastating effects of the spread of harmful aquatic organisms carried
by ships's ballast water.108 The main mode envisaged to control the introduction of invasive species is to regulate
ballast water exchange (discharge of port/coastal water and take up of new water). Ballast water exchange,
henceforth, is to be conducted at a distance of at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest land and in water, which
is at least 200 metres in depth. In cases where the ship is unable to do this, the exchange can be conducted in
areas at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest land and where the depth of the water is at least 200 metres. The
general principle of the convention is that it requires all ships to implement a ballast water and sediments
management plan, carry a ballast water record book and carry out ballast water management procedures to a given
standard.109
Ship recycling or ship breaking is the process of dismantling an obsolete vessel for scrapping. Due to the
structural complexity of ships and the presence of many harmful chemicals including asbestos used to construct
ships, breaking a ship can be a hazardous activity, posing several environmental, safety and health issues. If
conducted in an environmentally sound and safe manner, ship breaking contributes to sustainable development as it
provides an avenue for recycling of steel and other fixtures. However, most of the world's ships are literally taken
apart by raw hand power on the beaches of developing countries, raising serious environmental and labour rights
related issues.110 The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of
Ships, 2009 provides for a comprehensive regime based on a cradle to grave approach to ensure that ships after
their operational lives, when recycled do not pose unwarranted risks to human health and safety or to the
environment. In other words, the convention lays down a blueprint to ensure the sustainable recycling of ships.111
If not removed sunken or stranded ships can pose a hazard to navigation or to the marine environment. At the
international level, the Nairobi Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007 (WRC) provides uniform international
rules and procedures for
Page: 80
prompt and effective removal of wrecks and payment of compensation for the costs involved. The objective of the
WRC is to ensure that wrecks do not pose any hazards to navigation or to the marine environment. Wrecks in the
convention area and, in certain cases, those situated within the territory of a state, including its territorial sea, are
brought within the regulatory ambit of the WRC. The WRC also specifies the standard, which state parties are to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
consider while initiating measures to effect wreck removal, namely that it should be “proportionate to the hazard.”112
In the event of a maritime casualty resulting in a wreck, a state party is to require that the master and the operator
of a ship flying its flag report the matter immediately to the affected state, which is to make a determination as to
whether the wreck poses a hazard or not. If a determination is made that the wreck constitutes a hazard, then the
affected state is to immediately inform the matter to the ship's registry and the registered owner, setting out a
reasonable deadline within which the registered owner is to remove the wreck. In cases that warrant immediate
action, the affected state, after informing the state where the ship is registered and the registered owner, can
remove the wreck. In such cases, the registered owner is liable for the costs involved. Wreck removal is integral to a
holistic understanding of the dynamics of ship breaking. However, the WRC does not specify any steps that need to
be adopted to ensure the safe disposal of a recovered wreck. A related matter relates to the role of salvors, who are
professionals who often are the first to arrive in case of a maritime incident to provide crucial aid to vessels in
danger. The salvors not only help in the salvage of property, but are often “the first line of defense in protecting the
environment”.113 The law relating to salvors and slavage stands codified to a large extent with the adoption of the
International Convention on Salvage, 1989. While this convention recognizes the monetary incentives behind a
successful salvage of the vessel or its cargo, it is provided that in carrying out salvage operations, the salvor has to
exercise due care to prevent or minimize damage to the environment. Furthermore, in outlining the criteria to be
utilized to fix the reward, the convention specifically provides that the skill and efforts that the salvors have taken in
preventing or minimizing damage to the environment should be taken into account.
Shipping also contributes to the problem of climate change through carbon dioxide emissions, even though the
share of global emissions from shipping stands at a low
Page: 81
2.7 per cent114 . In 2011, parties to annex VI of the MARPOL agreed to adopt amendments to this Annex to create a
new chapter 4 entitled “Regulations on energy efficiency for ships”. This makes an Energy Efficiency Design Index
mandatory for new ships and a Ship Energy Efficiency Plan for all ships. These amendments, which entered into
force on January 1, 2013, in effect, have established “the first-ever mandatory global greenhouse gas reduction
regime for an international industry sector.”115
While the above provides an overview of the international law regime on vessel-based pollution spurred and
supported by the IMO, some of the Regional Seas Programmes, in their supporting Conventions and specialized
protocols also deal with certain aspects of vessel-based pollution and their impacts. For instance, article 8 of the
Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution deals with pollution from vessels. It calls upon
contracting parties either individually or, when necessary to jointly take all appropriate measures to prevent, reduce
and control pollution of the marine environment of the Black Sea from vessels in accordance with generally accepted
international rules and standards. The Black Sea Regional Sea Programme also has a special Protocol on Cooperation
in Combating Pollution of the Black Sea Marine Environment by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Emergency
Situations, 1992. This protocol calls upon the contracting parties to “take necessary measures and cooperate in
cases of grave and imminent danger to the marine environment of the Black Sea or to the coast of one or more of
