This article has been written by MANETA MILTON, a 5th year law student from Alliance university, Banglore.
Introduction
It is imperative that we shield our oceans from pollution brought on by maritime activity. In these cases, culpability for environmental damage is assigned through a complex web of international conventions and legal frameworks. Our seas’ protection depends on the intricate international legal system for maritime environmental harm liability. To hold polluters responsible and guarantee a healthy future for our seas, it is crucial to comprehend these conventions and navigate the legal system. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), This founding agreement establishes the rules and regulations governing maritime affairs. States must take action to stop, lessen, and manage contamination of the marine environment coming from a variety of sources, including ships. The main international framework for reducing ship-related operational or unintentional pollution of the marine environment is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).Convention on International Civil Liability for Damages Resulting from Oil Pollution (CLC),This convention, which was established in 1969 and updated in 1992, guarantees that individuals who sustain harm as a result of tanker oil spills would receive sufficient compensation. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, sometimes known as the “Bunkers Convention,” was adopted in 2001 and serves as a supplement to the CLC by covering pollution damage resulting from oil spills stored as fuel in ship bunkers. The Hazardous and Toxic Substances by Sea (HNS Convention) is an international convention that creates a system of liability and compensation for damage related to the transportation of hazardous and toxic substances by sea.
European Union Framework
The Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) of the EU establishes a framework for preventing and correcting environmental damage, putting the “polluter pays” theory into practice. According to the International Maritime Organisation, this reflects the EU’s commitment to a high standard of environmental protection and encompasses harm to land, water, and wildlife. Together, these agreements and laws seek to strike a balance between the needs of environmental preservation and marine trade, making sure that those who cause pollution are held responsible and that victims receive compensation. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is a key player in the creation and upkeep of these international legal norms, encouraging their global adoption and application.
Torrey Canyon disaster of 1967
The 1967 Torrey Canyon accident served as a spur for both the expansion of the IMO’s technological efforts to prevent pollution and the development of liability and compensation policies.
To address the legal concerns brought up by the first significant tanker catastrophe in history, an ad hoc Legal Committee was formed. It quickly evolved into a permanent subsidiary organ of the IMO Council, convening twice a year to address any legal matters brought up at IMO. The Torrey Canyon case brought up three key points: who should pay for damages caused by oil contamination, how liability should be determined, and how much compensation should be given for damages. For example, there were already well-established processes in place to settle claims arising from a collision between two ships. Generally speaking, only the ships, the cargo, and the people on board are likely to sustain harm or damage, and only they are at fault. However, a significant pollution mishap such as the Torrey Canyon involves several parties and can result in significant harm. Establishing a system that makes it possible to identify who is liable and guarantees that any money owed is paid is crucial. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) held a conference in 1969 wherein a convention was adopted on the ship’s or cargo owner’s civil duty for damages resulting from a pollution casualty. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage was created to make sure that victims received fair compensation and that the shipowner was held accountable. There were participants to the 1969 Conference who believed that the compensation offered in certain situations might not be sufficient because the liability limits set were too low. The International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage was established by a convention that was adopted in 1971 after the IMO called another conference. The Fund is headquartered in London, and the Convention went into effect in 1978. The Fund is funded by payments from oil importers, as opposed to the Civil Liability Convention, which places responsibility on the shipowner. A strong framework for handling maritime pollution and liability has been established by the IMO. Important agreements include the 2003 creation of a Supplementary Fund for further compensation and the 1992 changes to the Civil Liability Convention (CLC). Passenger liability is governed by the Athens Convention, which was updated in 2002. The 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, which was revised in 1996, greatly increased the cap on compensation. Hazardous substances are covered by the 1996 HNS Convention; however, it wasn’t ratified until 2010 when a Protocol made it easier to enforce. The 2001 Bunkers Convention expanded upon earlier oil leak regulations to include ship fuel spills. Finally, the legal aspects of removing sunken vessels are covered by the 2007 Wreck Removal Convention.
Conclusion
Since the 1967 Torrey Canyon disaster, the international maritime liability framework which is based on important IMO conventions has undergone substantial change. The goal of these liability regimes is to guarantee victims of hazardous material releases, oil spills, and other types of maritime environmental harm receive fair recompense. All of these liability mechanisms still need to be properly implemented, and there are still a lot of obstacles to overcome. The effectiveness of the global liability framework is still being hampered by problems including defining and measuring environmental harm, establishing public entities rights to pay, and obtaining consistent national implementation. Liability agreements will require constant improvement and growth as the marine sector and environmental hazards change. Enhancing marine liability for environmental protection will require bolstering international cooperation, refining legal precedents, and advancing scientific techniques for estimating environmental damage. In the end, the marine liability system is a crucial tool for encouraging ethical behaviour, encouraging preventative actions, and guaranteeing fair compensation in the event that an accident does occur. Maintaining the maritime environment in the face of increasing environmental constraints and commercial activities will require further advancements in this field.
