1. See for further details

“The Torrey Canyon”, presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty, April 1967, London Her Majesty's Station ary Office, Cmnd 3246.

“Coastal Pollution: Observations on the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology”, published by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, 1969.Google Scholar

Republic of Liberia Report of the Board of Investigation in the matter of the stranding of the ss. Torrey Canyon on March 18, 1967, published in Monrovia, Liberia May 2nd 1967.Google Scholar

Le sinistre du Torrey Canyon, rapport rédigé par les membres de la Commission Interministérielle chargée de la lutte contra la pollution.

Judgment of the Tribunal of Rotterdam, 8th April 1969 “Schip en Schade” 1969, no. 50.Google Scholar

Under the many publications in newspapers, magazines and books may be mentioned:

Mabire, Jean: La marée noire du Torrey Canyon, Paris, 1967.Google Scholar

du Pontavice, E.: La pollution des mers par les hydrocarbures, Paris 1968.Google Scholar

Despax, Michel: La pollution des eaux et ses problèmes juridiques, Paris 1968.Google Scholar

Soyer, J. C.: Le “Torrey Canyon” et le droit de la mer”, Le Monde of 28 and 29 04 1967.Google Scholar

Focsaneau, L.: L'échouement du “Torrey Canyon” et ses conséquences juridiques, Transports, januari 1968.Google Scholar

Chauveau, P.: “La pollution des mers par les hydrocarbures”, Recueil Dalloz Sirey, 1969.Google Scholar

de Smet, R.: “Le cas du ‘Torrey Canyon’, Journal des tribunaux, 6 05 1967.Google Scholar

Quenendec, J. P.: “Les incidentes de l'affaire du ‘Torrey Canyon’ sur le droit de la mer”. Annuaire français de droit international, 1968.Google Scholar

Lucchini, L.: “La pollution des mers par les hydrocarbures”, Journal de droit international, 1970.Google Scholar

Sweeney, J. C.: “Oil pollution of the oceans”, Fordham Law Review, 12 1968.Google Scholar

Keaton, G. W.: “The lessons of the Torrey Canyon”, Current Legal Problems, 1968.Google Scholar

Legendre, C.: “Projet du convention internationale sur la responsabilité en matière du pollution par les hydrocarbures”, Droit Maritime français, 1969.Google Scholar

“La Conférence juridique internationale sur les dommages dus à la pollution des eaux de la mer de 1969”, Droit Maritime français, 09 1970.Google Scholar

“Convention internationale sur la responsabilité civile pour les dommages dus à la pollution par les hydrocarbures”, Droit Maritime français, 10 1970.Google Scholar

Rémond, M.: “La pollution des mers et les plates-formes de forage”, Droit Maritime français, 1969.Google Scholar

Heyne, J. F.: “Republic of South Africa v. sea polluters and others”, The comparative and international law journal of Southern Africa, 07 1969.Google Scholar

Harvard International Law Journal: “Oil pollution of the sea”, Spring 1969.Google Scholar

Neuman, Robert H.: “Oil on troubled waters: The International Control of Marine Pollution”, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 01 1971.Google Scholar

Pharand, Donat: International Regulation and Control of Oil Pollution of the High Seas with special reference to the Arctic. Paper submitted to the Belgrade World Conference on World Peace Through Law, 1971.Google Scholar

Spinedi, : “Problemi di diretto internationale sollevati dal naufragio della ‘Torrey Canyon’”, Rivista de diretta international, 1969.Google Scholar

Manca, P.: “Project of Convention on liability for pollution of the sea”, European Transport Law, 1969.Google Scholar

Massart, A.: “De bezoedeling van oceanen en zeeën”, Rechtskundig Weekblad, 1968.Google Scholar

Luiking, H. E. W.: “Strafbaarheid van de kapitein van de ‘Torrey Canyon’ naar Nederlands recht”, Nederlands Juristenblad, 1968.Google Scholar

Scheffer, H. E.: “Nieuw rechtsregime met betrekking tot verontreiniging van de zee door olie”, Nederlands Juristenblad, 04 1970.Google Scholar

Herber, R.: “Das Internationale Uebereinkommen über die Haftung für Schaden durch Oelverschmutzung auf See”, Rabel's Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 1970.Google Scholar

2. Ned. Tib. 1955, 56; 1958, 135; 1962, 124; 1963, 108; 1967, 61; 1970, 107. A regional agreement of 9 June, 1969 provides for cooperation in dealing with pollution of the North Sea by oil, Ned. Trb. 1969, 139.

