LUND UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Law
Environmental Law in an International Context
JUCN21
Personal Code: 940502P180
Teacher: Annika Nilsson
Spring Term 2015
Oceans: Why on earth do we care?
An investigation into the legislation surrounding marine
dumping at a global and a European Union level
1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3
WATER POLLUTION ............................................................................................... 4
DUMPING ............................................................................................................. 5
INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION .............................................................................. 6
Prior to 1972 ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ............................................................ 6
The London Convention .................................................................................................................................. 7
The London Protocol ......................................................................................................................................10
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE LONDON CONVENTION AND THE LONDON
PROTOCOL .......................................................................................................... 13
EUROPEAN UNION LEGISLATION ......................................................................... 15
ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 16
Legislation ..........................................................................................................................................................16
Public perception ............................................................................................................................................18
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................................19
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................... 21
2
Introduction
The importance of international legislation in environmental law is evident; if
there is to be a successful reduction in the pollution of oceans then it needs to be
at a global level. This will ensure consistency and reduce the negative impact of
States acting freely and independently of each other. The focus of this essay will
be on dumping as a form of pollution.
The main legislation to consider are two global treaties by the International
Maritime Organisation (IMO), firstly the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972. This Convention will be
referred to throughout as the London Convention. Secondly, attention will be
given to its succeeding Protocol (1996 Protocol to the Convention on the
Protection of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972).
This will now be referred to as the London Protocol for the purpose of the essay.
A discussion surrounding the content and application of these pieces of
legislation will be studied.
Further to this, the issue of ocean pollution with regard to dumping will be
discussed within the European Community, and attention will be given to
specific attempts made within the European Union to reduce this environmental
issue and its associated effects.
It will be interesting to consider whether legislation is still occurring on a local
level. As this would presumably imply that there may be an insufficiency
regarding the existing international legislation in this area. Alternatively it may
imply that although this is an issue of global importance it shall be most
successful if different States regulate it independently. Therefore national pieces
of legislation may justifiably exist.
It is likely that public perceptions surrounding pollution will have changed in
recent decades. Therefore deliberation will be given towards the reasons for why
people’s opinions have changed, and ultimately whether they have changed
3
enough or whether there remains uncertainty and a lack of education in this
area.
Water pollution
The importance of environmental protection is commonly referred to in
academic arguments; water pollution in particular is frequently mentioned in
relation to a threat to human health, especially following certain tragic historic
events1.
There have been growing concerns in recent decades due to the changing nature
of the ocean and the different threats that are having an impact upon it. The
importance of which is apparent within certain texts, which assert that if these
changes are not controlled then they could “adversely affect all human and
animal life on the planet”2. This changing of attitudes and increased awareness
seems to be reflected in the increasing amount legislation in the area.
In considering the importance of having global, in addition to any national
legislation, the scope of the impact of water pollution can be considered. “The
nature of marine pollution requires that it be regulated internationally, since
once a pollutant enters marine waters, it knows no boundary”3, therefore this
implies that because of the widespread effects of water pollution, having national
legislation alone would fail to provide sufficient protection for the environment.
Today, it can easily be assumed that water is essential to human life, and this is
the view that is adopted by many people around the world. However its
importance has not always been truly understood. It was previously considered
to be a sensible method of disposal as it was regarded as an infinite resource.
Yonglong, L., et al., Impacts of Soil and Water Pollution on Food Safety and Health
Risks in China (Environmental International, Volume 77, Issue null, p 5-15)
2 Swing, J., What Future for the Oceans? (Foreign Affairs. Sept/Oct 2003. Vol 82
Issue 5, p139-152.) at page 139
3 V. A. Silyok. Environmental Laws: Summarises of Statutes Administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency (Nova Publishes, 2001)at page 40
1
4
Water pollution can take many different forms; the method of pollution that will
be the focus of this essay will be that of marine dumping. Water is important to
everyone, and the factors that pose risks towards its sustainability should be a
matter for global concern4.
Dumping
The definition of dumping can be considered as follows:
“(i) any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels,
aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea;
(ii) any deliberate disposal at sea of vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man
made structures at sea”5.