the parties due to the presence of massive quantities of oil or other harmful substances resulting from accidental
causes or from accumulation of small discharges which are polluting or constituting a threat of pollution.”116
Ocean-based dumping and ocean fertilization
The dumping of harmful substances and incineration at sea poses serious threats to the marine environment and
to human health. For example, end of the second world war, saw chemical weapons being dumped into the Baltic
Sea. Due to the corrosion of the metal containers in which they were sunk, the chemicals are now leaking into the
marine environment. There is possibility that these chemicals will eventually accumulate in living organisms, and
may enter the human food chain.117
Page: 82
The UNCLOS provides certain rudimentary rules on ocean dumping. It calls upon states to adopt laws and
regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment by dumping.118 Furthermore, it
imposes duties on the coastal state, the flag state and on any state where wastes are loaded to enforce the laws and
regulations adopted against ocean dumping.119
The primary international law on ocean dumping is embodied in the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London Convention) and the 1996 Protocol to the
Convention (Protocol). These legal instruments essentially set up a legal regime to regulate the dumping of wastes
and other matter into the oceans. The 1972 London Convention requires parties to adopt effective measures to
regulate ocean dumping of materials that can pollute the marine environment. It regulates the dumping of material
into the territorial sea and contiguous zone and prohibits persons and flag vessels from transporting any material
from without a permit. The 1996 Protocol, which was amended in 2006, replaces the earlier treaty and imposes
stricter regulation. The 1996 London Protocol bans outright incineration of wastes at sea. The protocol also adopts a
“reverse list” approach: all dumping is prohibited except those substances specifically listed in annex I. Even for
annex I substances, the protocol establishes a permit process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The London Convention 1972 and the 1996 Protocol, which is administered by the IMO, has considerable potential
to prevent different forms of ocean dumping. A new form of ocean dumping that is attracting considerable
international attention is the disposal of carbon dioxide at sea. To mitigate climate change impacts, off late, there
has been growing attention to develop technological and geo-engineering methods. Technological developments
have made it possible to capture carbon dioxide from industrial and energy-related sources, and inject the same into
geological formations in the sub-seabed for long-term isolation.120 Termed as carbon dioxide capture and
sequestration, it affords considerable promise among of a portfolio of different climate mitigation strategies that may
have to be vigorously pursued. As well, large-scale ocean fertilization to artificially enhance carbon-absorbing
processes in the oceans is also being contemplated. This process includes the purposeful introduction of nutrients to
the upper water layers of the ocean to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to increase marine food
production. As of now, the London Protocol regulates carbon sequestration and ocean fertilization geo-engineering
activities. In fact, it has been provided that carbon dioxide streams can be considered for dumping, if the disposal is
into a sub-seabed geological formation and it consists
Page: 83
overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide even though it may contain incidental associated substances derived from the
source material and the capture and sequestration processes used.121
Interestingly, article 6 provides that “[c]ontracting Parties shall not allow the export of wastes or other matter to
other countries for dumping or incineration at sea.” While carbon dioxide capture and sequestration is having
growing acceptance as one of a portfolio of measures to reduce levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide not all countries
have suitable sub-seabed geological formations for sequestering carbon dioxide streams. In light of article 6, it may
seem that the London Protocol is a barrier to the transboundary movement of carbon dioxide streams to other
countries for disposal. Accordingly, article 6 has been amended to permit the export of carbon dioxide streams for
disposal provided that an agreement or arrangement has been entered into by the countries concerned122 on the
amendment to article 6 of the London Protocol (adopted on 30 October 2009). To regulate such export the
contracting parties have also adopted revised Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Streams for
Disposal into Sub-seabed Geological Formations, 2012.
As far as ocean fertilization is concerned, even though the scope of the London Convention and Protocol includes
ocean fertilization activities, given the present state of knowledge on the effectiveness and potential environmental
impacts of ocean fertilization in consonance with the precautionary approach, it has been decided by the parties to
approach ocean fertilization with utmost caution. Accordingly, only legitimate scientific research purposes are
justified and such research is treated as placement of matter for a purpose other than mere disposal. As well,
scientific research proposals should be assessed on a case-by-case basis using an assessment framework to be
developed by the scientific groups under the London Convention and Protocol.123
Even though the London Convention bans the dumping of radioactive substances at sea, there have reports of
surreptitious dumping into oceanic and coastal waters. For instance, it has been reported that taking advantage the
fact that Somalia does not have a functioning government; nuclear and other toxic wastes have been dumped into
Somalia's coastal waters. Containers containing these hazardous wastes were broke open by the tsunami, leading to
their scattering and subsequent health issues.124
Page: 84
The various regional seas programmes also play important roles in preventing the dumping of harmful substances
into the oceans. For instance, the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, 1995
(the Barcelona Convention) specifically calls upon contracting parties to take all appropriate measures to prevent,
abate and to the fullest possible extent eliminate pollution of the Mediterranean Sea Area caused by dumping from
ships and aircraft or incineration at sea.125 In addition, the parties to the Mediterranean Regional Seas Programme