3. Public Law 91–224, 91st Congres, H.R. 4148 Act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and for other purposes.

4. Bill C-202, the House of Commons of Canada, Second Session Twenty-Eight Parliament, 1969–70. was endorsed without a dissent and was given royal assent on June 26, 1970. The motivation is “to see that the natural resources of the Canadian arctic are developed and exploited and the arctic waters adjucent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian arctic are navigated only in a matter that takes cognizance of Canada's responsibility for the welfare of the Eskimo and other inhabitants of the Canadian arctic and the preservation of the peculiar ecological balance that now exists in the water, ice and land areas of the Canadian arctic”.

5. The United States of America protested against the Canadian Bill. The U.S. offered to litigate the issue with Canada in the International Court of Justice, but Canada refused. Moreover, Canada simultaneously withdrew its acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction, and submitted a new acceptance with reservations, removing disputes involving marine pollution matters from the Court's jurisdiction. Canada based its action on the overriding right of self-defense of coastal states to protect themselves against threats to their environment. Robert H. Neuman (Oil on Troubled Waters: the International Control of Marine Pollution. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, January 1971) observes that if there is a demonstrable need for change in the international law of the sea with a view of the special interests, which coastal states may have in the ocean space adjacent to their territorial seas and coasts, these changes must flow from international consensus and consent and cannot arise through unilateral assertions. It is for the international Community to decide and agree on what “special circumstances” require special solutions.

6. A third case of this new development is the way by which a convention on combined transport of cargoes is in preparation. At the Tokyo Conference (1969) the CMI adopted a draft convention, but several intergovernmental organizations are involved in this matter. The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (Unidroit, Rome) made the original draft and organised two round table conferences, where all governmental and non governmental organizations were represented. Now the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations has recommended that a Conference be convened jointly by the United Nations and IMCO.

7. The draft was prepared by an international subcommittee instituted by the CMI under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Devlin, who was later head of the British Delegation at the IMCO Conference of November 1969.

8. The Conference elected Mr. A. Lilar, Head of the Belgian Delegation and President of the Comité Maritime International, as president of the Conference.

9. The resolution of the Institute of International Law has been communicated to the secretariat of IMCO in London, but the text was not distributed among the participants of the Conference.

10. Most of the difficulties were encountered in the Committee of the Whole, presided by Mr. W. Müller (Switzerland).

11. Article IV of the Protocol of Guatemala replaces the provisions of article 17 of the Convention of Warsaw of 12 October 1929.

12. The sense of putting in an upper ceiling may be doubted in the light of the ever increasing tonnage of the so called mammoth tankers; why should the owners of these tankers enjoy the benefit of an extra limit of liability?

13. At the end of the Conference the convention was signed by Belgium, Cameroon, Republic of China, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Korea, Madagascar, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia.

After the Conference but before the first January 1971 the convention was signed by Australia, Brasil, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Japan, The Netherlands, Panama, Rumania, Spain and Sweden.

14. At the end of the Conference the convention was signed by Belgium, Cameroon, Republic of China, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia.

After the Conference but before the first January 1971 the convention was signed by Australia, Brasil, Dominican Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Panama, Rumania, Spain and Sweden.

15. The British Government passed the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 (came into force on Sept. 9, 1971), which adopted certain of the provisions of the International Convention on Civil Liability.

16. Insurance was made compulsory in the Convention of 1962 on the liability of operators of nuclear ships, but this convention belongs to the domain of nuclear law rather than maritime law.

17. Chairman of the Legal Committee was Mr. G. A. Maslov (USSR), vice-chairman Prof. W. Riphagen (Netherlands).