This can be found within the leading global legislation within this area. The
description of dumping is consistent throughout the London Convention and the
United Nations Declaration on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Clarification is also given within this field of legislation regarding what shall not
be considered as dumping. For example within the London Convention, the act
will not be considered as dumping if there is “placement of matter for a purpose
other than the mere disposal”6. Further clarification is then given towards what
amounts to vessels and aircraft, and which waters shall be regarded as the sea.
From a historic perspective, ocean dumping has occurred since a time before the
Agricultural Age. The problems occurred when societies began to relocate to the
coastal areas and oceans were considered to be large areas for waste repository7.
Our Oceans, Seas and Coasts (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/goodenvironmental-status/descriptor-10/index_en.htm)
5 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter 1972 Article III (1)(a)
6 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter 1972 Article III (1) (b) (ii)
7 Ocean Dumping (http://www.pollutionissues.com/Na-Ph/OceanDumping.html)
4
5
Throughout history all types of wastes have been deposited into oceans, rivers,
lakes and estuaries. Unfortunately humans had a blatant disregard for the impact
of their actions and so; there was a vast amount of dumping. It is a recent
improvement that people have recognised the problems associated with this
pollution.
International legislation
Prior to 1972
With the historic attitudes towards dumping and oceans as an infinite resource
acknowledged, it does not seem surprising that the important legislation in this
area has only occurred relatively recently. It was not until the twentieth century
that the implications of marine dumping were truly understood, following this
important change there were certain attempts made to legislate in this area. The
growing reluctance to apply the freedom of the seas doctrine to oceans8 offers an
example of this.
This was important as it reflects an important turning point in history, and the
first real acknowledgement of people for their impact on the marine
environment in relation to these acts. Nevertheless, the significance of this
should not be overemphasized; the intention behind the legislation reflects a
positive change, however the impact and effect of the legislation must be
considered in order to appreciate its significance.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was created to provide
guidelines on an international basis surrounding obligations for States in order
to protect the sea (the sea, as defined by the Convention9). Article 1(5) of the
Convention outlines a definition for dumping. It provides useful guidance for
other international and global frameworks in this area.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982
(http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156775/)
9 United Nationals Convention on the Law of the Sea Article 1
8
6
However the application of the Convention alone is limited, it appears it provides
more general obligations, “the respective clauses are open ones which are to be
filled by legal substances”10. Which indicates clearly the importance of the
leading treaties in this area, in particular the London Convention and the London
Protocol.
The London Convention
The year 1975 saw one of the first global conventions designed to protect the
marine environment from dumping. The London Convention was created
following the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in June
1972. The Convention came into effect in 1975 and has since been signed by 87
States. The overall aim of the Convention was to protect the marine
environment; it was the idea that effective control of the pollutants within the
ocean was needed. Therefore it was practical to take these relevant steps to
attempt to reduce the amount of wastes and other matters that were dumped
into the ocean.
The Convention acknowledges the negative impact that marine pollution can
have. It is for that reason that it endeavors to control the sources that can cause
harm, and in doing so reduce the amount of overall marine pollution.
In considering the structure of the Convention, it incorporates twenty-two
articles and three annexes. Several articles provide useful insight into the
purpose of the legislation and the extent of the protection that it affords. Firstly,
Article 3 of the Convention offers a useful definition for ‘dumping’ as mentioned
above11, which clarifies the scope of the treaty.
Article 4 continues to provide a general prohibition of dumping. The approach
that is taken within the Convention will differ depending upon what materials
Mihneva-Natova. A., The Relationship between the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea and IMO Conventions (The United Nations and the Nippon
Foundation of Japan Fellow 2005) at page 18
11 See footnote 4
10
7
are in question. This is evident through the three annexes that are outlined
within. Whilst it can be concluded that dumping is not encouraged, the
regulations suggest that it has different levels of severity depending upon what
materials and what quantity of these materials are present.
There is an outright ban of the dumping of some materials, which can be found in
Annex I. These materials unite to make a prohibited list, termed the “black list”.
With regard to Annex II and Annex III, these materials are not forbidden but are
instead regulated through the use of permits. Firstly, materials classified under
the “grey list” under Annex II are subject to a special permit12. These are
determined at the discretion of the State and must be obtained prior to the
dumping. There is a range of items covered under this classification, including
but not limited to: arsenic, beryllium, chromium, copper, and lead.