have also developed a Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and
Aircraft, 1995. This protocol, which is yet to come into force, directs parties to take all appropriate measures to
prevent and abate pollution of the Mediterranean Sea area due to dumping from ships and aircraft.126 While the
dumping of substances listed in annex I to this protocol, like organohalogen compounds, organosilicon compounds,
mercury, cadmium, crude oil and hydrocarbons, radioactive wastes, stands prohibited,127 the dumping of items listed
in annex II like cyanide and flourides, pesticides, arsenic, lead, copper, containers, scrap metal, radioactive wastes
not included in annex I, etc. are subjected to a prior special permit issued by competent national authorities.128
V International law relating to protection of the marine environment: An evaluation
Safe, healthy and productive coastal and marine ecosystems are sine qua non for sustainable development. Given
the centrality of these ecosystems in achieving human progress, it is not unsurprising that human activities pose
significant pressures on these ecosystems and reduce their resilience. As noted earlier, the cumulative impacts of
destructive fishing, pollution, and climate change are already causing substantial changes to the marine
environment, resulting in resource depletion, posing well-being and livelihood concerns to coastal communities. The
persistence of such a scenario will jeopardize the moral duty that we owe to the future generations to conserve and
preserve the marine environment to their benefit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: 85
From the above overview, it is clear that law has an important role to play in achieving sustainable development
of the oceans, the coasts and its resources; as well as to secure their full development potential. In this regard,
protecting the marine environment has two dimensions - it is both a domestic and an international issue. However,
left to their own devices, individual nations are unable to develop the appropriate tools, as marine environmental
protection is a complex issue that requires an appropriate level of scientific knowledge and more importantly, it
transcends national boundaries. It is practically impossible to fence ocean waters and the pollutants that they
contain. Lack of effort by one country to control inland discharges might adversely affect the economic interests of
another country. International law, therefore, has an important role to play in providing normative guidance to states
to respond to the problem.
As can be discerned from the above great steps have been accomplished in the arduous path of protecting and
restoring the fragile and degraded coastal and marine environments. Presently, there is greater awareness of the
problems posed by marine pollution and its potential to sabotage sustainable development and human progress.
Efforts are being expended at the international, regional and national levels to respond to the crisis. As well, there is
increasing reliance on technology to provide solutions. Despite this, the level of pollution in the oceans continues to
climb at staggering rates, raising serious questions regarding the efficacy of the international regime and its impact
on regional and national levels for marine pollution control.
On the positive side, there are three important phases in the linear evolution of international marine
environmental protection law. In the first phase, the rule which prevailed, was that pollution of the ocean was an
important freedom that the states enjoyed. This state continued until the early 20th century. Over the years, the
international law relating to marine environmental protection undergone significant evolution. The emphasis during
the second period was on the development and elaboration of formal treaties and rules based on a sectoral approach
to specific issues. In the ongoing third phase, the law is evolving to provide for normative basis and elaborate
regulatory structures for the protection of the marine environment based on sustainability principles. An interesting
feature is that ever since the Rio Declaration, the intent behind the international regimes on marine environmental
protection has been to give effect to some of the fundamental principles and processes relating to sustainability. The
emphasis on these principles namely, ecosystem-based management, precaution, environmental impact
assessment, integrated coastal zone management, and polluter pays, have deepened the normative structure of
these instruments and have considerably enhanced their regulatory comprehensiveness. In this context, a growing
trend is the focus on ecosystem and integrated based approaches, where humans and their interactions with the
marine environment are considered as central to attaining a clean and healthy marine environment.
Page: 86
It is clear that international law relating to the protection of the marine environment involves a series of
regulatory instruments that have evolved incrementally. While the UNCLOS continues to be the centerpiece of the
various international regulatory instruments that deal with the protection of the marine environment, there are a
series of other instruments (hard and soft) that have bearing on with various issues or are applicable to particular
regions that supplement the UNCLOS mandates. As well, some of these instruments possess only narrow regulatory
scope; there are others that have a wider regulatory compass. Even though the regime is multi-layered, the fact is
that the rules are seldom inter-linked and rarely do they reinforce each other. These are not sufficiently
amalgamated to create a harmonized overarching normative system; rather, they remain as a patchwork of
instruments that regulate only certain aspects of the problem. As the above analysis reveals, there are considerable
gaps in the international legal regime on the protection of the marine environment and it also suffers from a general
lack of legal effectiveness. International laws on the subject do not deal with the full range of issues and many
significant areas are yet to be dealt with comprehensively. Often qualifying language in these instruments reduces
their effectiveness and that of the obligations that they espouse. As well, many of the provisions in these treaties are
exhortatory and not mandatory and these leave national governments considerable discretion to decide the manner
in which these international obligations are to be implemented. The absence of stern requirements reduces the
potency of several of these instruments. The overwhelmingly non-binding nature of the rules (soft law) has
