Future of the International Conventions on Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage

1991 ◽  
Vol 1991 (1) ◽  
pp. 689-690
Author(s):  
Måns Jacobsson

ABSTRACT The international regime on oil spill liability and compensation is based on two international conventions, the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and the 1971 Fund Convention. The Fund Convention establishes an intergovernmental organization, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPC Fund), with the task of administering the regime of compensation set up by that convention. At present, 67 nations are party to the Civil Liability Convention, 45 to the Fund Convention. The United States is not party to either. In 1984, the conventions were revised by two protocols, which provide higher compensation limits and a wider scope of application than the original conventions. These protocols have not yet come into force. The future of the compensation regime established by these conventions is examined here, with special attention to the prospects for the entry into force of the 1984 protocols. At present, the United States will not ratify these protocols.

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-71
Author(s):  
Mans Jacobsson

ABSTRACT Compensation for oil spills from laden tankers has so far been governed by two international conventions adopted under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization: the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and the 1971 Fund Convention. Ninety-six states are parties to the 1969 Civil Liability Convention, and 70 states are parties to the 1971 Fund Convention. The United States is not party to either of these conventions. In 1992, two protocols were adopted amending the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and the 1971 Fund Convention. The conventions as amended by the 1992 protocols (the 1992 conventions), which entered into force on May 30, 1996, give better economic protection to victims of oil pollution damage caused by oil spills from tankers than the conventions in their original versions. Under the 1992 conventions, the available compensation amounts per incident (including the sum actually paid by the shipowner and his or her insurer) have been increased from US$87 million to approximately US$196 million. The 1971 Fund Convention set up an intergovernmental organization, the 1971 Fund, to administer the compensation system. The new system of compensation established under the 1992 Fund Convention is administered by a separate legal entity: the 1992 Fund. The two funds share a secretariat.


2016 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 66-108
Author(s):  
Jae Sundaram

A significant amount of marine oil pollution is vessel-source with another being non-vessel-source originating from offshore oil platform operations. The world has witnessed a number of oil spill disasters since the 1950s including the Deepwater Horizon incident in the United States, the Montara Wellhead Platform in Australia and the continuing oil spill incidents in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Technological advances mean that offshore operators now venture further out from coastlines to explore for, and exploit hydrocarbon reserves, thus increasing the crude oil output, and also the possibility of oil pollution incidents from offshore platforms. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution 1969 and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage 1971 were developed under the leadership of the International Maritime Organization in response to the increasing incidents of vessel-source oil pollution of the marine environment. Since the entry into force of these Conventions the membership has increased and the incidents of vessel-source oil pollution reduced. Efforts made by the Comité Maritime International (CMI), as early as in 1977, to develop a uniform civil liability convention for claims arising from offshore operations did not come to fruition, and very little progress has been made in finding a solution. Currently, there is no uniform international civil liability regime in place for oil pollution compensation claims arising for damages caused by offshore operations. This article explores the reasons behind the lack of a coherent legal framework to process civil liability claims arising from offshore oil spill incidents, especially when a comprehensive international regulation exists to govern vessel-source and other related forms of marine oil pollution. It argues that the lack of leadership to find a solution is proving to be highly damaging and that there is a strong case and an urgent need to establish a uniform international offshore oil spill liability regime. The article looks at existing regimes, both regional and national, as a way forward to develop an international regime for oil pollution compensation for damages arising from offshore activities.


1991 ◽  
Vol 1991 (1) ◽  
pp. 353-355
Author(s):  
Cadets John P. Nolan ◽  
Susan J. Blood

ABSTRACT The International Oil Pollution Prevention and Response (OPPR) Convention represents current international efforts to improve capabilities to prepare for and respond to catastrophic oil spills. Initiated by the United States, it is being negotiated by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Major components of the proposal include the establishment of an International Marine Pollution Information Center located at IMO headquarters, National Response Centers in each coastal state, and oil spill response contingency plans for ships. Other proposed articles include prepositioning of oil response equipment in high-risk areas, a research and development program for response techniques, and international cooperation during responses to catastrophic oil spills. Several problems have complicated negotiations of the OPPR Convention. First, severe time constraints have been placed on the negotiators, with the final conference1 to consider the OPPR scheduled for November 1990. Second, the United States suffers from a lack of credibility in the IMO, since the Senate has not yet ratified previous initiatives, the 1984 protocols to the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, and the 1971 Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage. Finally, the IMO's financial troubles have placed the concept of the International Information Center in jeopardy. In spite of these obstacles, a clear majority of countries are willing to support the document, realizing that it fills a gap in marine oil pollution prevention and response. The OPPR Convention will likely be carried through to adoption by the November conference. This paper traces the development of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Response and Prevention. It summarizes the background and initial proposals of the Convention, and then discusses the problems that arose during negotiations. Finally, it describes the present status of the Convention and offers a projection of its future direction.