Secondly, Annex III contains a “white list” of materials. It explains that the
dumping of materials that are not referred to under either Annex I or Annex II is
permitted. This is subject to a general permit of dumping, which should again be
awarded by the individual State13. Although discretion lies with the State to
decide whether or not to permit the dumping in these instances, they are subject
to certain qualifications that must be considered14.
These qualifications can be found within Annex III and include the
characteristics of the materials that are being dumped. In particular where and
how they are to be dumped and finally any possible implications of the dumping.
The remaining articles within the Convention provide useful information on the
subject; whereby there are certain exceptions in relation to these prohibitions.
These exceptions can be found within Article 5. They include force majeure
circumstances and any instances where dumping could avoid any serious threats
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter 1972 (London Convention) Article IV (1)(b)
13 London Convention Article IV (1)(c)
14 London Convention Article IV (2)
12
8
to human life or any man-made structures at sea. The article explains procedures
surrounding emergency permits15.
A range of interpretation has arisen surrounding the purpose of the Convention,
with some regarding its purpose as prohibition, and others regarding it as simply
a method of control, due to its exceptions16.
What remains clear is that this was the initial global protection of the marine
environment against dumping, however it was not long before the extent of this
protection was questioned and reviewed. The original Convention entails a
procedure for amendments, and asserts that a majority of two out of three is
required in order for an amendment to be passed17. Slight amendments to this
Convention occurred in the years follow.
The approach taken here can be termed the “negative listing approach”18 which
protects the ocean with regard to certain materials, namely those contained
within the aforementioned black list, and to some extent the grey list. However,
“the London Convention adopted a classical approach to dumping at sea”19 in
relation to the Annexes. It allows for the dumping of other materials that are not
explicitly referred to, providing that a governmental permit is obtained prior to
the dumping.
Issues have been raised in the assessment of the Convention, for example its
“inability to recruit sufficiently wide participation, especially among developing
London Convention Article V (2)
Louka, E., 1994. Overcoming National Barriers to International Waste Trade: A
New Perspective on the Transitional Movements of Hazardous and Radioactive
Wastes (Graham & Trotman) at page 36
17 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter 1972 Article XV
18 Hong, G, H; Lee,. J, Young., Transitional Measures to Combine two Global Ocean
Dumping Treaties into a Single Treaty (In Marine Policy. May 2015 55:47-56) at
page 48
19 Fitzmaurice, M., 2009. Contemporary Issues in International Environmental Law
(Edward Elgar Publishing Limited) at page 49
15
16
9
coastal states, and a clearly inadequate compliance system”20; the rules
surrounding its dispute resolution remain unclear.
The London Protocol
The London Protocol that followed the London Convention in 1996 can be
regarded as an updated version of this protectionist Convention. Modernising
the initial Convention shows that the global communities original efforts to
reduce marine pollution were somewhat reductionist. There are currently 45
parties to the London Protocol.
It appears that the London Protocol was necessary because there was an
evolution in opinions between the years 1972 and towards the end of the
twentieth century. States awareness of the limitations of the London Convention
grew and their concerns surrounding these limitations were at the forefront of
many people’s thoughts.
Hence the suggestion that “the content of the London Protocol reflects the
progress made in environmental management during the 1972-1996 period and
the outcome of the 1992 UN Conference on the Environment and Development
help in Rio de Janeiro”21. The London Convention was highly regarded in its own
right but following its revisions critics became very aware of the implications of
its ambiguous nature and loopholes22.
The importance of the London Protocol is apparent. Significantly the Protocol is
not an amendment to the Convention, but instead it supersedes it and
incorporates all of the amendments that followed the London Convention.
Theoretically it should be without fault and superior to its predecessor.
Stokke. S, O., Beyond Dumping? The Effectiveness of the London Convention
Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development
1998/99 (Accessed at http://www.fni.no/ybiced/98_04_stokke.pdf) at page 46
21 Hong, G, H; Lee,. J, Young., Transitional Measures to Combine two Global Ocean
Dumping Treaties into a Single Treaty (In Marine Policy. May 2015 55:47-56)
at page 48
22 See footnote 16
20
10
The London Protocol applies a “reverse-listing”, whereby all dumping is
prohibited unless certain exceptions apply23. Whilst there are still three annexes
within the London Protocol, the content and purpose of these differ from the
previous legislation. Annex I, Annex II and Annex III were used to incorporate
the well known “black list”, “grey list” and “white list”, which each provided
different levels of regulation depending upon the nature of the materials in
question.
