E-Mail: johnklotz@johnklotz.com Return to Klotz Law Homepage
Return to Environmental Issues

Reprinted from The International Lawyer, Vol.6, No. 4, October 1972 Page 706
Copyright 1972 American Bar Association


Are Ocean Polluters Subject
to Universal Jurisdiction -
Canada Breaks the Ice


A.      The Death of the Ocean - Mother of Life

     Until now, human development has proceeded on the assumption 
that the earth and its resources were created for the use and 
exploitation by mankind, and were so plentiful that little 
thought need be given to their ultimate exhaustion.(Nte. 1) In terms 
of ecology, man's economic theories have advanced little beyond 
those of the Stone Age: "slash and burn" agricultural communities 
who roam the world's tropical forests, slashing and burning trees 
to create small plots for cultivation, and when the soil is soon 
exhausted, moving on to another part of the forest to slash and 
burn again.

     Similarly, modern man has exploited the resources of the 
earth with such reckless abandon, that the human race is now 
faced with an ecological crisis of unbelievable complexity. We 
now know that the earth's resources are limited, with the points 
of exhaustion of many of the most basic resources near at hand, 
and that exploitation and industrialization are exacting such a 
fearful toll that life, as we now know it, may be doomed to 
extinction.(Nte. 2)

     Perhaps the most obvious of the world's endangered 
ecological systems is the ocean.(Nte. 3) Ocean waters cover 
four-fifths of the earth's surface. Its interaction with the 
atmosphere determines weather and climate and each influences in 
many ways the composition of the other.(Nte. 4) Over 70 percent of the 
atmosphere's oxygen was created by ocean organisms.(Nte. 5) The ocean 


an integral part of the world's food supply and an important 
communications link between the continents. Thus, the destruction 
or alteration of the ocean's ecosystems would threaten the 
earth's supply of oxygen, lead to the possibility of seriously 
altered climates and threaten destruction of an important source 
of the world's present and future food supply.(Nte. 6)

     Yet, the evidence seems conclusive that serious, destructive 
pollution of the ocean has occurred, is continuing virtually 
unabated and will become worse in the future. It may very well be 
that the future of the ocean will be a replay of the destruction 
and death of many smaller bodies of fresh water, such as Lake 
Erie.(Nte. 7) Indeed, some of the ocean's constituent parts such as 
the Baltic and the Mediterranean are well along the road to 
becoming dead seas.(Nte. 8) Even the huge expanse of the Atlantic was 
found by members of Thor Heyerdahl's Ra expedition, to be "one 
big garbage dump."(Nte. 9)

     One of the most persistent pollutants now entering the ocean 
in large quantities is oil. Estimates as to the quantity of oil 
added to the marine environment vary from about 4.5 million tons 
to no less than 10 million tons.(Nte. 10) Although the effects of oil 
pollution have not I been completely determined, it is apparent 
that continuing, unabated pollution of the oceans by oil 
threatens the functioning of many of the oceans' important 
life-supporting ecosystems. At the least, oil pollution has 
succeeded in destroying much of the enjoyment and recreation that 
man has traditionally found in the ocean, and has reduced the 
ocean's capacity to produce fish fit for human consumption.

     Not all the oil found in the ocean is of human origin. In 
addition to the millions of tons added by man, a nearly equal 
amount of hydro-carbons may be added by natural processes.(Nte. 11) 
However, nature has evolved, over millions of years, methods of 
coping with the dangers caused by natural pollutants. The sudden 
addition by man of vast quantities of unnatural pollutants 
overwhelms the natural processes, and takes away from nature its 
most important asset-time. In the modern world, the expanding 


ty of man, the polluter, has destroyed time and there is precious 
little left.(Nte. 12) Despite the well-documented prophesies of 
disaster and the catastrophes already endured, it is not likely 
that mankind will voluntarily curtail its pollution-causing 
activities. The immediate prospect is for increased oil pollution 
as the worldwide search for oil causes further exploitation of 
off-shore wells, and increased reliance on ocean shipping of 
oil.(Nte. 13) Thus, the battle lines are being drawn between 
"economists" who feel the need for further exploitation and 
regard the environment as a subsidiary  concern, and the 
"ecologists" who feel that the survival of the race is dependent 
on placing primary concern on environmental problems.(Nte. 14)