effectively rendered the international law relating to the protection of the marine environment dependent on the
goodwill of the concerned states. Translating international marine environmental law postulates into workable on-the
ground rules is essentially a domestic affair. Consequently, the extent of regulation may vary from country to
country depending on the environmental laws, policies, economic capacity, and technology available in a country to
give effect to the international hard/soft law rules on the subject.
New uses of the seas and ocean space and climate change can pose new problems, which the present legal
framework may be inappropriate to regulate. Since the wheels of International law development grind rather slowly,
there is a growing trend to utilize the existing legal frame to provide normative rules of regulation for several
emerging problems, which remain unregulated at the international level. A number of existing global sectoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
instruments, which even though does not directly address emerging issues like climate change, ocean acidification,
etc. are innovatively interpreted to justify the regulation of such areas. Inevitably, the 1982 UNCLOS provisions
which are couched at a high level of generality emerge as the primary legal framework which is utilized to curb and
regulate all activities and emerging issues related to the oceans and seas. Often, the UNCLOS is complemented by
an array of other relevant
Page: 87
instruments and measures like the CBD and this approach to stretch existing international law to provide normative
and regulatory coverage to new issues may lead to flawed regulation and can prove counter-productive in the long-
run. Accordingly, new rules may have to be formulated to provide greater clarity and normative guidance.
Clearly, land-based activities and sources is the single-most factor responsible for the contamination of the
marine environment. A multitude of sources and contaminants lead to LBSMP. Despite this, at the global level, land
based sources of marine pollution continues to be the least regulated and as the preceding discussion reveals, this is
an area that continues to defy all attempts at regulation to ensure a cleaner marine environment. A primary reason
for this situation is the lack of binding instruments at the international level. There is yet to be a binding legal
instrument that directly deals with the problem. The UNCLOS remains as the only binding legal instrument that
specifically addresses LBSMP. However, the UNCLOS mandates due to its generality does not provide specific
guidance to member states, neither does this instrument provide legal roadmaps and specific action plans to
address the issue. There are several other treaties that have indirect relevance; but their scope in relation to LBSMP
is limited. It is essentially a series of soft law instruments that are pertinent to LBSMP control. In other words,
regulation is predominantly based on a soft-law approach. The primary reason for choosing this path is the belief
that soft law instruments would act as the precursor to hard law instruments replete with binding obligations. It was
thought that the soft law instruments would be more functional as it would confer more powers on states to devise
solutions with fewer fetters on their sovereignty, thereby rendering the instrument more appealable to states.
However, the degraded marine environment is proof that such hopes stand belied since the non-binding nature of
the rules has effectively rendered international law dependent on the goodwill of the concerned states. More often
than naught, participating countries while developing national level measures to address the issue, ignores or waters
down the mandates of soft law rules. As well, regulating land-based sources of pollution has proved to be an
extremely difficult prospect primarily because of the diffused nature of the source involved and, more importantly,
the solution may also require the placing of severe restrictions on industrial and other activities. This is something,
which most nations, particularly those in the developing world can ill-afford, detracting the development of a long-
term comprehensive solution to the problem. Another shortcoming of the present international legal regime on land-
based sources is that the solution is viewed primarily as a domestic matter and calls upon individual countries to
respond to the same. However, the implementation of the relevant international instruments on LBSMP control at the
domestic level has been unsatisfactory. This is primarily because even though most states have responded positively
to the law, as far as implementation is concerned, only to a handful of the guidelines particularly those
Page: 88
that are general in nature and those that are compatible with their national developmental priorities have found
favour. The conferment of wide discretion and the flexible nature of the obligations have hampered effective
implementation. Since most of the international law on this subject is soft in nature, there is the absence of
appropriate institutional arrangements to promote and supervise the implementation of the rules by national
governments, which has reduced their efficacy. Moreover, States have wide discretion to cherry-pick and implement
only those measures that are compatible to their national political and economic interests. However, thus far,
performance and compliance with international laws reveal that most nations place primary importance to short-
term economic benefits that require ruthless exploitation of these resources, without care to their carrying capacity.
States that did sign and ratify and took upon themselves the obligation to implement basic obligations to protect the
marine and coastal environments, have not domesticated them into their national laws, and administrative
apparatuses.
Given that rivers and other watercourses act as pathways that carry pollutants to the oceans, there is also the
need to draw inter-linkages with other environmental regimes, for instance, the law relating to trans-boundary
watercourses. The impacts of marine pollutants discharged thousands of miles away in upstream areas, once it
reaches oceanic waters, can be carried by ocean currents, wind and waves to coastal areas situated still thousands of
miles away. Similarly, the legal regimes relating to the control of hazardous wastes and their management,
biodiversity conservation are all relevant to the protection of the marine environment. Presently, very little headway