Following the 1996 Protocol the purpose of Annex I instead provides a list of
what materials can be legally dumped, these can be dumped offshore without the
need for a permit. This appears to place a smaller amount of responsibility on
the parties, and is an easier criterion to both understand and uphold.
Secondly, Annex II can interestingly be regarded as being more closely connected
with Annex III of the London Convention. It outlines certain duties of the parties
and also what considerations they should take into account, when deciding upon
whether to issue a permit for dumping.
Similarities exist here regarding which considerations to take into account; the
Protocol is consistent with the guidelines given by the Convention regarding the
matters that still have the most influence on the effects of the dumping. For
example, the content and amount of the waste itself, the site chosen for
dumping24 and additional attention is given to the long-term effects of the
dumping25.
Commendably however, the Protocol extends these considerations, for example
there is a new requirement that the States determine the possibility and
feasibility of disposal techniques that are not offshore dumping. This shows how
Fitzmaurice, M., 2009. Contemporary Issues in International Environmental Law
(Edward Elgar Publishing Limited) at page 50
24 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London Protocol) Annex 2 (11)
25 London Protocol Annex 2 (12-15)
23
11
the Protocol extends the protection of the marine environment and promotes
other methods of dumping if at all possible26.
As mentioned, the Protocol moves away from the previous classifications and it
instead incorporates an “action list”27. Comparably substances that are referred
to on the action list requires a certain action or intervention by the State.
However differences are noticeable here, as States are able to decide upon the
content of their action list themselves28.
A further difference within the Protocol as compared to the earlier Convention is
the introduction of certain principles; these are both evident within Article 3 of
the Protocol. The first to refer to is the precautionary principle, although this
was in the background of the original Convention, it did not properly feature in
international environmental law at that time29.
As a result of this, the precautionary principle is certainly more evident within
the Protocol, it appears firstly within the preamble and secondly within Article 3.
Generally the precautionary principle is understood to have four important
components, “taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the
burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of
alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in
decision making”30. The incorporation of the precautionary principle appears to
be a positive step as it makes sense for countries to take more care regarding
such sensitive issues. Having said that, certain controversy remains regarding
whether the precautionary principle is the best remedy in international
London Protocol Annex 2 (14)
London Protocol Annex 2 (9-10)
28 London Protocol Annex 2 (9)
29 Malgosia Fitzmaurice, M., 2009. Contemporary Issues in International
Environmental Law (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited) at page 50
30 Kribel D, et all., The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Sciences
(Environmental Health Perspectives, September 2001) (Accessed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/pdf/ehp0109000871.pdf)
26
27
12
environmental law, in particular regarding areas where there is not full or
accurate scientific knowledge31.
Secondly the polluter pays principle, which is essentially placing a financial
burden of the pollution on the polluter. It “requires the polluter to bear the
expenses of preventing, controlling and cleaning up pollution”32. In theory the
incorporation of this principle makes sense and seems to be just. However
certain ambiguity has been referred to in relation to this principle, four
particular questions have raised levels of doubt in this area33. Debates continue
surrounding what constitutes both polluters and pollution in these instances.
Further to this how should a numerical value be awarded to their particular level
of pollution, and to whom should they make this financial payment?
Comparison between the London Convention and the London
Protocol
The significant distinction to remember is that the Convention and Protocol are
regarded as legally separates instruments. They are both independent in their
own rights, and they have both had a positive influence on the development of
environmental protection. The Protocol has not replaced the Convention, and
new members are invited to sign either agreement, depending on their own
preferences.
To summarise the two treaties, it appears that the Convention and the Protocol
differ dramatically in their approach taken towards marine protection. Both of
these approaches seem to have their own perceived benefits and disadvantages.
It is interesting to note the significant differences that the Protocol contains,
despite it only being around twenty years younger than the original Convention.
31Fitzmaurice,
M., 2009. Contemporary Issues in International Environmental Law
(Edward Elgar Publishing Limited) at page 56
32 Grossman, M., Agriculture and the Polluter Pays Principle (Electronic Journal of
Comparative Law, vol. 11.3. 2007) at page 1
33 Cordato, E, R., The Polluter Pays Principle: A Proper Guide for Environmental
Policy (Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation Studies in Social Cost,
Regulation, and the Environment: No 6, 2001)
13
The Convention contains three Annexes that outline the different attitudes taken
towards dumping. The approach of the Convention is based around the idea of
the prohibition of dumping, with exceptions referred to.