B.      The International Community and Oil Pollution

     Although the efforts of the international community to cope 
with oil pollution date back to at least 1926, the extent of the 
present crisis is a measure of its failure. In 1926, a convention 
relating to international oil pollution was drafted but not 
ratified. However, in 1954, an International Convention for the 
Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil was adopted.(Nte. 15) 
Although it was subsequently amended, its inherent weakness was 
such that in 1969, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative 
Organization (IMCO) promulgated at its Brussels Conference two 
new conventions: the "International Convention on Civil Liability 
for Oil Pollution Damage"(Nte. 16) and the "International Convention 
relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil 
Pollution Casualties."(Nte. 17)

     Despite the fact that the IMCO convention followed by forty 
years the initial pollution control efforts of 1926, and despite 
the fact that by 1969, maritime oil pollution was clearly a major 
world problem, the net result of


the conventions was to impose limited civil liability on the 
owners and operators of oil tankers, require insurance to cover 
such damages, and authorize limited intervention on the high seas 
after maritime casualties. The shallowness and limited utility of 
this approach was argued forcefully by the Canadian government at 
Brussels. In light of the structural domination of lMCO by 
maritime states with a vested interest in ocean commerce, it is 
not surprising that the Canadian arguments did not carry the 
day.(Nte. 18)

C.      The Canadian Action

1.      The Frustrations of the Multi-Lateral Approach

     ... The Canadian experience was rather unfortunate when 
     they explored possibilities of action within the U.N. 
     apparatus. At the same time there was a rather diffuse 
     interest in the various organs and agencies, there was 
     also, clearly, almost a pre-emption of the possibility 
     of early and direct action by lMCO, which was clearly 
     not an agency, in view of its interest in facilitating 
     maritime commerce, that could take the sort of broad 
     approach that was necessary for this type of problem. 
     Canada was not only rebuffed at the Brussels Conference 
     held last year, but actually received clear indications 
     of reluctance on the part of some governments to assume 
     any responsibility or become involved in this issue. 
     Consequently, Canada felt obliged to take unilateral 
     action that would meet the need of protection in the 
     Arctic environment. It was partly conceived as a goad 
     to the international community to take constructive 
     action.(Nte. 19)

     The problems of ocean pollution are intensified by the 
extreme climate of the Arctic region. While 50 percent of spilled 
oil in a temperate zone might be oxidized within a week, oil 
spilled in the Arctic may persist as long as fifty years.(Nte. 20) 
Thus, events in the Arctic led to Canada's desperate attempts at 
Brussels to put teeth into the international community's attempts 
to combat oil pollution.

     In the summer of 1969, the oil tanker U.S. Manhattan 
successfully navigated the Northwest Passage through the Canadian 
Arctic to the new oil fields on the Alaskan north slope. The 
conflict between the economists and the ecologists was brought 
into sharp focus. Alaskan oil was regarded as vital by oil 
interests in the United States and ocean shipping would result in 
a cost saving of nearly $600,000 a day.(Nte. 21)

     Meanwhile, the ecologists foresaw the devastating results a 
major oil


spill might have on the Arctic environment. Shortly after the 
Brussels conference, an oil spill occurred in northern waters off 
Nova Scotia when the tanker Arrow grounded. Although only a small 
spill, the potential for a larger disaster was clear, and 
Canada's apprehensions were not eased when the owner of the Arrow 
was found to be a corporation that was little more than a 
Bahamian filing cabinet.(Nte. 22)

     In the spring of 1970, Canada felt compelled to enact 
far-reaching pollution control legislation entitled "Act to 
prevent Pollution of Areas of Arctic Waters adjacent to the 
mainland islands of the Canadian Arctic."(Nte. 23) The Act authorized 
detailed regulation of activity in Arctic areas previously 
regarded as high seas. The Act was promptly attacked as an 
unjustified unilateral extension of jurisdiction in violation of 
international law.(Nte. 24) To those sympathetic to Canada's action, 
the question was aptly framed by Justice Douglas of the United 
States Supreme Court:

     ... Is Canada's new act suggestive of the law the 
     world needs to safeguard the estuaries and oceans of
     the world from the almost certain degradation they 
     face under present pressures?(Nte. 25)

2.      The Canadian Legislation

     On June 26, 1970, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention 
Act, received Royal Assent and became law.(Nte. 26) By that Act, 
Canada asserted jurisdiction to regulate activities in its Arctic 
Waters through a national regime which governs everything, from 
penalties for polluters to the actual construction of ships of 
any nation traversing the international waters of the Canadian 