1993 ◽  
Vol 1993 (1) ◽  
pp. 659-661
Author(s):  
John Arnold Witte

ABSTRACT Despite the strong emphasis on oil spill cleanup in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the United States still faces a major gap in its defenses against oil pollution: the lack of adequate professional ship salvage capability. Availability of preventive salvage capability would contribute to the most effective way of preventing a marine environmental catastrophe: keeping the oil, or chemicals, in the ship. This is especially important in view of the increasing age of the world tanker fleet.


2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Tannahill ◽  
Alexis Steen

ABSTRACT Since its inception, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) was intended to greatly improve the ability to respond to large spills in the United States and has been the subject of frequent discussion and debate within the United States and elsewhere. Its provisions created new regulatory programs, expanded existing requirements, and established a variety of competency requirements for those entities and personnel involved in the production, transport, handling, or storage of petroleum within the United States. Tens upon tens of articles have been published in prior Proceedings of the International Oil Spill Conference (IOSC) and in many other venues about legislative intent, subsequent regulatory programs and their implementation, interagency negotiations, industry compliance successes or difficulties, training issues, etc. OPA 90 has also had an impact on U.S. policies internationally and in U.S. participation in international spill conventions/treaties. In recognition of a decade's passage since its enactment, IOSC sponsors commissioned a review and analysis of the effectiveness of OPA 90 and the interrelationship of OPA 90 with other oil spill laws and rules in the world. Another important purpose was to identify issues for the related panel discussion of this topic at the 2001 IOSC. This review was conducted using a questionnaire to acquire input from a broad range of individuals with OPA 90 expertise and experience. An informal survey of 57 questions in four sections was prepared and distributed to 22 participants. These participants were selected to represent a core of knowledge about OPA 90 and its history of implementation. Findings from the survey are presented to foster discussion and debate, educate members of the spill response community, assist with resolution of outstanding issues, and help focus on future issues that will need attention. The rate of response to the survey questions was high and enabled a broad review of the effectiveness of some of the various OPA 90 requirements. Questions were in either multiple-choice or essay format. Commonalties, differences, and issues were identified from all responses and used to evaluate OPA 90. From the commonalties and differences in the responses, selected OPA 90 requirements were classified as effective or ineffective. Based on an analysis of multiple-choice and essay answers, respondents generally agreed that OPA 90 was moderately effective (across all covered provisions). Closer examination of the four survey sections, however, indicated distinct concerns and benefits derived from implementation of OPA 90. In addition, where OPA 90 provisions were judged effective, caveats sometimes followed. Despite the effective rating of many OPA 90 prevention provisions, prevention still needs more attention based on the opinions of the survey respondents. Some respondents felt more attention and resources often are given to preparing to respond to a spill than to preventing spills, even though preventing a spill is considered preferable. Further, some believed that spill prevention would be enhanced if vessels with large, onboard bunker fuel storage also were subject to prevention requirements similar to OPA 90 requirements for vessels carrying petroleum as cargo. Survey feedback indicated that better Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) could result in significant improvements in response preparedness. ACPs need to be improved in many geographic areas. ACPs should be more response-oriented and less like a reference document, and be made more readily available and useable. Many respondents viewed these items as the foundation for any major improvements in response planning. In the United States, spill response using a multiparty management system, which is inclusive of broad stakeholder groups, differs from systems in other countries. Most felt that response activities can impact restoration activities greatly, but the legal structure does not support a seamless and efficient coordination of response and restoration. Coordination between response and restoration needs to be improved to avoid response delays and promote better/faster resource restoration. The biggest concern expressed by survey respondents regarding restoration dealt with management of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process. Damage assessments and restoration management need to be streamlined, partly because too many interested parties make decision making inefficient. Some felt that public review of restoration plans led to better results; others felt public review delayed timely restoration activities. While international cooperation has increased over the last decade, respondents felt there was room for further improvement. In particular, sharing personnel and resources better, joining inspection and control programs, and drafting international restoration guidelines were some of the improvement activities mentioned. Findings from this survey have provided insights on what actions are needed to further improve spill prevention, preparedness, response, and restoration. Now is the time to renew this effort and improve performance to a higher plane globally. 2001 IOSC sponsors and Issue Paper Subcommittee desire the response community's commitment and solicit its involvement toward this goal.