The Protocol, on the other hand, separates itself from the earlier approach of
forbidden materials. Instead it focuses on which materials can legally be
disposed of in the ocean. Under the rules specified in the Protocol a permit is
required less frequently. There is more state participation as a result of the
freedom to assert the qualifying materials under the action list. There is also a
higher duty placed on states to consider all of the relevant circumstances of the
proposed dumping, and to encourage any feasible alternatives to an ocean based
disposal.
Weaknesses are still present within this area, despite the obvious efforts to
modernise marine protection through the introduction of the Protocol. This has
resulted in remaining ambiguity and complications. In addition to this, there
remains confusion between the two treaties34.
This confusion can be regarded as a significant disadvantage. The purpose of the
two treaties remains unclear, as having two slightly altered treaties with
dissimilar approaches and different parties was not the intended outcome when
the Protocol was created35.
Having two different treaties being confused for one united body can cause
further problems. Whilst there are small positives in relation to holding the same
meeting for both treaties, such as “having the advantage of avoiding the
duplication of work”36 the reality of the situation is very different. As noticed,
Hong, G, H; Lee,. J, Young., Transitional Measures to Combine two Global Ocean
Dumping Treaties into a Single Treaty (In Marine Policy. May 2015 55:47-56) at
page 47
35 See footnote 30
36 Hong, G, H; Lee,. J, Young., Transitional Measures to Combine two Global Ocean
Dumping Treaties into a Single Treaty (In Marine Policy. May 2015 55:47-56) at
page 49
34
14
only thirty-three parties have the joint interests of the London Convention and
the London Protocol respectively. The remaining does not have any further
shared interests. Thus it seems inappropriate to have the participation and
influence from those who are not affected by the legality of the changes to the
treaty.
There is uncertainty surrounding whether the intended outcome of the Protocol
will ever be reached. As it was hoped that the Protocol would eventually replace
the Convention37. It is unclear whether this will ever occur as the treaties seem
to be extremely distinct from one another.
European Union legislation
At the European Union level, there have been further attempts to increase
marine protection. The significant attempts made at community level can be
commended and will be considered further. They appear to appreciate how vital
water is and the growing pressures that the European waters are placed under38.
The European Community showed their willingness to legislate in this area when
they declared water pollution as a priority matter for its First Action Programme
on the Environment in 1973. Following this, a number of Directives have been
implemented in order to control pollution in European waters.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive appreciates the importance of the
marine environment39; it requires each member state to develop a strategy for
its marine waters40. Article 1 outlines the main goal of the Directive, to achieve
good environmental status in the marine environment by 2020.
Fitzmaurice, M., 2009. Contemporary Issues in International Environmental Law
(Edward Elgar Publishing Limited) at page 50
38 European Water Framework Directive Section 4
39 Marine Strategy Framework Directive Section 2
40 Marine Strategy Framework Directive Section 11
37
15
The Water Framework Directive (2000)41 was created over a substantial amount
of time and incorporated around 10 years of discussions on the topic.
Deliberations existed, for example, “the Community Water Policy Ministerial
Seminar Frankfurt in 1988 highlighted the need for community legislation
covering ecological quality”42. Importantly the Directive sets certain objectives
surrounding the future of water pollution that can be found in Article 4;
essentially the parties must strive to achieve good ecological status43.
The extent of the obligations placed on Member States is clear, plans for any
future measures are outlined in Article 19 and clarity is given to the maximum
time-period that can pass before the legislation is reviewed, at the latest this
shall be 19 years after the year of entry.
According to the Directive, its necessity is based on several factors including the
cooperation of the Community. This is outlined to include its Member States and
action at a more local level, including informing and involving the public 44. Due
to the nature of the European Union it is reasonable to assume that perhaps the
method of dispute resolution and other implications of non-compliance is easier
to address with this legislation. The benefits of legislating at this community
level can be discussed with regard to the parties in question; the member states
of the European Union have more similar economies. This makes it less
concerning, as the legislation is not seeking to regulate the same combination of
developing and developed countries.