     Under the Act, "Arctic Waters" were defined as all those 
waters above latitude 60 north within 100 nautical miles of shore 
plus continental shelves or other substrata that Canada had the 
right to exploit.(Nte. 27) The objective of the Act was not just oil 
pollution but included any substance (including detrimentally 
altered water) detrimental to the use of the Arctic Waters by 
men, or fish and plants men use.(Nte. 28)

     Any individual who deposits such waste is subject to severe 
civil and criminal penalties and is liable to any person 
damaged.(Nte. 29) However, in


order to prevent pollution before it occurs, the act gives the 
Canadian government the power to regulate in great detail the 
construction of ships using Arctic Waters and requires that such 
ships use Canadian qualified pilots and lookouts.(Nte. 30) The Canadian 
government disclaimed any intention of claiming sovereignty over 
the Arctic Waters, and insisted that it was simply regulating 
pollution-prone activities on behalf of all mankind.(Nte. 31)

     Yet, if the powers which Canada has appropriated for itself 
are not sovereignty over the Arctic Waters, what are they? Has 
Canada defined a new kind of contiguous zone in the high seas? 
Under the provisions of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and 
the Contiguous Zone, in the zone of high seas contiguous to its 
territorial seas, a coastal state had the right to exercise 
control in order to enforce, and punish infringement of customs, 
fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations within its 
territorial sea or territory.(Nte. 32)  However, the Convention 
specifically limited that zone to no more than twelve miles from 
the baseline for measuring the territorial sea. In both the scope 
of regulation, and the breadth of zone, the Canadian Act goes far 
beyond the contiguous zone envisioned by the Convention.

     Canada, however, found no lack of precedent for its 
assertion of jurisdiction to regulate activities on the high seas 
to protect its vital interest in the Arctic, and also took the 
position that the usual high seas regime had little meaning in 
its Arctic Waters, where much of the high seas were permanently 
covered by ice and inhabited by Eskimos who live their entire 
lives on the ice without ever touching land.(Nte. 33) Prudently, 
Canada withdrew from its acceptance of the mandatory jurisdiction 
of the International Court of Justice, the question of the 
validity of its Arctic Waters Act.(Nte. 34)

D.      The Canadian Arctic Waters Act and International Law

     Even before formal enactment, the mere proposal of the 
Arctic Waters Act by the government of Prime Minister Trudeau 
caused a barrage of criticism, much of it from the United 
States.(Nte. 35) It was assailed by some as an act of unilateral 
law-making, and a grievous impingement of the freedom of the 
seas. Canada, on its part, admitted lack of precedent, and in 
reply to


a protest from the government of the United States made pointed 
reference to the Truman Declaration of the Continental Shelf as 
ample precedent for its actions and a prime example of a 
"unilateral jurisdiction assertion."(Nte. 36)

     By Canada's own definition, it was not claiming sovereignty 
over the Arctic Waters, but merely asserting a special kind of 
jurisdiction to prevent pollution. To evaluate the lawfulness of 
the Canadian action, we must therefore examine the customary 
jurisdiction of national states, and whether Canada's action is 
fundamentally at odds with the customary basis.

There are five customary bases of national jurisdiction.(Nte. 37) 
They are:

(a)     The Territorial Principle

     A State has jurisdiction to prescribe rules and regulation 
with respect to conduct, things, status, or other interest within 
its territory. Some scholars would list as a separate basis the 
floating territory principle, which includes jurisdiction over 
vessels or aircraft subject to national jurisdiction.38 Under the 
territorial principle, a State has jurisdiction over its 
territorial seas, subject to the right of foreign vessels to 
transverse the territorial sea in "Innocent Passage." Likewise, 
the concept of the contiguous zone is an application of the 
territorial principle.

(b)     Protected Interest Principle

     A State has jurisdiction to prescribe rules of law to 
conduct outside its territory that threatens its security as a 
State. Thus treason and counterfeiting committed abroad may be 
punished by the State wronged, and a State may take other 
measures reasonably necessary for its defense.

(c)     Nationality of Offender

     A State may regulate the conduct of its own citizens, no 
matter where they may be.

(d)     Nationality of Victim

     A State may also assert jurisdiction, because the victim of 
criminal conduct outside of its boundaries, is a citizen.

