The fifteen nations comprising the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)1 have for years, individually and collectively, stated their interest and preference for a joint approach to protection and management of the Caribbean Sea and its resources.2 The opportunity for this approach is partly advanced by and made possible through the adoption and global ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 19823 and other international instruments. The member states of the CARICOM however have a wider and strategic interest in declaring the Caribbean Sea a nuclear free zone and also preventing the cleaning by oil tankers of their bilges just outside the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)4 of member states.
The region is concerned both about the serious threat to the fragile ecology of the Caribbean Sea and the associated economic implications of a possible accident or even a perceived risk of nuclear radioactivity.5 This, as far as the CARICOM is concerned, is directly correlated to an accident of a ship transporting nuclear and other hazardous substances through the Caribbean Sea. The economic concerns are not only about the loss of seabed resources, but the fact that national economies are supported primarily by the millions of tourists who visit the region every year.6
The underlying strategic importance of the Caribbean Sea includes the perception of mainly the CARICOM states that it is a relatively safe traffic area, which under proper management, could yield economic dividends from the many tourist liners, tankers and other ships which ply its waters. This latter view envisages a long-term building block approach requiring investment in the development of proper safety measures including enhanced port-to-port communications.
This paper confines itself to outlining a blueprint for exploiting the Caribbean Sea as a natural resource rich area threatened by the shipping of nuclear and other hazardous substances through the Sea. The author discusses and presents the elements for the adoption by the Caribbean Community of legal measures8 to pursue its interests9 through the sharing of resources while emphasising environmental protection.
The discussion will take place against a background of the current concern over the safe use of the sea and the interest of the CARICOM and other parties in its use. A focus on enhancing the region’s capacity constraints and the process for creating an enabling legal environment will lead to a regime for the exploitation of the Caribbean Sea.
The publicly advocated position of the CARICOM is that the purpose of shipment through or dumping of any radioactive or hazardous substances or toxic waste in the Caribbean Sea should be restricted if not prevented.10 In 1995, the Community reiterated its demand that nations engaged in the traffic of nuclear waste desist from transporting the substance through the Caribbean. These appeals were made in view of the danger posed to the welfare of the people of the Region and the disregard that this persistent activity represents to the sovereignty of member states.11 In August 1996, there were renewed concerns about the shipment of nuclear waste, particularly as this occurred at the height of the active hurricane season.12 This led to condemnation of the practice in a statement issued by the Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Foreign Affairs meeting in New York on 5 October 1996. This position was reiterated in a presentation to the 51st Session of the United Nations General Assembly that was convened that same year.
Apparently there are obvious economic advantages for the countries and parties involved in the persistent practice of shipping nuclear waste through the Caribbean Sea. The most important among these could well be that the route through the Caribbean Sea is the shorter of other alternatives and safe in terms of the relative tranquillity and geographical closure of the waters by the Caribbean island chain.13 The countries involved in the shipment of vitrified waste through the Caribbean Sea are Japan, France and the United Kingdom. The management company is British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL). The environmental group, Green-peace, documents the practice whereby the controversial shipments are undertaken via secret routes and have consistently revealed this information to governments and the media ahead of the scheduled date if and when this is uncovered.14
During September 1996, representatives of BNFL embarked on a sensitisation tour across the Caribbean, meeting with Government Ministers and regional technocrats to explain the safety of the shipments. The representatives from English, French and Japanese institutions met with representatives of the CARICOM Secretariat in Georgetown, Guyana on 11 September 1996, but failed to convince the Secretary General and his staff of a way forward in the face of growing public opposition to the shipments.15
By mid-1997 the level of protest in the Caribbean regarding a clandestine shipment was sufficient to bring about the diversion of the ship around the Cape of Good Hope to the chagrin of the coastal states in that region.16 The fact that the shipment was being undertaken at the height of the hurricane season in the Caribbean region and at a time of a high level of volcanic activity in the Caribbean did much to galvanise broad-based opposition.