has been made to secure cross-pollination between these different international law regimes at a practical level.
Shipping can constitute an environmental hazard to the marine environment - operational discharges; accidental
or intentional pollution; and physical damage to marine habitats or organisms. With the growth in global trade,
shipping activities are also increasing, thereby increasing the potential for adverse effects and damage. In the
course of routine operations, accidents, and willful acts of pollution, ships release directly in the marine environment
a wide variety of substances like oil and oily mixtures, noxious liquid and solid substances, sewage, garbage, anti-
fouling paints, harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens, and even noise. In addition, ships may cause harm to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
marine organisms and their habitats through physical impact, which may include the smothering of habitats,
contamination by anti-fouling systems or other substances through groundings, and ship strikes of marine
mammals. As seen, shipping is one of the most intensely regulated industries at the international level. The UN
through the IMO has established standards for “safe, secure and efficient shipping on clean oceans”. At the time of
its establishment, the mandate of the IMO did not extend to the protection of the marine environment. Over the
years, the IMO has played a pivotal
Page: 89
role in protecting the marine environment from vessel-source pollution. A series of IMO conventions, rules,
regulations and guidelines regulate almost every aspect of this industry and its impacts on the marine environment
extending over a vast jurisdictional space that includes the oceans and the land. As far as vessel source pollution is
concerned, the various international instruments aimed at preventing and controlling pollution from ships, in
particular, the UNCLOS, the MARPOL 73/78, and those relating to liability and compensation for damages caused by
such pollution have been able to exert a positive impact in terms of creating a system that has helped to regulate
and lessen the number of oil spills and the quantity of oil spilled every year.129 Despite this, the occasional oil spill
continues to assume dangerous proportions. Concerns continue to be expressed over the ever-increasing number of
vessels that operate in sensitive marine environments. Several IMO conventions relevant to other environmental
problems posed by shipping, like the ballast water management, ship recycling, wreck removal, etc., are yet to enter
into force. While the different instruments identified provide legal framework and coverage, much more needs to be
done in terms of expanding their normative reach and in ensuring that the entire panoply of instruments are brought
into force. As well, mechanism needs to be devised to ensure effective implementation of the different stipulations.
There is also the need for new rules and normative guidance to regulate deep-sea bed activities and consequent
pollution.
Regional regimes help converge interests on a particular issue and it is at the regional level that most of the
substantive norms relating to the protection of the marine environment have evolved and are being put into
practice. The regional seas programmes provide institutional and organizational support for cooperation to flourish
between the states, development of new rules and action at the ground level. In fact, the regional seas programmes
represent the strongest international response to the problems posed by land-based sources of marine pollution.
Regionalism has led to the development of normative solutions in terms of new conventions, protocols, and action
plans under the auspices of the regional seas programmes. It offers greater flexibility in terms of domesticating
international stipulations accommodating the economic, ecological and geopolitical needs of particular regions and
the countries that comprise the region, even though at the ground level, most of the regional seas programmes have
not been very effective. Akin to the global conventions, the regional seas programmes afford considerable leeway to
states, to frame their own rules and regulations to redress the marine pollution problem. As far as the drawbacks of
the regional approach is concerned, regionalization of the problem in certain cases has legitimized weak standards
and has led to the establishment of ineffective institutions, tasked with the duty to monitor the implementation of
these weak standards. Furthermore, some of the participating states have not addressed the regional problems
Page: 90
with the seriousness called for by the different scientific reports and studies. This is particularly true as far as the
South Asian Seas Regional Programme is concerned the inconsistencies between the different national and regional
regulatory regimes lead to situations of ineffective enforcement where the environmental policies pursued by one
state risk being overwhelmed by the inconsistent policies pursued by other. Another downside of the regional seas
programme is that they cover only certain portions of the earth's oceanic environment, giving rise to divergence in
rule development and implementation. This does not bode well for the overall protection of the marine environment.
The regional approach in certain ways detracts from one of the core concepts of the unity of the marine and coastal
environment, failing to provide comprehensive protection to the marine environment. It may therefore be necessary
to integrate the multilayered treaties including the regional level instruments into a more composite global
approach, which is imperative to the success to resolve the problem.
VI Conclusion
In sum, without question, a healthy, productive and resilient coastal and marine environment is needed for food
security, for sustaining economic development and for ensuring the well-being of present and future generations.
While the international marine environmental law protection regime has covered considerable distances in its quest
to improve protection to the marine environment, much more needs to be done, in terms of responding to existing
and emerging challenges. In many ways, the state of the marine environment is symbolic of the ineffective nature of
international marine environment law. For the present, we have a combination of traditional hard law binding
instruments that are couched at a high level of generality supported by a series of soft law non-binding instruments.
Moreover, several of the existing instruments are out of sync in dealing with emerging issues and new uses of the