(e)     The Universality Principle

     A State may also have jurisdiction to take enforcement 
action to protect


certain universal interests and punish offenses against the law 
of nations. Thus piracy, slavery and war crimes may be prosecuted 
by any state which obtains custody of the perpetrator regardless 
of any other connection the state may, or may not, have with 
offense.(Nte. 39)

     As noted above, the territorial principle by itself is an 
insufficient basis for the Canadian legislation, since the 
previous definitions of the contiguous zone were usually more 
limited in scope than claimed by Canada. However, a state has 
considerably more latitude when taking measures of self-defense.

     These broad powers were recognized by the Supreme Court of 
the United States in the leading case of Church v. Hubbart, which 
involved the seizure of a ship off the coast of Brazil by 
Portuguese authorities. The Court, in determining the validity of 
the seizure noted:

     ... The authority of a nation within its own territory 
     is absolute and exclusive. The seizure of a vessel 
     within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an 
     invasion of that territory and a hostile act which it 
     is its duty to repel. But its power to secure itself 
     from injury may certainly be exercised beyond the 
     limits of its own territory. Upon this principle the 
     right of a belligerent to search a neutral vessel on 
     the high seas for contraband of war is universally 
     admitted, because the belligerent has the right to 
     prevent the injury done to himself by the assistance 
     intended for his enemy: so too a nation has a right to 
     prohibit any commerce with its colonies. Any attempt to 
     violate the laws made to protect this right, is an 
     injury to itself which it may prevent, and it has a 
     right to use the means necessary for its prevention. 
     These means do not appear to be limited within any 
     certain marked boundaries, which remain the same at all 
     times and in all situations. If they are such as 
     unnecessarily to vex and harass foreign lawful 
     commerce, foreign nations will resist their exercise. 
     If they are such as are reasonable and necessary to 
     secure their laws from violation, they will be 
     submitted to.(Nte. 40)

     Moreover, in support of its action, Canada has pointed to 
actions by the United States, including the creation of Air 
Defense Identification Zones 300 miles in depth, and the banning 
of shipping from large areas of the high seas in connection with 
hydrogen bomb tests.(Nte. 41)

     In reviewing the legality of such actions, a test of 
reasonableness which echoes the language of the Supreme Court in 
Church v. Hubbart has been applied. Is the object of the 
regulation reasonable and are the means used reasonable? If so, 
then the action is lawful even though it does temporarily 
interfere with the freedom of the seas. (Nte. 42)

     Whatever the objection raised to Canada's action, it must be 
judged in


light of the Lotus case, decided by the International Court of 
Justice in l927.(Nte. 43) The Court, in considering the validity of 
Turkish legislation with supposed extra-territorial effect, laid 
down the rule that an exercise of jurisdiction by a state will 
always be valid in the absence of a clear prohibitory rule of 
international law. Since the only prohibitory rule applicable is 
the so-called "freedom of the high seas," and we have already 
seen that this rule is clearly subject to reasonable restrictions 
in the protection of legitimate State interests, the burden on 
those attacking Canada's action is heavy indeed.

     Moreover, the power to regulate pollution activity asserted 
by Canada has already found echoes in the United Kingdom. 
Following a particularly offensive oil spill in April, 1971, 
Parliament enacted extensive new legislation governing oil spills 
in English territorial waters.(Nte. 44) The government was given 
broader powers to regulate shipping and the penalties for oil 
spills were considerably increased. In addition, the government 
was authorized to extend the effect of the act to ships outside 
territorial waters by special decree.(Nte. 45) This additional 
authority has not yet been exercised, but by enabling the 
government to do so, Parliament has taken a long step down the 
new trail in pollution control, blazed by Canada.

E.      The Canadian Legislation as Protecting Universal Interests.

     Canada has not seen fit to rest the case for its Arctic 
Waters legislation on the narrow ground of self-protection but 
has consistently maintained it was acting to protect the 
interests of all mankind, in the absence of sufficient rules of 
international law. Thus Prime Minister Trudeau has said:

     ... where no law exists, or where law is clearly 
     insufficient, there is no international common law 
     applying to the Arctic Seas, we're saying somebody 
     has to preserve this area for mankind until international 
     law develops.(Nte. 46)

     In light of our previous discussion of the danger of 
ecological catastrophe, this appeal certainly strikes a 
responsive chord, but does it add any further legitimacy to 
Canada's case? If there is an interest to protect, does Canada 
have the right to protect it, or ought protection of 
international interests be left to the international community? 
We have previously noted the right of states to punish offenses 
against the law of nations, in order to protect universal 
interests. Is pollution a violation of the law of nations?

