Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:32:50.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. Ospar Decision 98/3 and the Dumping of Offshore Installations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Colin Warbrick ,
Dominic McGoldrick  and
Elizabeth A. Kirk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In September 1997 the government of the United Kingdom announced new policies on the dumping of offshore installations. The new policies centred on a general prohibition of dumping of offshore installations for all but those instances where there was absolutely no alternative.1 They were presented as a sea change from the policies of the previous Conservative government which had required each case to be assessed on its merits and were hailed by some at the time as a major development.2 To date this has been a development with little legislative substance at the UK domestic level.3 At the international level, however, it appears to have produced more substantive changes, primarily by enabling the government to play an important role in the development of new rules under the Ospar Convention 1992.4 And, while the full extent of the United Kingdom's influence on the exact developments is not clear, it is clear that the new rules contain developments which are of importance not only to the parties to the Ospar Convention, but to the international law on the dumping of offshore installations generally. These legal developments will be considered below.

Type
Current Developments: Public International Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 458 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Commons statement by Michael, Meacher, Secretary of State for the Environment 17 07 1998, HC Hansard, Vol.316, cols.325–326.Google Scholar

2. See e.g. the Independent, 3 09 1997.Google Scholar

3. The government is in the process of producing new draft guidelines on the disposal of offshore installations. 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”, which is still under review. The new Petroleum Act 1998 does not add to the domestic law on this point.

4. Ospar Convention, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North–East Atlantic, 22 Sept. 1992 (1993) 32 I.L.M. 1069.Google Scholar

5. Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, Oslo, 15 Feb. 1972 (1972) 11 I.L.M. 262.Google Scholar

6. Art.1(f). See also Art.1(1), which contains Ospar's definition of offshore installations.

7. Art.4, see also Art.2(1).

8. See e.g. the 1996 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

9. Art.2(2)(a). On the precautionary principle see Freestone, D. and Hey, E., The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge of Implementation (1996).Google Scholar

10. Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, Sintra, 22–23 07 1998, Summary Record OSPAR 98/14/1, Annex 45.Google Scholar

11. Established by Art.10 of the OSPAR Convention.

12. Ministerial Meeting, supra n.10, at Annex 33. The Decision is based upon Arts.2 and 5 of the Ospar Convention.

13. Decision 98/3 came into force on 9 02 1999: Decision 98/3, para.8.Google Scholar

14. Art.31 of Ospar provides that OSCOM and PARCOM's Decisions and Recommendations are to remain in force.

15. Decision 98/3, para.2.

16. Idem, para.3.

17. Decision 95/1, para.1.

18. Decision 98/3, para.2.

19. See Communication from the Commission of the European Union to the Council and the European Parliament, 18 Feb. 1998 COM(98)49 Final, para.3.

20. Newsletter from Ritt Bjerregaard, the EU Commissioner for the Environment, Brussels, Mar. 1998, DG XI Commissioner's Newsletter No.6, Mar. 1998.

21. See House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Third Report (HL Paper 46) on the Decommissioning of Oil and Gas Installations, Feb. 1996, para.2.1 and Sixth Report on Decommissioning of Oil and Gas Installations: Government Response, July 1996, para.3.

22. See infra.

23. Decision 98/3, Annex 2, para.2.

24. Ibid.

25. See e.g. the following Commons statements which focus on the costs of decommissioning rather than on the environmental impacts: statements by MrBoswell, and MrBattle, , 30 07 1998, HC Hansard, Vol.317, cols.559–560. See also COM(98)49 Final, supra n.19, at para.8 and House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee Fifth Report, 1998, para.96.Google Scholar

26. Decision 98/3, para.9.

27. Idem, para.4 and Annex 3.

28. See Jutta, Brunnée, “Non-compliance Procedures in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: The Example of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer”, in Heere, W. P. (Ed.), Contemporary International Law Issues: New Forms New Applications, Proceedings of the Fourth Hague Joint Conference, 2–5 July 1997 (1998) pp.364–367.Google Scholar

29. Annex 3, paras.1 and 2.

30. Idem, para.3.

31. Idem, para.4.

32. Idem, paras.6 and 7.

33. Idem, para.9.

34. See Smith, B., State Responsibility and the Marine Environment: The Rules of Decision (1988), particularly pp.36–43Google Scholar; Higgins, R., Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It! (1994), pp.146–168Google Scholar and Birnie, P. W. and Boyle, A. E., International Law and the Environment (1992), pp.139–160.Google Scholar

35. Decision 98/3, Annex 2, para.3.

36. See Commons Statement by Michael Meacher, loc. cit. supra n.1.

37. Ibid.

38. Decision 98/3, Annex 2, para.3.

39. Idem, paras.5 and 6.

40. Idem, paras.7–11.

41. See Commons Statement by Michael Meacher, loc. cit. supra n.1.

42. See Fifth Report 1998, supra n.25, at paras.97 and 98.Google Scholar