For its part, BNFL acknowledges a "duty of care"17 and supports its right to 'innocent passage' with provisions of the 1982 Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention. It refers also to international regulations for the shipping nuclear waste material. Article 23 of the LOS Convention provides:
Foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances shall, when exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, carry documents and observe special precautionary measures established for such ships by international agreements.
There are several factors at the heart of the challenge facing the region including legal, political, economic and capacity constraints. In this paper the focus is on the political and economic forces underpinning the idea for a positive approach to protecting the Caribbean Sea. Tourism is a major foreign exchange in all of the states and is taking over as a lead economic activity in the Windward Islands where the banana industry is being depressed and efforts at agricultural diversification has not yet taken root.18 Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Guyana are the larger of the countries. They have enviable resource bases and technological capacity that could earn greater dividends if put at the disposal of the wider grouping.19
As highlighted above, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) was created by treaty. The treaty has resulted in the creation of functions and institutions similar to those of the European Union. The agreement for and progress towards the creation of a CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME)20 also reflects a growing level of economic co-operation which belies the growing homogeneity in political thought and practice in the region.
In so far as the many hortatory statements of CARICOM leaders have been consistent over the years, there appears to be the political will to pursue a workable solution.21
There is evidence that the CARICOM can, with the continued assistance of the international community, provide and sustain the financing of measures adopted to protect the Caribbean Sea as a special area.
The Commonwealth Science Council (CSC) and the CARICOM Secretariat, with financing from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) sponsored a study in 1996 on A Strategy for Co-operation in Sustainable Oceans Management and Development in the Commonwealth Caribbean.22 The study concluded that:
These conclusions not only encourage investment in better management of the Caribbean Sea, they support the need for sustainable financing of any new joint management regime for the area. This could include improved port-to-port communications on which ships at sea could rely for safe passage. The possibility of transit tolls could then become feasible. Another important point raised is that joint management of the seas could provide a greater return on the investment already being made by local governments.
Any additional resources would be limited to capacity building efforts and these could be offset by prioritising for critical capacity constraints to be met through international donor agencies, such as the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and/or the Global Environment Facility (GEF) which are already working in the region. The international community is aware of the threat for the destruction of these economically important coastal zones, which represent “vast areas of maritime jurisdiction” in some cases as much as ten times the size of an island.23
In this paper we discuss the opportunities and constraints of enhancing the CARICOM region’s interest in the Caribbean Sea. This will include reference to the UNCLOS, the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG), the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their disposal, the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (the Cartagena Convention)24 and protocols. We will also discuss and present a way forward to resolving the challenges confronting the region in its pursuit of a regime for the protection of the Caribbean Sea to include restricting or preventing the dumping or shipping of any waste, hazardous substances or toxic waste in the Caribbean Sea. A critique of the capacity constraints that have historically plagued regional initiatives will conclude this part of the discussion.
Cleopatra Henry, in The Carriage of Dangerous Goods, responds to the question of the right of innocent passage as reflected in Article 23 of the LOS Convention:
This Article can be construed to include a reference to Chapter VII of SOLAS [Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, 1974] and, implicitly, to the IMDG Code [International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code] which contains the details necessary for the implementation of that Chapter.25
Two additional notes are germane to the above.
Regulation 1(4) of Chapter VII of the SOLAS advises States that:
To supplement the provisions of this part, each Contracting Government shall issue or cause to be issued detailed instructions on safe packaging and stowage of dangerous goods, which shall include the precautions necessary in relation to other cargo.
Further, Henry points out that although some countries had incorporated the requirements of SOLAS and the IMDG Code into domestic laws, “Contracting States were not obliged to conform to any particular system when laying down detailed rules for the carriage of dangerous goods.”26
Additionally, given the repeated expressions in opposition to the transhipment of nuclear waste through the Caribbean Sea, the IMDG Code cannot be “considered to have been mandatory on the international plane,”27 and the CARICOM can adopt measures for promoting its interests in the Caribbean Sea.