     Early in the development of international law, it was 
recognized that states had the right to punish individuals who 
violated the Law of Nations


even though the crime had no direct effect on the State seeking 
to exercise jurisdiction.(Nte. 47) One of the first examples of the 
exercise of this jurisdiction were laws against piracy, Any state 
which apprehended a pirate could, under the rules of 
international law, exercise jurisdiction and punish him for his 
crimes, whether or not directly affected by his conduct.(Nte. 48)

     Gradually, by treaty and custom, the classifications of 
international criminals expanded to include slave traders, 
brigands (pirates of the land), and offenders against the laws of 
war.(Nte. 49) The principle seems well established that 'any person 
who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international 
law is responsible therefore and liable for punishment."(Nte. 50) This 
first principle of Nuremburg, has undergone rapid expansion in 
recent years so that the perpetrators of Genocide and Apartheid 
have now been branded as international criminals by proposed 

     One general definition has been offered as an offense 
against the law of nations, which brings the status of the 
polluter into sharp focus:

     ... any violation of an elemental individual, group, 
     nation, or international value so basic and permanent 
     in its importance, that the necessity of its protection 
     is recognized by most of the recognized actors on the 
     international scene.(Nte. 51)

     An international crime has also been defined as:

     ... such an act, universally recognized as criminal, 
     which is considered a grave matter of international 
     concern and for some valid reason cannot be left within 
     the exclusive jurisdiction of the state that would have 
     control over it under ordinary circumstances.(Nte. 52)

     Certainly, under these definitions, the characterization of 
the environmental polluter as an "international criminal" begins 
to assume credibility, provided it can be determined that the 
pollution of the environment violates a right whose importance is 
universally recognized.

     We began by noting the evidence of extreme peril to the 
environment, and the concern of many for the survival of mankind, 
Is this regard for the quality of the environment universal and a 
matter of 'grave concern"? One result of the United Nations 
Stockholm Conference on the environment will be a "Declaration on 
the Human Environment." According to recent conferees at 
preparations for the conference, this declaration should be a 
document of universally recognized fundamental principles 
recommended for action by individuals, states and the 
international community. The


declaration could in view of some delegations to the 
committee:  ". . . make an important contribution by universally 
recognizing the fundamental need of the individual for a 
satisfactory environment which permits the enjoyment of his human 
rights."(Nte. 53)

     In addition, the declarations of the United Nations 
concerning the seabed, clearly indicate that the sea is res 
communis, the common heritage of all mankind.(Nte. 54) Is it not 
logical to maintain that those who through their polluting 
activities befoul the "common heritage of mankind" are committing 
a crime against mankind?

     Furthermore, many nations and municipalities have labeled 
the polluter a criminal in their local laws, indicating that 
concern for the environment is universal and a very grave matter 
indeed.(Nte. 55) Add the fact, that protection of the environment 
cannot be left within the "exclusive jurisdiction" of national 
States, which may be unwilling to accept the economic results of 
enforcement, then the classification of pollution as an offense 
against the law of nations becomes a matter of necessity.(Nte. 56)

F.      The Application of Universal Jurisdiction to Polluters

     Insofar as the Canadian Arctic Waters Act imposes severe 
civil and criminal penalties on those who pollute Arctic Waters, 
then it appears to be a valid exercise of jurisdiction to protect 
a recognized universal interest. The all-encompassing nature of 
the regulatory scheme, while founded in part on the same desire 
to protect the environment, may be difficult to justify on such a 
universal basis since Canada appropriates to itself the right to 
regulate activities not just on the high seas but in many 
different localities throughout the world.

Certainly, the manner in which ships are constructed in local 
shipyards in Japan, the United States and Europe, should not be 
subject to a single state's judgment of what constitutes proper 
construction. If the penalties for pollution are severe enough, 
then the attempt to regulate construction may not be necessary. A 
ship owner facing criminal penalties would hesitate before 
sending an improperly constructed ship through Arctic Waters.


     If many States were to enact comprehensive regulatory 
schemes unilaterally, chaos would result. Suppose for example, 
the United States and Denmark followed Canada's lead, but came up 
with different standards? Would the interest of justice 
necessarily be served by giving the nation that enacted the 
toughest standards the last word? These considerations argue 
forcefully, that the only appropriate vehicle for preventive 
regulatory schemes is multilateral agreement rather than 
unilateral action.

