1. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, London (1972) U.K.T.S. 43 (1976) Cmnd 6486.Google Scholar

2. Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, London 1996 (1997) 36 I.L.M. 1.Google Scholar

3. Idem, Art.2.

4. LDC, Art.IV (and Annex III).

5. Protocol, Art.4 and Annex 1.

6. Dumping of offshore installations is currently under review in the UK. In 1995 the Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultative document entitled “Guidance Notes for Industry: Abandonment of Offshore Installations and Pipelines under the Petroleum Act 1987” with the objective of ultimately issuing guidelines for industry on the abandonment of offshore installations.

7. On the definition of pollution see infra text accompanying nn.23–28.

8. LDC, Art.IV.

9. Protocol, Art.4(l)(l).

10. Idem, Art.4(1)(2).

11. Under Idem, Art.4(2) parties are free to prohibit the dumping of the matter listed in Annex 1.

12. See the 1993 Amendments in Resolutions LC.49(16), LC.50(16) and LC51(16).

13. Under the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985, c.48 (FEPA) as amended.

14. FEPA requires operators to apply for a licence to dump, but does not detail the issues to be assessed before a licence is granted. The Deposits at Sea (Public Registers of Information) Regulations 1996, S.I. 1427/1996 indicate that information must be supplied on the likely environmental impacts and a reason given for choosing dumping over other disposal options, but no further information is given on environmental requirements.

15. See House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Decommissioning of Oil and Cos Installations: Government Response, Third Report, 20 Feb. 1996, p.6Google Scholar, and Sixth Report, 23 July 1996, p.3.Google Scholar

16. As illustrated by the Guidance Notes, supra n.6, at pp.2, 9Google Scholar and HL Third Report, Idem, p.10.

17. Protocol, Art.3. The obligation is repeated, albeit using slightly different wording, in Annex 2, paras.8 and 14. The precautionary approach was a part of the LDC from its inception, but was not explained fully: Brown, E. D., The International Law of the Sea, Vol.1 (1994), p.370.Google Scholar

18. See Freestone, D. and Hey, E., The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge of Implementation (1996) particularly pp.12–14.Google Scholar

19. Protocol, Annex 2, para.14 and para.7.

20. See HL Third Report, loc. cit supra n.15.

21. Ibid.

22. Protocol, Art.3(2).

23. LDC, Art.I contains a very general definition.

24. Protocol, Art.1(10).

25. See the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 1982 (1982) 21 I.L.M. 1261, in particular Art.1(4).Google Scholar

26. See HL Third Report p.6Google Scholar and Sixth Report p.3, both loc. cit supra n.15.Google Scholar

27. One of the claims made by Greenpeace in its objections to the planned dumping was that it would cause considerable harm to the environment: see HL Third Report, ibid.

28. See HL Sixth Report, supra n.15, p.4.Google Scholar

29. Protocol, Art.1.

30. Operators are also obliged to seek approval from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department under FEPA if the installation is to be disposed of away from its original site.

31. See the Deposits at Sea (Public Registers of Information) Regulations 1996, S.I.1427/1996 and the Guidance Notes, supra n.6.Google Scholar In addition, the operators can under UK law remain liable for any damage arising from their installations, regardless of how long they have been abandoned, as it is impossible actually to abandon a property right and/or liability. Guidance Notes, Idem, App. A, para.9. See also Igiehon, M. O., “The Abandonment Controversy: From the Development of International Law to the Brent Spar Incident—‘Economy’ Overshadowing Environmental Protection” (1996) 7 Oil and Gas Law and Taxation Rev. 298, pp.301–302. Both the LDC and the Protocol promote development of procedures for the assessment of liability for harm resulting from dumping: Arts.X and 15 respectively.Google Scholar

32. Idem, Arts.IV and 4 respectively.

33. Protocol, Annex 2, paras.2 and 5.

34. The HL Sixth Report, supra n. 15, at p.9, notes that in the UK a permit to dump will not be granted until the owners have demonstrated that they have examined all possibilities of reusing the structure and established that none of them is feasible, which goes at least part way to meeting this requirement.Google Scholar

35. Protocol, Annex 2, paras.2 and 12–15.

36. Idem, para.6.

37. Ibid.

38. See HL Third Report, supra n.15, p.6, Box 1 and p.10, which notes that this approach has been used “[e]specially since summer 1995”.Google Scholar

39. See Idem. Box 1 and Igiehon, op. cit. supra n.31, p.303.

40. Guidance Notes, supra n.6, para.1.1.1. See also statements on behalf of the government confirming that it had approved the dumping of the Brent Spar in accordance with the UK's international obligations, such as Prime Minister John Major's Commons statement of 22 June 1995, HC Hansard, Vol.261, cols.473–474, Mr Newton's of 15 06 1995Google Scholar. Idem, Vol.261, col.889 and Sir Hector Monro's of 9 May 1995, Idem, Vol.259, col.398w and 7 June 1995, Idem, Vol.261, col.214w.

41. See Guidance Notes, Idem, para 5.1.2, which refers to the IMO Guidelines 1989.

42. HL Third Report, supra.15, p.6. Box 1.

43. Ibid.

44. The LDC does not specifically refer to the removal of such materials. All that it provides is that consideration has to be given to their existence when assessing an application for a permit: An. IV and Annex III.

45. HL Third Report, supra n.15, p.15Google Scholar. See also Igiehon, op. cit. supra n.31, pp.300–301.Google Scholar

46. Protocol, Art.3(3).

47. Idem, Annex 2, para. 16.