Analysis
Legislation
It appears that in some instances marine dumping can provide fewer risks to
human health than alternatives such as land disposal or incineration. It is
European Water Framework Directive
European Water Framework Directive Section 2
43 As defined in Water Framework Directive Annex V
44 Water Framework Directive Section 14
41
42
16
therefore important that the matter is carefully controlled in order to provide
optimum protection.
With regard to the significance and effectiveness of the global legislation in this
area, it is commendable that the protection now appears tighter. This can be
exemplified through the increased circumstances for countries to consider
before deciding whether to allow a certain disposal within the Protocol. The
action list that is incorporated allows for countries to have more of an influence
over the materials banned in their own waters. The Protocol also encourages its
members to find any land-based solutions that are reasonable. This will
presumably encourage more countries to adopt the treaty. On the other hand,
this characteristic may be regarded as ambiguous. Whether or not countries
should be afforded this level of independence when the matter in hand is one of
such environmental importance is a matter for debate.
It is also reasonable to assume that the Protocol is easier to apply, as it works on
the basis of the reverse list. This is crucial because legislation should always
strive for certainty under the rule of law. With regard to the level of protection in
this area, it appears most sensible for the treaties to be applicable at a global
level. As the issue of marine pollution is consistent throughout the world and
therefore the best method of tackling such an issue would be at an international
level.
Unfortunately there remains confusion between the purpose and the content of
the two global treaties and this certainly was not the intended outcome. This
appears to undermine their existence entirely; this should be rectified in the
near future.
This issue is further confused because the parties share their meetings, despite
their conflicting interests. The unfortunate result of this is that the joint meetings
regarding the Convention and the Protocol remain relatively unproductive. The
parties to the Convention are able to have an influence on the planning and the
changes to the Protocol, despite not being bound by any of its developments.
17
A major problem here is evident within quantity of parties. Firstly the parties to
the Convention remain relatively small. In addition to this, only some of the
parties that have adopted the Convention have also adopted the Protocol.
Attention should be given to why this has occurred, for what reason are parties
unwilling to sign the accompanying and more protective treaty? Perhaps it is
because it is stricter than the previous treaty. This reflects negatively on the
Convention itself, as parties may be aware of their ability to bypass its
regulations and thus avoid liability.
It was the intention of the committee to eventually move from the Convention to
the Protocol, and for the Protocol to replace the Convention. Whilst considering
the decline in members to the later Protocol this currently seems like an
unrealistic objective. It appears that the Protocol holds members to a higher
level of responsibility and therefore people are deterred from adopting it, even
previous members to the Convention. Since the introduction of the 1996 treaty
there have actually been further states to ratify the Convention. This portrays
how the ideology of moving from the Convention to the Protocol in this area of
protection was just that, an ideal outcome that is perhaps not a reality.
Public perception
There appears to be a correlation between society’s interpretation and the
protection of the ocean. For the complete protection of the ocean, people must
understand the merits of the ocean, and the reasons why protecting it should be
at the forefront of international obligations. It is crucial to improve the public’s
perception and awareness of these issues.
In relation to this, it is of course beneficial that the European Union have chosen
to further legislate in this area. The important Water Framework Directive
benefits from having direct effect in its member states, which signifies its
perceived importance at community level. Further to this, its willingness to hold
its member states to a high level of accountability is clear. The acknowledgement
of interaction of member states on a national and on an international basis
18
shows its modern nature. The European Union can strive to act as a guideline for
future development in this area, as they appear to provide a more proactive and
forward thinking approach in theory.
Nonetheless, on a global level it is evident that individuals continue
underestimate the value of the ocean, and this is probably due to the continuing
misconceptions in this area. It is clear that the increase of legislation has
encouraged individuals to consider the importance of protecting the
environment more seriously; this should continue to be an aim of societies
across the world. The best way of doing this is ultimately through education. The
reason why education would be effective in this area is because it is not an area
that people are uninterested in; it is an area that people continue to be naive
about. It is and should be an area of concern to all, and therefore people should
be made more aware of the issues in question.
Following the education of society, it can be hoped that more pressure is placed
onto the Governments of countries that have failed to implement either the
London Convention or the London Protocol. Or even those who have chosen to
implement the London Convention but have discontinued any further protection
in this area. As the parties to the Convention and in particular, the Protocol
remains few in relation to the global community and this undermines the work
that the Convention and the Protocol strives to do.