     One cannot expect, however, that effective international 
regulation of pollution activities will arrive full-born 
overnight. On the contrary, only when enough nations have 
expressed forcefully their impatience with the present situation 
will others act. Standards of conduct normally precede the 
development of the regimes to enforce them, since the developed 
standards are necessary for the achievement of a sufficient 
consensus for action. Thus, speaking in the context of a proposed 
world habeus corpus, Dean Roscoe Pound wrote:

     ...It has been assumed that to have world law, we 
     must have a world state; that universal political 
     organization must come before universal law. May it 
     not be rather that universal law must precede the 
     universal state which will undertake to put any 
     required force behind it.(Nte. 57)

     In this way, Canada has broken important new ground in the 
battle to preserve the earth's ecology. Those who would continue 
exploitation of the earth's resources with only slight reference 
to the environment, are on notice that their depredations will 
not go permanently unchallenged.

     As more States come to the Canadian view of the environment, 
and the right of all nations to prosecute polluters as offenders 
against the law of nations is increasingly recognized, momentum 
may well develop that will lead to the effective international 
regulation so desperately needed.(Nte. 58) In the interim there may be 
chaos, but it will be a chaos with hope-hope that mankind may at 
last be coming to grips with the crisis that threatens its very 
existence on this planet.

International Lawyer, Vol, 6, No, 4


*LL.B (1960). Syracuse Univ., Candidate for LL.M. (International 
Law). June, 1972, New York Univ., member, American Association of 
International Law, American Bar (International Law Section) and 
New  York State Bar Associations, Association of the Bar of the 
City of New York. 

(1) THE BIBLE, Genesis, 1:28. 

(2) FaIk, Toward Equilibrium in the World Order System, 64 AM. 
SOC. INT'L L. PROC 217-18(1970). 

(3) Schacter and Serner, Marine Pollution and Remedies, 65 AM. J. 
lNT'L L. 84 (1971). 

(4) Stewart. The Atmosphere and the Ocean. SCIENTIFIC AM., p. 76, 
(Sept., 1960). 

(5) Schacter and Serner, supra note 3. at 87. 
(6) The inter-related components of a natural system are sometimes 
called an ecosystem. The sum total of all ecosystems is the 
ecosphere. CaIdwell, The Ecosystem a Criteria for Public Land 
Policy, 10 NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL 203 (1970). One example of 
an ecosystem in action is the inter-relationship of the ocean and 
the atmosphere in determining the composition and actions of each 
other. See Stewart, The Atmosphere and the Ocean, SCIENTIFIC AM., 
p. 76, (Sept. 1969).
(7) Harwood, We Are Killing the Sea Around Us, N.Y. Times 
(Magazine). p. 35 (Oct. 24, 1971). 

(8) N. Y. Post. July 27. 1970, p. 4; N. Y. Times, (Oct. 23,1971) p. 

(9) N.Y. Post. (July 15. 1970) p. 9. 
(10) Schacter and Serner, supra note 3, p. 89. 

(11) Id. 
(12) The process was described by RACHEL CARSON in her classic work, 
SILENT SPRING, at p. 6: 

       It took hundreds of millions of years to produce  
     life that now inhabits the earth-eons of time in which 
     developing and evolving and diversifying life reached a 
     state of adjustment and balance with its surroundings. 
     The environment, rigorously shaping and directing the 
     life it supported, contained elements that were hostile 
     as well as supporting. Certain rocks gave out dangerous 
     radiation; even within the light of the sun from which 
     all life draws its energy, were short wave radiations 
     with power to injure. Given time - time not in years but 
     in millenia-life adjusts, and a balance has been 
     reached. For time is the essential ingredient; but in 
     the modern world there is not time. 

(13) Risk Conceded in Offshore Rigs, N. Y. Times, Sept. 4, 1971);
Spill Danger Said to Increase, N. Y. Times (Dec. 16, 1969) p. 9. 

(14) Henderson, Economists v. Ecologists, N. Y. Times, (Oct. 24, 
1971) F, p. 14. 

(15) For an excellent review of the effort of the international 
community to control oil pollution of the oceans see Sweeny, Oil 
Pollution of the Oceans, 37 FORDHAM L. REV. 115 (1968). 

(16) 9 INT. LEGAL MATERIALS 45 (Jan. 1970). 
(17) 9 INT. LEGAL MATERIALS 25 (Jan. 1970). 
(18) Gold, Pollution of the Sea and International Law: A Canadian 
Perspective, 3 J. MAR. L.& COMM. 13,27,28 (1971). 