2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 769-772
Author(s):  
Joe Nichols ◽  
Miles Morgan

ABSTRACT The international regime on liability and compensation for oil pollution damage is based on international Conventions adopted under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). When the international compensation Conventions were first elaborated over thirty years ago in the aftermath of the Torrey Canyon incident, it was decided to establish a two-tier system whereby the economic consequences of marine oil spills from tankers should be shared between the shipping industry and those industries who either owned or received the cargoes transported by sea. Although the limits of liability and compensation under the Conventions have been revised from time to time, the concept of sharing has been maintained. In 2004 the Secretariat of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds undertook a study of the costs of oil spills from tankers worldwide, except the United States, over the past 25 years. The purpose of the study was to examine the extent to which the economic consequences of oil spills had been shared by the shipping and oil sectors under the Conventions as envisaged when they were elaborated and under the voluntary industry schemes which coexisted and interacted with the Conventions for much of that time. The results of the study and their impact on any future revisions of the international Conventions, particularly as regards the sharing of the financial burden, are the subject of this paper.


Author(s):  
Pham Van Tan

Pollution in the marine environment, especially pollution caused by oil, is of major interest to the international community because the sea plays a major role in human life. With the rapid development of Vietnam’s maritime activities, the risk of oil pollution in Vietnam’s sea is increasing. Therefore, the study of the international laws on oil pollution caused by ships is also an urgent and necessary issue for Vietnam. The system of modern international laws has formed the legal regulatory framework to address oil pollution caused by ships at the sea by a series of international conventions related to oil pollution. With the comparison method and assessment method, the article describes a new idea for improving the oil pollution law system of Vietnam, based on the analysis and comparison of international conventions on oil pollution caused by ships with several Vietnam laws, including: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982; International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978; International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992; and International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001. From these analyses and comparisons, the author offers some learned lessons for Vietnam, which have helped Vietnam to develop legal documents to improve the legal system regarding oil pollution – which is a necessity for Vietnam at present.


1987 ◽  
Vol 1987 (1) ◽  
pp. 559-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Corbett

ABSTRACT Comprehensive oil spill liability and compensation legislation, including adoption of two important international oil spill treaties, has eluded the United States for too long. Although there is broad agreement in the Administration, both houses of Congress, oil and shipping interests, state governments and the environmental community that we need comprehensive oil spill legislation, these often divergent interests have not been able, at least as of this writing (December 1986), to agree on a compromise package. Both houses of Congress passed bills during the 99th Congress, the latest House versions in Titles VI and VIII of H.R. 5300 and, in the Senate, S. 2799. These bills were dissimilar in several ways. However, most informed interests suggested that, had a compromise House bill emerged near the end of the Congress, a Senate-House conference committee could have reached agreement between the House offer and S. 2799. Unfortunately this did not occur. Also, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out favorably (to the full Senate), the ratification of the 1984 protocols to the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and the 1971 Fund Convention (CLC and Fund), with a “reservation” and a number of “understandings.” The need for appropriate legislation arises from deficiencies in and the patchwork approach of current U.S. legislation.


Author(s):  
Helkei S. Hemminger

Abstract # —1141278 — In 2018, the Canadian government purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline, running from Alberta to British Columbia, along with the plans for expansion. The expansion could triple the transport capacity from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels of oil per day, and would increase the tanker traffic in the inland waterways of the Salish Sea, an area known for its sensitive marine habitat, and narrow, difficult to navigate passages. The anticipated increase in tanker traffic in this busy waterway continues to raise concerns about the impact of an oil spill and the financial means to address related injuries, particularly to natural resources. The transboundary nature of any spill further complicates the situation vis-à-vis the applicable liability regimes and response resources. Under the Canada-United States Joint Marine Contingency Plan (“JCP”), the United States Coast Guard and Canadian Coast Guard acknowledge each country's responsibility to fund their own response actions and pursue reimbursement of those costs within their respective jurisdictions. The availability of funding for a response, and to compensate injured parties, however, including the limits of liability of the responsible party, differs under each regime, and could impact the nature and scope of a response. For spills into or posing a substantial threat to the navigable waters of the United States, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 governs and a national fund, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (“OSLTF”), is immediately available to address an incident, including emergency restoration to natural resources. Canada's Marine Liability Act enables the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund (“SOPF”) to pay claimants who have incurred damages as a result of oil pollution. Both countries' funds operate under the same principal—the polluter pays—but the compensation structure, and claims processes and procedures are entirely different. This paper provides an overview of these funding sources and claims procedures, comparing and contrasting the different systems. The discussion is meant to provide an overall understanding of potential funding pools available for spill responses under each scheme in order to facilitate transboundary spill planning and discussion.


2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward H.P. Brans

This article focuses on the April 2004 EC Directive on Environmental Liability (Directive 2004/35/CE). It examines its measure of damages, its framework for assessing damages and its provisions regarding the issue of standing. Comparisons will regularly be made with the United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990, its natural resource damage regulations and its provisions on locus standi. Finally, a comparison is made with international civil liability conventions that cover damage to natural resources. The goal of the analysis is to show that the Directive's rules on assessing damages are inspired by the natural resource damage regulations of the US Oil Pollution Act, and secondly, to show that there is a difference between the measure of damages in the international civil liability conventions and the new Directive. *


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document