ocean. This underscores the need to create a solid legal foundation responsive to the needs and challenges implicit
in the mandate for marine environmental protection. As well, the time has arrived to focus on governance, which
requires effective compliance, monitoring and enforcement. It is therefore imperative that existing formal treaties be
elaborated; new international instruments developed (including the creation of new hard law instruments), and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
attendant administrative apparatuses strengthened. This may require assumption of more binding obligations by
states, the launching of action plans and implementation in line with specific timeframes. The focus should be on
realizing the functional intent of the international instruments (hard and soft) and the principles that they embody
and move towards their effective implementation at the regional and national levels. Then there is also the need for
increased cooperation and coordination among the various regional seas programmes for improved integrated
Page: 91
management and ecosystem approaches. This would enable sharing of technical, legal, scientific and management
expertise between the different countries. Several states, particularly, the developing states, presently lack the
political commitment to enter into new binding agreements, or even implement existing international obligations
due to sovereignty, economic and poverty eradication concerns. In fact, an understanding of the problem relating to
the protection of the marine environment, as opposed to the domestic dimension requires adherence to the notion of
fairness, which requires that developed nations play a lead role in combating the problem and in supporting capacity
building, creation of epistemic communities technology transfer and in providing aid to developing nations. This may
prompt developing nations to initiate concrete measures to implement their international obligations. While the need
for more normative guidance and strengthening of the legal spine is needed, basic to increasing the efficacy of the
international regime is for states to focus on capacity building initiatives, information and knowledge development
and dissemination, forum-building, providing financial incentives, creating opportunities for greater public
awareness, integrated river basin management, establishing legally binding effluent limitations and ensuring
reduction and control of pollutants from point and non-point sources, development of new management tools such
as marine spatial planning and linking it with integrated coastal zone management. Protecting the marine
environment should be elevated to the status of a polemic norm a matter of high priority for all nations; lest, marine
pollution and marine environmental degradation remain quintessential problems that affect not only the present, but
also, future generations.
———
* M.Phil., National University of Juridical Sciences, India, Ph.D., Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Canada. Research Associate, Marine &
Environmental Law Institute, Dalhousie University & Visiting Professor of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, India. The author would like
to acknowledge the excellent research assistance of Himanshu Kamal Tripathi, College of Legal Studies, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies,
Dehradun.
1
Tia Ghose, “Oceans May Hold 250,000 Tons of Trash”, available at: http://news.discovery.com/eArth/oceans/oceans-may-hold-250000-tons-of-trash
-141211.htm (last visited on Feb. 13, 2015).
2
U.N. Secretary General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Report of the Secretary-General, 14U.N. Doc. A/64/66/Add.2* (Oct. 19, 2009), available at:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/436/24/PDF/N0943624.pdf?OpenElement (last visited on Feb 10, 2015).
3
U.N. Secretary General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General, ¶[18 U.N. Doc. A/60/63/Add.2 (Aug. 15, 2005), available at:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/461/37/PDF/N0546137.pdf? Open Element (last visited on Feb. 15, 2015).
4
UNEP, Sick Water? The Central role of Wastewater Management in Sustainable Development, available at:
http://www.unep.org/pdf/SickWater_screen.pdf (last visited on Feb. 5, 2015).
5
Id. at 9.
6
U.N. Secretary General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General, 59 U.N. Doc. A/65/69/Add.2 (Aug. 31, 2010), available at:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/500/37/PDF/N1050037.pdf? OpenElement (last visited on Jan, 22 2015).
7
U.N. Secretary General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea: Conservation and Sustainable use of Marine Biological Diversity, Rep. of the Secretary-
General, 38-39 U.N. Doc. A/60/63/Add.1, available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/ reference_files/new_developments_and_recent_adds.htm (last
visited on Dec. 26, 2014).
8
U.N. Secretary General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General, 55 U.N. Doc. A/59/62/Add.1 (Aug. 18, 2004), available at:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/464/58/PDF/N0446458.pdf? OpenElement (last visited on Feb. 12, 2015).
9
Supra note 6 at 60.
10 UNEP, The Honolulu Strategy: A Global Framework for Prevention and Protection of Marine Debris, available at:
http://www.unep.org/esm/Portals/50159/ Honolulu%20Strategy%20Final.pdf (last visited on Feb. 19, 2015)
11
U.N. Secretary-General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General, 10 U.N. Doc.A/62/66/Add.2 (Sep. 10, 2007), available at:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/500/06/PDF/N0750006.pdf?OpenElement (last visited on Jan 30, 2015).
12
U.N. Secretary-General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc.A/66/70 (2011), available at: http://daccess-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/482/99/PDF/N1148299.pdf?OpenElement (last visited on Feb. 10, 2015).
13
U.N. Secretary-General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General, 18 U.N. Doc. A/69/71/Add.1 (Sep. 1, 2014), available at:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/523/40/PDF/N1452340.pdf?OpenElement (last visited on Feb. 23, 2015)
14
Supra note 12 at 28.
15 Supra note 10 at 5.
16
Supra note 8 at 47.
17
U.N. Secretary-General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General. U.N. Doc. A/69/71 (Mar. 21, 2014), available at:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/272/55/PDF/N1427255.pdf?OpenElement (last visited on Jan. 15, 2015).
18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19
Id. at 12.