(19) Prof. Gerald L. Morris, as reported in 64 AM. SOC. lNT'L. 
LAW, PROCEEDINGS 52 (1970). 

(20) Schacter and Serwer, supra note 3, at 89. 

(21) Keating, North For Oil, Manhattan Makes the Historic 
Northwest Passage, 137 Nat. Geographic 374-76 (1970). 
(22) Gold, supra note 18, p. 32.
9 INT. LEGAL MATERIALS 543 (1970). 

(24) Henkin, Arctic Anti-Pollution: Does Canada Make or Break 
International Law?, 65 AM. J. lNT'L. L., 131(1971). 
(25) 7 TEXAS lNT'L L. J. 3 (1971). 

(26) For a thorough study of the law see Wilkes, International Due 
Process and Control of Pollution - The Canadian Arctic Waters 
Example. 2 J. MAR. L. & COMM. 499(1971). 

3(1) and (2). 
(28) Sec. 2(h). 

(29) CIVIL LIABILITY   6(1) (2), PENAL PROVISIONS   18, 19, 
23, and 24. 
(30) Sec. 12. 

(31) " ... it is not an assertion of sovereignty, it is an 
exercise of our desire to keep the Arctic free of pollution." 
Press conference of April 8, 1970, of Prime Minister Trudeau, 9 
(32) Convention on the Territorial Sea and The Contiguous Zone, 
ART. 24. U.N. DOC. A/CONF. I3/L. 52, April 28, 1958.

(33) Beesley. Rights and Responsibilities of Arctic Coastal 
States: The Canadian View, 3 J. OF MAR. L. & COMM. 1 (1971); 
Pharand, Oil Pollution Control in the Canadian Arctic, 7 TEXAS 
lNT'L J. 45 (1971). 

(34) 9 INT. LEGAL MATERIALS 598 (1970). 
(35) Department of State Release. April 15, 1970. 64 AM. J. lNT'L. 
L. 928 (1970). 
(36) CANADIAN NOTE of April 16, 1970. 9 INT. LEGAL MATERIALS 607 

STATES, Ch. 2.  10 et seq.; George, Extraterritorial Application 
of Penal Legislation, 64 MICHIGAN L. R. 609 (1966); Cowles, 
University of Jurisdiction Over War Crimes, 33 CALIF. L. REV. 177 
(1945); Carnegie, Jurisdiction Over Violations of the Laws and 
Customs of War, 39 BRIT. Y. B. lNT'L. L. 402 (1963). 

(38) George, supra note 37, at 614. 
(39) Cowles, supra note 37. 

(40) Church v. Hubbart, 2 CRANCH 187, 234 (1804). 

(41) CANADIAN NOTE, supra note 36. 

(42) Mac Dougal, The Hydrogen Bomb Tests and the International 
Law of the Sea, 49 AM. J. INT'L. L. 356 1955). 

(43) P.C.I.J., Series A., No. 10 (1927). 

(44) THE OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS ACT of April 17. 1971. 

(45) Id.  8(1O). 

(46) Supra note 31, at 601. 

(47) Cowles, supra note 37. 

(48) Id. 

(49) Id. 

(50) Report of the International Law Commission, 2nd Session, 

(51) Bloom, Steps to Define Offenses Against the Law of Nations, 
18 W. RESERVE L. REV., 1572 (1967). 

(53) Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations 
Conference on the Human Environment, 2nd Session, p. 16, 26 
February, 1971, A/CONF. 48/P.C. 9. 

(54) Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Peaceful Uses of 
the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National 
Jurisdiction, U.N. DOC, A/7230 (1968). 

(55) Young Italian magistrates are making aggressive use of criminal 
proceedings, in an attempt to alleviate Italy's notorious 
pollution problems. N. Y. Times, (News of the Week in Review) 
May 23, 1971, p.8. 

(56) Commerce Sec. Maurice Stans of the United States has made it 
perfectly clear, that "in the national interest, economic 
considerations must be considered before setting environmental 
standards." N. Y. Times, July 16, 1971, p. 62. 

(57) As quoted in Bloom, supra note 51 at 1593. 

(58) Falk, supra note 2. 

Return to Environmental Issues
E-Mail: johnklotz@johnklotz.com Return to Klotz Law Homepage