According to Article 56 of the 1982 UNCLOS, coastal states have jurisdiction over their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with regard to the prevention and control of marine pollution. Kummer explains however that “the customary right to innocent passage may, however, not be impeded by such regulation [and] further evolution of this rule will determine the important question whether the transit passage of a hazardous waste shipment can be considered innocent passage.”28 The issue of jurisdiction is significant within the context of managing the Caribbean Sea. As can be seen on the map at the end of this document, there are “five major international straits that give access to the Caribbean Sea.” The overlapping of territorial sea and/or EEZs is unquestionable at the Windward Passage, Mona Passage, Anegada Passage, and the St Vincent Passage where the territories are both within the CARICOM ambit and the distance between the islands is less than 200 nautical miles.29
The Basel Convention provides some limited scope for directly addressing the issue raised in this discourse. It addresses hazardous waste exports as moving between two jurisdictions and “the high seas as part of the global commons is not covered by the Basel Convention.”30 The Convention itself may assist in consolidating the challenge to the secrecy involved in the BNFL transhipment activities through its incorporation “of an evolving customary law rule obliging the state of origin to obtain … prior consent.”31 Kummer best summarises the state of affairs as follows:
If both the duty of prior information and the duty to obtain prior consent are thus considered to have a basis in customary law, this lends considerable weight to the argument that the principle of prior informed consent (PIC) for pollution source transfer is also an emerging customary law rule.32
A regional approach to accession to the Basel Convention and membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)33 would also be useful to CARICOM in its pursuit of protection of the Caribbean Sea. The issue of which types of nuclear wastes are covered by the Basel Convention, or the IAEA, respectively, remains to be clarified.
The fact that a determination of levels of radioactivity has not yet been established under an international regime is an important matter to be expeditiously resolved.34
The quest of the CARICOM Community to adopt legal measures to pursue its interest through protection of the Caribbean Sea will require the support of all circum-Caribbean states, countries and territories. The Cartagena Convention is a model in this regard although it is not a panacea for the CARICOM situation.
The presence of metropolitan powers,35 including those involved in the shipment of nuclear material in the Caribbean, is a critical and complicating factor in designing a management regime. Although CARICOM member states will, in the first instance, be limited to the exercise of certain types of jurisdiction and over only a portion of the Sea this would be a platform for the implementation of the controlling measures envisaged.36 The legal solution must therefore incorporate a multi-faceted approach bearing on the global concern for the environment and the adoption of obligations and responsibilities under a variety of international instruments.
As noted above the Cartagena Convention is a model treaty for the protection of the marine environment at the wider regional level. It encourages the conclusion of “multilateral agreements, including regional or subregional agreements.”37 The Protocol Concerning Co-operation in combating Oil Spills in the Wider Caribbean Region aptly addresses the concern over not only oils, but “oil exploration, production and refining activities in the area.”38 The point has already been made that the CARICOM nations share a common history and among them can control access to at least four of the five major passageways, for the purposes of shipping, through the Caribbean Sea. The fact that Cuba is gravitating towards the regional grouping augurs well for consolidated efforts in arriving at arrangements with neighbouring Mexico for access via the Yucatan Peninsula.
The issue of hazardous waste control is affirmed elsewhere in international law and particularly so at UNCLOS, Part II, Sec. 3, Art. 19 where:
The coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in conformity with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law, relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea, in respect of, … [inter alia]:
(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic; …
(d) the conservation of the living resources of the sea; …
(f) the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution thereof.
Further by Article 22:
1. The coastal State may, where necessary having regard to the safety of navigation, require the foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through its territorial sea to use such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as it may designate or prescribe for the regulation of the passage of ships.
2. In particular, tankers, nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances or materials may be required to confine their passage to such sea lanes.
UNCLOS, Article 23 also refers to “nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances” and where there are “special precautionary measures established for such ships by international agreements.” One such instrument being the Convention on Marine Pollution (MARPOL)39 to which we now turn for additional support.