Conclusion
If clarity can be given to the London Convention and the London Protocol, it may
be more likely that the original aims of the Protocol are met. It would be
beneficial if the global community operated under the same treaty and therefore
provided the same level of protection for the environment. This appears to be an
unrealistic aim at present, for two prominent reasons. Firstly there is an issue
regarding the uncertainty of the differences between the treaties. Countries will
be in doubt about which treaty to adopt, and it also makes the topic more
confusing for the wider public. If one consistent treaty were to be adopted then
the outcome would be positive for the environment. Secondly, the reasons
19
behind parties who have already adopted the London Convention not adopting
the later London Protocol needs to be addressed. It appears that education and
clarity are required as the next steps in this area of international environmental
law. This would hopefully provide much needed encouragement for national and
international laws working in unison as they are both striving for the same
objectives.
20
Bibliography
Books:
 Basedow, J., Magnus, U., Pollution of the Sea – Prevention and
Compensation (Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs 10)
 Fitzmaurice, M., 2009. Contemporary Issues in International Environmental
Law (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited)
 Louis B. Sohn, Kristen Gustafson Juras, John E. Noyes, Erik Franckx “Law
of the Sea in a nutshell 2nd edn,
 Louka, E., 1994. Overcoming National Barriers to International Waste
Trade: A New Perspective on the Transitional Movements of Hazardous and
Radioactive Wastes (Graham & Trotman)
 Macmillan, F., 2001. WTO and the Environment (International Trade Law
Series)
Articles:
 Cabezas, F., The European Water Framework Directive: A Framework? 1926 (International Journal of Water Resources Development, Volume 28,
Issue 1, 2012)
 Cordato, E, R., The Polluter Pays Principle: A Proper Guide for
Environmental Policy (Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation
Studies in Social Cost, Regulation, and the Environment: No 6, 2001)
(Accessed at http://iret.org/pub/SCRE-6.PDF)
 Grossman, M., Agriculture and the Polluter Pays Principle (Electronic
Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 11.3. 2007) at page 1 (Accessed at
http://www.ejcl.org/113/article113-15.pdf) <Accessed 29/05/2015>
 Hong, G, H; Lee,. J, Young., Transitional Measures to Combine two Global
Ocean Dumping Treaties into a Single Treaty (In Marine Policy. May 2015
55:47-56)
 Kribel D, et all., The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Sciences
(Environmental Health Perspectives, September 2001) (Accessed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/pdf/ehp0109000871.pdf)
 Mihneva-Natova. A., The Relationship between the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea and IMO Conventions (The United
Nations and the Nippon Foundation of Japan Fellow 2005)
 Stokke. S, O., Beyond Dumping? The Effectiveness of the London Convention
Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development
1998/99 (Accessed at http://www.fni.no/ybiced/98_04_stokke.pdf)
 Swing, J., What Future for the Oceans? (Foreign Affairs. Sept/Oct 2003. Vol
82 Issue 5, p139-152.)
 V. A. Silyok. Environmental Laws: Summarises of Statutes Administered by
the Environmental Protection Agency (Nova Publishes, 2001)
 Yonglong, L., et al., Impacts of Soil and Water Pollution on Food Safety and
Health Risks in China (Environmental International, Volume 77, Issue null,
p 5-15)
Legislation:
21







1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Marine Pollution
by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (Referred to
throughout as the London Protocol)
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (Referred to throughout as the London
Convention)
Directive on Environmental Quality Standards (Directive
2008/105/EC)
European Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC)
International Convention for the safety of Life at Sea, 1974
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC)
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982
Websites:
 Convention on the Protection of Marine Pollution by Dumping or Wastes
and Other Matter
(http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/Pages/default.aspx)
<Accessed 16/05/2015>
 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Int
ernational-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships(MARPOL).aspx) <Accessed 16/05/2015>
 Ocean Dumping (http://www.pollutionissues.com/Na-Ph/OceanDumping.html) <Accessed 25/05/2015>
 Our Oceans, Seas and Coasts
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmentalstatus/descriptor-10/index_en.htm) <Accessed 23/05/2015>
 United Nations Convention on th Law of the Sea, 1982
(http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156775/) <Accessed
27/05/2015>
22