22 U.N. Secretary-General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General, 31 U.N. Doc.A/66/70/Add. 2 (Mar. 21, 2014).
23
Supra note 12 at 12, 23.
24
U.N. Secretary-General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General, 71 U.N. Doc. A/59/62 (Mar. 4, 2004).
25
Supra note 8 at 51.
27
Tony George Puthucherril, Towards Sustainable Coastal Development: Institutionalizing Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Coastal Climate
Change Adaptation in South Asia (Brill Publishers, 2014).
28
Montreal Guidelines for the Protection of the Marine Environment Against Pollution from Land-based Sources, 1985, art. 3, available at:
http://www.pnuma.org/gobernanza/cd/Biblioteca/Derecho%20ambiental/28%20UNEPEnv-LawGuide&PrincN07.pdf (last visited on Mar. 1, 2015).
29
See generally UNCLOS 1982.
30
For instance, see the Mediterranean Regional Seas Programme which consists of the following countries, namely, Albania, Algeria, Bosnia/Herzegovina,
Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey,
European Community. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona
Convention), 1995 is the primary legal instrument that underpins the programme. In addition, there is an action plan for the Protection of the Marine
Environment and the Sustainable Development of the Coastal Areas of the Mediterranean, 1995 (Mediterranean Action Plan or MAP Phase II), and
several protocols. Some of the major protocols are the Protocol on the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-Based Sources
(LBS Protocol), 1980; Protocol on the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
Disposal (Hazardous Wastes Protocol), 1996; Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft
(Dumping Protocol), 1976; Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution Resulting from Exploration and Exploitation of the
Continental Shelf and the Seabed and its Subsoil (Offshore Protocol), 1994; Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the
Mediterranean (SPA and Biodiversity Protocol), 1995 that afford additional normative guidance to support the programme. As far as the South Asian
Seas Regional Seas Programme is concerned, it binds the People's Republic of Bangladesh; the Republic of India; the Republic of Maldives; the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. There is no specific regional convention and the UNCLOS emerges as the primary
legal instrument that offers member states guidance. In addition, there is a South Asian Seas Action Plan, 1995 which deals with protection of the
marine and coastal environment from land based activities, development and Implementation of national and regional oil spill contingency plans,
Integrated Coastal Zone Management; and Human resources development by strengthening Regional Centers of Excellence.
31
See UNEP Resolution 10.4, Marine Debris Convention on Migratory Species (Nov. 2011), available at:
http://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/10_04_marinedebris_e_0_0.pdf (last visited on Mar. 7, 2015).
32
See UNEP Resolution 10.24, Further Steps to Abate Underwater Noise Pollution for the Protection of Cetaceans & Other Migratory Species (Nov.
2011), available at: http://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/10_24_underwater_noise_e_0_0.pdf (last visited on Mar. 7, 2015).
33
See UNEP Resolution 11.30, Management of Marine Debris Convention on Migratory Species (Nov. 2014), available at:
http://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/Res_11_30_Management_Marine_Debris_E.pdf (last visited on Mar. 7, 2015).
34
See UNEP Resolution 11.28, Future CMS Activities Related to Invasive Alien Species (Nov. 2014), available at:
http://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/Res_11_28_Invasive_ Alien_Species_Future_Activities_E.pdf (last visited on Mar. 7, 2015).
35
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, 1998, art. 1,
available at: http://www.pic.int/TheConvention/Overview/TextoftheConvention/tabid/1048/language/en-US/Default.aspx (last visited on Mar. 3, 2015).
36David Vander Zwaag, “The Precautionary Approach and the International Control of Toxic Chemicals: Beacon of Hope, Sea of confusion and Dilution”,
available at: https://ojs.library.dal.ca/KNOWSL/Article/view/4641 (last visited on Feb. 4, 2015).
37
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2001, art. 1, available at: http://www.pops.int/documents/convtext/convtext_en.pdf (last
visited on Mar. 12, 2015).
38
Ibid.
39See generally Tony George Puthucherril, “Two Decades of Basel Convention” in Shawkat Alam et. al. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of International
Environmental Law 295-301 (2013).
40 Minamata Convention on Mercury, 2013, art. 1.
41
Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, art. 8(a), available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdfd (last visited on Mar. 15, 2015).
42
U.N. Secretary-General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General, 54 U.N. Doc.A/62/66/Add.1.
43
Supra note 28, Montreal Guidelines, 1985, 1(a).
44Diana L. Torrens, “Protection of the Marine Environment in International Law: Toward an Effective Regime of the Law of the Sea” 19 Queen's L.J. 613
(1994).
45
The Convention on the High Seas, 1958, 450 U.N.T.S. 11-82, art. 24.
46Decision 13/18/II of the Governing Council of UNEP (May 24, 1985), available at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?
DocumentID=59&ArticleID=384&l=en (last visited on Mar. 10, 2015).
47
Supra note 28, art. 2.
48
Supra note 28, art. 4.
49 Id., art. 3.
50 Id., art. 7.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51 Id., art. 12.