According to Henrik Ringbom in International Conference on Liability of States,
The UNCLOS rules hereby admit a new application of the MARPOL rules then means both that the possible area for their application has grown considerably and the requirement for establishing such rules have been lowered.40
It is the International Marine Organisation (IMO) which regulates the implementation of the MARPOL. It is the IMO that will consider approval of the application from CARICOM for the declaration of the Caribbean Sea as a ‘Special Area’. This status has already been granted in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.41 UNCLOS, Article 211 (b)(a) defines a ‘Special Area’ as:
A clearly defined area of the respective EEZ … where the adoption of special mandatory measures for the prevention of pollution from vessels is required for recognised technical reasons in relation to its oceonographical and ecological conditions, as well as its utilisation or the protection of its resources and the particular character of its traffic.42
The UNCLOS promotes the establishment of a regional organisation for convention purposes. This is especially so in respect of those, which would spearhead marine and scientific research, much of which is required in the Caribbean region. According to UNCLOS Article 276:
States, in co-ordination with the competent international organisations, the Authority and national marine scientific and technical research institutions, shall promote the establishment of regional marine scientific and technological research centres, particularly in developing States, in order to stimulate and advance the conduct of marine scientific research by developing States and foster the transfer of marine technology.
All States are to co-operate with their regional centres to ensure the more effective achievement of their objectives.
UNCLOS Article 277 list the functions of regional centres as, inter alia:
(a) training and educational programmes at all levels, on various aspects of marine scientific and technological research, particularly marine biology, including conservation and management of living resources, oceanography, hydrography, engineering, geological exploration of the sea bed, mining and desalination technologies.
(b) Management studies;
(c) Study programmes related to the protection and preservation of the marine environment and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution;
(d) Acquisition and processing of marine scientific and technological data and information.
The CARICOM should move to invest in the establishment of such a regional centre. This initiative is encouraged by the Report of the West Indian Commission (WIC), Time for Action, which in Chapter VI notes that:
Despite the heavy emigration of professional people that has taken place, the Region still has a good nucleus of highly trained scientists and technologists. However, they are scattered through numerous countries and institutions in the Region, and their individual efforts separately do not have the desired impact on the regional scene. What is needed is a rationalisation of the present installed institutional capacity so as to develop regional centres of excellence in certain selected areas, development of better infrastructure in the form of well-trained support staff; upgrading of equipment; material and other incentives for scientific and technological work; and links with the private sector that could, among other things, provide funding for projects, as well as facilitate the dissemination and commercialisation of research.43
Further, the Commission recognised the Trinidad-based Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) as a model of a regional organisation.44 It is to the strengthening of this institute that the region should turn to provide the capacity to spearhead, co-ordinate and lead the region’s negotiating and implementing strategy for the protection of the Caribbean Sea.
The IMA was established in 1976 as the result of an agreement signed in 1974 between the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and the United Nations through its executing agency, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).45
The concept of the IMA being a regional agency was re-enforced by the result of a 45-day oceanographic resource survey conducted (CORE) over the period 14 April to 24 May 1990 in the Caribbean and adjacent waters aboard the vessel R.V.Sagar Kanaya from India.46 The IMA was established by an Act of the Trinidad and Tobago Parliament.47 Although it had in practice being relied on to implement regional mandates, as in the case of the CORE project, it remains an organisation governed strictly by the national laws of Trinidad and Tobago. What is required now, as enabled by the Treaty of Chaguaramas, is for the IMA to be re-commissioned as a regional organisation in keeping with UNCLOS. Its new mandate should allow it to spearhead and conclude agreements for sustainable exploration and exploitation of the Caribbean Sea. All CARICOM member states have ratified the UNCLOS and could therefore rely on the arrangements for dispute resolution within this organisation.48
Assuming that the IMO approves the application for the Caribbean Sea to be granted ‘Special Area’ status, the individual States now have “a possibility to adopt national laws for the area.”49 It should however be noted that the UNCLOS provides for a regional approach to boundary delimitation and EEZ management. In any case, the Caribbean countries are already involved in regional efforts at economic integration and co-operation and are thus in an excellent position to build on the initiative. The economic constraints, which will make it difficult for many Caribbean economies to meet the requirements of UNCLOS on an individual basis in addition to other environmental obligations such as those of Agenda 21, could thus be negated. A regional approach would therefore allow for more efficient and effective utilisation of resources. A joint approach could also facilitate access to external assistance, including the GEF, for sustainable oceans development as a concurrent activity.
