Maritime transport plays a vital role in the economic growth and global competitiveness of the regions that it serves. It offers an enormous potential for sustainable and environmentally friendly transport. The international maritime community, however, is faced with a major challenge: to protect the marine environment from pollution related to oil spills. A parallelism between resolutions adopted by national and international bodies and the oil spill incidents that triggered them is presented. The focus is on reviewing records of maritime casualties associated with massive environmental pollution. It is an attempt to shed light on how these incidents affect the formulation and implementation of the global marine environment protection policy as well as the role of the International Maritime Organization in dealing with these problems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Maritime Trade and Transportation 1999. BTS99-02. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Maritime Administration, and U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., 1999.
2.
Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002.
3.
Prince William Sound: An Ecosystem in Transition.Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, revised March 19, 2001. Available from www.noaa.gov. Accessed August 2004.
4.
EtkinD. S.Oil Spills from Vessels (1960–1995): An International Historical Perspective.Cutter Information Corporation, Cambridge, Mass., 1997.
1967–1991 Summaries of Significant U.S. and International Spills. Report No. HMRAD 92-11. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, Seattle, Wash., September 1992.
7.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto (MARPOL 73/78).International Maritime Organization, London. Available from www.imo.org. Accessed August 2004.
8.
Double-Hull Tanker Legislation: An Assessment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Committee on Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Section 4115) Implementation Review. Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
9.
KimI.Ten Years after the Enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990: A Success or a Failure?Marine Policy, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2002, pp. 197–207.
10.
CohenM. J.Technological Disasters and Natural Resource Damage Assessment: An Evaluation of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Land Economics, Vol. 71, No. 1, 1995, pp. 65–82.
11.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on Improving Safety at Sea in Response to the Prestige Accident. COM(2002) 681 final. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium, Dec. 3, 2002. europa.eu.int/comm/transport/maritime/safety/doc/prestige/com_2002_681_en.pdf. Accessed August 2004.
12.
Garcia PerezJ. D.Early Socio-political and Environmental Consequences of the Prestige Oil Spill in Galicia. Disasters, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2003, pp. 207–223.
13.
One Year After the Prestige Disaster, the Commission Publishes the First List of Ships Banned From EU Ports [press release]. IP/03/1547. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium, Nov. 14, 2003. europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference= IP/03/1547&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr. Accessed August 2004.
14.
Effects of Double-Hull Requirements on Oil Spill Prevention: Interim Report.Marine Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996.
15.
Regulation (EC) No. 417/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on the Accelerated Phasing-in of Double-Hull or Equivalent Design Requirements for Single-Hull Oil Tankers and Repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 2978/94. Official Journal of the European Communities L 64, Vol. 45, March 7, 2002, pp. 1–5. europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/archive/2002/l_06420020307en.html. Accessed August 2004.
16.
KimI.A Comparison Between the International and U.S. Regimes Regulating Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation. Marine Policy, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2003, pp. 265–280.
17.
BurlingtonL. B.Valuing Natural Resources Damages: A Trans-Atlantic Lesson. Environmental Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004, pp. 77–96.
ZacherM. W.Toward a Theory of International Regimes. Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 44, No. 1, 1990, pp. 139–157.
20.
LevyM. A., YoungO. R., and ZürnM.The Study of International Regimes. Working Paper. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1994.
21.
MitchellR., McConnellM. L., RoginkoA., and BarrettA.International Vessel-Source Oil Pollution. In The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioural Mechanisms (YoungO.R., ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1999, Chapter 2, pp. 33–90.
22.
MitchellR.Intentional Oil Pollution at Sea. Environmental Policy and Treaty Compliance.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1994.
23.
MitchellR.Regime Design Matters: Intentional Oil Pollution and Treaty Compliance, International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 3, 1994, pp. 425–458.
24.
MitchellR.International Environmental Agreements: A Survey of Their Features, Formation, and Effects. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, Vol. 28, 2003, pp. 429–461.
25.
AndersonE. E., and TalleyW. K.The Oil Spill Size of Tanker and Barge Accidents: Determinants and Policy Implications. Land Economics, Vol. 71, 1995, pp. 216–228.
26.
TalleyW. K.Determinants of the Property Damage Costs of Tanker Accidents. Transportation Research, Part D, Vol. 4, 1999, pp. 413–426.
European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide. White Paper. European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2001. europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/lb_en.html. Accessed August 2004.
29.
HandM.Single-Hull Crackdown “Will Send Time Bombs into Asian Waters.”Lloyd's List, Oct. 7, 2003.