52 Id., art. 8.
53
Id., art. 9.
54
Supra note 8 at 29.
55 U.N.E.P, Report of the third session of the Intergovernmental Review Meeting on the Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the
Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities, 3, U.N. Doc.UNEP/GPA/IGR.3/6 (Jan. 26, 2012), available at:
http://unep.org/gpa/documents/meetings/IGRIII/IGRIIIReportEn.pdf (last visited on Mar. 3, 2015).
56
See Montreal Declaration in the Protection of the Marine Environment from land-based Activities, para 8, available at:
www.paclii.org/pits/en/treaty_database/2001/11.rtf (last visited on Mar. 16, 2015).
57 Id., para 9.
58
Id., para 10.
59 Id., para 9(c).
60 Id., para 9(a).

61
Id., para 9(g)
62
Id., para 9(a).
63 U.N.E.P, Marine and Coastal Zone, U.N. Doc. UNEP/GPA/IGR.2/7.

64
Supra note 56.
65
Supra note 10 at 2.
66
See GWI Factsheet, available at: http://enefield.eu/news/gwi-factsheet/ (last visited on Mar. 17, 2015).
67
See Protection of the Marine Environment against Pollution from Land-Based Sources, 1990, art. 4, available at.
http://www2.unitar.org/cwm/publications/cbl/synergy/pdf/cat3/UNEP_regional_seas/convention_kuwait/Protocols/protocol_prot_marine_env_against.pdf
(last visited on Mar. 5, 2015).
68 Id., art. 5.1.
69
Id., art. 11.
70
Id., art. 8.
71 Id., art. 5.
72
Id., art. 13.
73
See UNCLOS, art. 217.
75
See International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) 73/78, arts. 6(2) and 6(5), available at:
http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura/Projecto-Navios-I/IMO-Conventions%20(copies)/MARPOL.pdf (last visited on Mar. 23, 2015).
76 Id., art. 4(2).
77 UNCLOS, art. 211.
78
Ibid.
79
Id., art. 218.
80 Id., arts. 219, 220 & 221.
81
Id., art 211.
82 Supra note 66. See reg. 19 & 20.
83 Id., reg. 11.
84
Id., reg.15 & 34.
85 Id., reg. 17.
86 Id., reg. 13.8.
87
Id., reg. 1.
88 Id., reg. 2 & 5.
89
Id., reg. 7.
90
Id., reg. 8.
91
Resolution of MEPC on Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From
Ships, 1973, reg. 1.9, available at: http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/pollutionprevention/garbage/documents/201(62).pdf (last visited on Mar.
26, 2015).
92 See also Resolution of MEPC on Guidelines for the Development of Garbage Management Plans, available at:
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/Documents/2014%20revision/RESOLUTION%20MEPC.220(63)%20Guidelines%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20for%20the%20Development%20of%20Garbage%20Management%20Plans.pdf (last visited on Mar. 25, 2015).

93
Supra note 46, reg. 10.8.
94
UNCLOS, art. 212(3).
95 Resolution of MPEG on Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1997 to Amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From
Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto, available at: http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=23760 (last
visited on Mar. 20, 2015).
96
Id., at 14 (reg. 12).
97
Id., at 15 (reg. 13).
98
Id., at 19 (reg. 14).
99
Id., at 21.
100
Appendix III Criteria and Procedures for Designation of Emission Control Areas, MEPC 58/23/Add.1, Special Areas under MARPOL, available at:
http://www.marpoltraining.com/MMSKOREAN/MARPOL/Annex_VI/app3.htm (last visited on Feb. 10, 2015).
101
Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (Rule 4, A 24/Res.982).
102
International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001, art. 3.
103
Id., art. 7.
104
See HNS Convention (tier 1) (art. 12).
105
Id., tier 2, ch. III.
106
Tony George Puthucherril, From Shipbreaking to Sustainable Ship Recycling (Brill Publishers, 2014).
107 Tony George Puthucherril, “Ballast Waters and Aquatic Invasive Species: A Model for India” 19 Colo. J. Int'lEnvtl. L. &Pool'y 381-425 (2008).
108
109
Id. at 45.
110 Id. at 48.
111
Supra note 106.
112
See Nairobi Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228988/8243.pdf (last visited on Mar. 9, 2015).
113
Susanne Storgards, Coastal State Intervention in Salvage Operations: Obligations and Liability Toward the Salvor, available at:
https://www.ub.uit.no/munin/bitstream/handle/10037/5126/thesis.pdf?sequence=2 (last visited on Mar. 9, 2015).
114
Supra note 2 at 21.
115 U.N. Secretary-General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General, 46 U.N. Doc. A/69/71 (Apr. 8, 2013), available at:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/523/40/PDF N1452340.pdf?OpenElement (last visited on Jan. 12, 2015).
116Protocol on Cooperation in Combating Pollution of the Black Sea Marine Environment by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Emergency Situations,
1992, art. 1.
117
118 UNCLOS, art. 210.
119
UNCLOS, art. 216.
120
121
1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972, annex. I, available at:
http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gcil_lp.pdf (last visited on Mar. 14, 2015).
122
Resolution LP. 3(4) on the Amendment to Article 6 of the London Protocol (Oct. 30, 2009), art. 6.2.
123 Resolution LC-LP.1, 2008 on the Regulation of Ocean Fertilization (Oct. 31, 2008).
124 BBC News, “Waves ‘Brought Waste to Somalia”, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm (last visited on Mar. 14, 2016).
125 Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, 1995, art. 5, available at: http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?
fileticket=30r%2B7BeaSOo%3D&tabid=406&language=el-GR (last visited on Mar. 15, 2015).
126 Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, 1995, art. 1, available at:
http://www.ab.gov.tr/files/tarama/tarama_files/27/SC27EXP_Barcelona%20convention.pdf (last visited on Mar. 23, 2015).
127
Id., art. 4.
128Id., art. 5.129 U.N. Secretary-General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea Rep. of the Secretary-General, 47U.N. Doc. A/63/63/Add.1 (2008), available
at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/493/50/PDF/N0849350.pdf?OpenElement (last visited on Feb. 10, 2015).
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and
understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of
this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity
of this text must be verified from the original source.

J 57 JILI 2015 48 17ba041 Nluoacin 20211020 043258 1 23

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J 57 JILI 2015 48 17ba041 Nluoacin 20211020 043258 1 23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, October 20, 2021

Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution

Vessel based sources of marine pollution

21 Supra note 12 at 31.

51 Id., art. 12.

60 Id., para 9(a).

63 U.N.E.P, Marine and Coastal Zone, U.N. Doc. UNEP/GPA/IGR.2/7.

20for%20the%20Development%20of%20Garbage%20Management%20Plans.pdf (last visited on Mar. 25, 2015).

You might also like