Most importantly opportunities for conflict may well be reduced among member states through a joint approach. This would also strengthen their negotiating capacity in respect of boundaries’ delimitation with the metropolitan powers referred to above. Consistent with the foregoing therefore, the CARICOM region should:
I have documented above a blueprint for the adoption of legal measures so that the Region might pursue protection of its special and stated interests in the Caribbean Sea. Arriving at this position will involve:
The CARICOM States are island or coastal States whose economic and social survival depends in very great measure on the marine environment. This includes shipping, mining of petroleum and natural gas, fishing and tourism. In order to optimise its gains from its natural resources, including the Caribbean Sea, the region must organise its capacity to manage the area as a Special Area. A variety of legal measures ranging from those incorporated as the IMDG Code, the Basel and Cartagena Conventions and the UNCLOS already point to the evolution of customary international law favourable to the interest of the Caribbean Community. The shared history of the islands and the experience of the region as demonstrated through the co-ordinating work of organisations such as the International Maritime Institute (IMA) provide a foundation on which the region should build. There are also the available resources augmented by the available technology support from the international community, already present in the region, to facilitate significant exploration and exploitation of the seabed through co-operation agreements among CARICOM States. Delimitation of the Caribbean Sea is a critical prerequisite to underpin the adoption by the CARICOM of the legal measures to pursue its interest through protection of the Caribbean Sea. The Region can truly position itself for the pooling of its resources for the financing of a sustainable management regime which would approach as complimentary the exploitation and protection of the Caribbean Sea.
1 The 15 full members, with their date of accession, are: Antigua and Barbuda (4 July 1974), Bahamas (4 July 1983) (not part of customs union), Barbados (1 August 1973), Belize (1 May 1974), Dominica (1 May 1974), Grenada (1 May 1974), Guyana (1 August 1973), Haiti (provisional membership on 4 July 1998, full membership on 2 July 2002), Jamaica (1 August 1973), Montserrat (a territory of the United Kingdom) (1 May 1974), Saint Kitts and Nevis (26 July 1974 as Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla), Saint Lucia (1 May 1974), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1 May 1974), Suriname (4 July 1995), Trinidad and Tobago (1 August 1973). There are also five Associate members and seven observer countries. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_Community.
2 See, for instance, the Communique issued at conclusion of the inaugural meeting of the CouncilL for Foreign and Community Relations, 12-13 May 1998, Paramaibo, Suriname.
3 See copy of the UNCLOS adopted 30 April 1982, In: Brownlie (1995): pp. 129-208.
4 Op. cit. cit. UNCLOS, Part V: The EEZ being that “area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea [over which] … the coastal state has [inter alia] sovereign rights” (Article 56).
5 Clarke, (1986): pp. 127. Radioactivity is defined as “emission of dangerous/harmful particles.”
6 For more details on the Caribbean’s tourism industry go to www.cto.org.
7 Go to www.caricom.org/expframes. A CARICOM-Cuba project initiated in the early 1990s anticipates international support.
8 Defined as coming under “international jurisprudence” [including the] “overriding principles of jus cogens” or customary international law. See Brownlie (1990): pp. 16-19.
9 The ‘interests’ of the CARICOM include environmental protection and safety of the economic potential of the area both for purposes of tourism and seabed exploitation.
10 The following was issued by the CARICOM at the conclusion of its 6th inter-sessional meeting in 1995:
Heads of Government agreed to the following statement:
The Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community, meeting at their Sixth Inter-Sessional Meeting, expressed their very grave concern about the recurring threat to the Region posed by any shipment of hazardous and radioactive material through the Caribbean Sea.
The Heads condemn any such shipment taking place and call on those parties involved to desist from using the Caribbean Sea, with its fragile ecosystems for such purpose or in any similar manner that threatens our people, resources, economic activities and the fundamental interests of our countries.
The Heads of Government are particularly disturbed that in spite of their previous condemnation of such traffic in view of clear indications of the dangers to the Region posed by the transit of such hazardous material, this prospect continues to arise.
The Heads of Government emphatically reiterate their position articulated since 1992:
- that shipments of plutonium and other radioactive or hazardous materials should not traverse the Caribbean Sea;
- that the Caribbean should not be used for the testing of nuclear devices; and
- that the Caribbean Sea should be declared a nuclear free zone for purposes of shipment, storing or dumping of any radioactive or hazardous substances or toxic waste.”
The Heads of Government call on those involved in the shipment of hazardous and toxic substances to respect the clear position of the Caribbean Community in this matter now and in the future.
There have been several subsequent statements from the Heads of Government to the same effect.
11 The basis for the position is the Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources. Adopted by the UN General Assembly, 14 December 1962 (G.A.Res. 1803). In: Brownlie (1995): p. 236.
12 The annual hurricane season in the Caribbean is from June to September.
13 See map at end of the text (thanks to Encarta) outlining the Caribbean Sea and note other countries such as Mexico, Venezuela and Colombia that will be involved in any delimitation exercise in the Region.
14 "The Dangerous Nuclear Waste Shipment Cloaked in Secrecy." www.greenpeace.org/nuclear/, 18 November, 1997.
15 See “Statement Issued by the Standing Committee of Ministers Responsible for Foreign Affairs of the Caribbean Community.” Monday 7 October 1996, New York.
16 "Japanese Nuclear Waste Shipment Sails into Pacific, leaving Controversy in Caribbean and Latin America." www.greenpeace.org, 7 February 1998. Reproduced in Guyana Chronicle, 8 September 1998.
17 For more details on BNFL and its activities see www.bnfl.com/.
18 See http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds27_e.htm for more on the banana dispute resulting from a complaint brought against the EU regarding the importation, distribution and sale of bananas. The EU faces the threat of USA retaliation because of its market arrangements for Caribbean bananas under the Lomé Agreement to the tune of US$191.4 million per year.
19 Op. cit. UNCLOS See Article 156.
20 See www.caricom.org/expframes.htm click at "Mobilization of Resources from External Agencies and Caribbean Community Technical Assistance" for progress on the creation of the CSME as moving beyond the Common Market Principle, which was the principal underpinning element of the 1973 Treaty.
21 CARICOM Secretariat. Report of the 18th Conference of Heads of Government, 4 July 1998, Montego Bay, Jamaica.
22 The Report is in the library of the Documents Centre of the CARICOM Secretariat in Georgetown, Guyana. A copy is probably also held by the Secretariat of the Commonwealth Science Council.
23 See Jayewardene (1990): pp. 15-19.
24 The Cartagena Convention was created at Cartagena de Indias on 24 March 1983.
25 Details in Henry (1985): pp. 100.
28 Kummer (1995): pp. 20. See also the 1958 Convention of the Territorial Sea, Article 14.
29 Ballah (1993): pp. 67. The Yucatan peninsular is shared between Mexico and Cuba. The latter enjoys observer status in several organs of CARICOM and engages in joint initiatives under the aegis of the CARICOM-Cuba Joint Commission.
30 Kummer (1995): pp. 52. See also the Basel Convention, Articles, 1(1) and 2(3) which affirms the Transboundary definition.
31 Ibid., pp. 21. See also the Lac Lanoux Arbitration (ILR 24 (1957) 101) for more on the obligation of prior notification.
33 The IAEA is generally responsible for the international control of radioactive waste.
34 See 1992 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes reproduced in reproduced in Brownlie, Ian (ed.) (1995). Basic Documents in International Law. Oxford .
35 Guadeloupe as a French Department and Montserrat as a British Dependency are representative of the metropolitan power and influence in the Caribbean. See also www.cia.org
36 A necessary precondition is for the CARICOM States to proceed to delimit their respective EEZs in accordance with UNCLOS, Art. 74.
37 The Cartagena Convention, Article 3, reproduced in 22 ILM (1983) 227.
38 The Protocol is reproduced at 22 ILM (1983) 240. See also the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region reproduced in 1 YIEL (1990) 441.
39 The MARPOL Convention, 1973, came into force in 1978 under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).
42 Quoted in Ringbom (1996), pp. 29.
43 CARICOM Secretariat. Report of the West Indian Report: Time for Action, 1990.
44 Time for Action (1990): pp. 237.
45 UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) has its regional headquarters in Barbados.
46 “Caribbean Oceanographic Resources Exploration (CORE) project.” Journal of the Institute of Marine Affairs, Vol. 2, Nos. 1 and 2, 1991.
47 Act of Parliament, No. 15 of 1976 (Chap. 37:01 of the Laws of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (1980).
48 For the Settlement of Disputes Mechanism and choice of procedures go to http://www.un.org/Depts/los/.
49 Op. cit. Ringbom, pp. 30. See also as a precedent Council Directive 93/97/EEC, Common minimum requirements for vessels carrying dangerous or polluting goods, p. 103.
Académie de Droit International (1991). A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea. Vols. 1 and 2. The Netherlands, Martinus Nijhoff.
Act of Parliament, No. 15 of 1976, Chap. 37:01 of the Laws of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (1980).
Brownlie, Ian (ed.) (1995). Basic Documents in International Law. Oxford.
Brownlie, Ian (1990). Principles of Public International Law. Oxford.
Clark, Robert Bernard (1986). Marine Pollution. New York, Oxford University Press.
Commonwealth Science Council (1990). A Strategy for Co-operation in Sustainable Oceans Management and Development in the Commonwealth Caribbean.
Caribbean Community Secretariat (1987). Treaty establishing the CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY, Chaguaramas 4th July 1973 (the official text of the Treaty, the Final Act and the Agreement establishing the Common External Tariff).
Caribbean Community Secretariat (1990). Report of the West Indian Commission: Time for Action.
Caribbean Oceanographic Resources Exploration (CORE) project. 1991 Journal of the Institute of Marine Affairs, 2 (1 and 2):
“Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Area.” 22 ILM (1983) 227.
Fitzmaurice, M. (1992). International Environmental Law and Policy Series – International Legal Problems of the Environmental Protection of the Baltic Sea. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
International Atomic Energy Agency (1975). International Treaties Relating to Nuclear Control and Disarmament. Vienna: Legal Series No. 9.
Jayewardene, Hiran W. (1990). The Regime of Islands in International Law. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Jhabvala, Rarrokh (editor) (1983). Maritime Issues in the Caribbean. Florida: University Presses of Florida.
Kummer, Katharina. (1995). International Management of Hazardous Waste: The Basel Convention and Related Legal Rules. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miles, Edward L. (1998). Global Ocean Politics: The Decision Process at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
“Protocol Concerning Co-operation in Combating Oil Spills in the Wider Caribbean Region.” 22 ILM (1983) 240.
“Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean.” 1 YIEL (1990) 441.
Ringbom, Henrik (1996). Environmental Protection and Shipping – Prescriptive Coastal State Jurisdiction in the 1990s. Oslo: Institutt for Offentlig rett.
“1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea”, reproduced in Brownlie, Ian (1995). Basic Documents in International Law. Oxford, Part I–XI, pp. 129-208.
“1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.” In: International Treaties Relating to the Law of the Sea, Vienna 1975.
“1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the 1982 UNCLOS”, 33 ILM (1994) 1309-1327.
“1997 Convention on the Law on non-Navigational Uses of International Water Courses”, 36 ILM (1997) 703-720.
“1992 Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes” (Basel).
© Claude E. S. Hogan, 2009.
HTML last revised 18th June, 2009.
Return to Conference papers.