1. Peter Hayward, "Environmental Protection: Regional Approaches," MarinePolicy, 8, no. 2 (April 1984): 107. 2. See TheLawof theSea:OfficialTextof theUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSeawithAnnexesandIndex (New York: United Nations, 1983), Sales No. E.83.v.5 (and hereinafter cited as the 1982 Convention, or simply the Convention). This ques- tion is discussed by Jan Schneider, "Protection and Preservation of the Marine Envi- ronment: What Is New about the Law of the Sea Convention?" in The1982ConventionontheLawof theSea, ed. A. Koers and B. Oxman, Proceedings of the Law of the Sea Institute, seventeenth annual conference (Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Law of the Sea Institute, 1984), pp. 567-74. 3. 1982 Convention, preamble.
4. World Commission on Environment and Development, OurCommonFuture (New York: United Nations, 1987). 5. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention; signed March 24, 1974, and entered into force May 1980); and Gerhard Peet, "Sea Use Management for the North Sea," in TheUNConventionontheLawof theSea:ImpactandImplementation, ed. E. Brown and R. Churchill, Proceed- ings of The Law of the Sea Institute, nineteenth annual conference (Honolulu: Uni- versity of Hawaii at Manoa, Law of the Sea Institute, 1987), p. 430. 6. Editors' note.-See Adalberto Vallega, "A Human Approach to Semienclosed Seas: The Mediterranean Case," OceanYearbook 7, ed. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, Nor- ton Ginsburg, and Joseph R. Morgan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 372-93, and see nn. 8, 13, and 15 for references to the UNEP and other programs that have been instigated to better integrate development and management of the Mediter- ranean Basin. See also "Symposium on Marine Co-operation in the Mediterranean Sea, Third Tunis Declaration, 28 November 1986," OceanYearbook7, pp. 534-36.
7. Sunneva Saetevik, EnvironmentalCooperationbetweentheNorthSeaStates (Lon- don: Belhaven Press, 1988), p. 9. 8. Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, Scientific and Technical Working Group, QualityStatusof theNorthSea,Summary (London: De- partment of the Environment, September 1987), p. 5. 9. Brit Fløistad, ConflictingUsageoftheNorthSea (Lysaker, Norway: Fridtjof Nan- sen Institute, 1988), pp. 2-5.
10. Hayward (n. 1 above), p. 106. 11. Editors' note.-For more information about the Oslo Convention, see "Ex- cerpts from the ACOPS Annual Report 1982," OceanYearbook5, ed. Elisabeth Mann Borgese and Norton Ginsburg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), pp. 294- 304, esp. at pp. 296-97. 12. Hayward, pp. 110-11. 13. Editors' note.-For more information about the Paris Convention, see "Ex- cerpts from the ACOPS Annual Report 1982," pp. 297-98.
14. For a list of when the different countries ratified, see Saetevik, p. 32. 15. Annex I to the Convention list the substances on the "grey" list while the "black"-listed substances can be found in Annex II. 16. The Oslo Commission has a Standing Advisory Committee for Scientific Advice (SACSA), and the Paris Commission has a Technical Working Group (TWG). A Joint Monitoring Group ( JMG) provides information to both Commissions. 17. The secretariat is small-one secretary, two deputy secretaries, and three clerks-and yet it is considered very efficient, especially taking into account its limited resources. See Saetevik (n. 7 above), p. 117.
18. Sonia Boehmer-Christiansen, "Marine Pollution Control in Europe: Regional Approaches, 1972-80," MarinePolicy 8, no. 1 (January 1984): 45-52. 19. The background for the First North Sea Conference is discussed by Gerhard Peet, "The North Sea Conference: A Preview," MarinePolicy 8, no. 3 (July 1984): 259- 71. 20. Peet, "Sea Use Management for the North Sea" (n. 5 above), p. 432.
21. An extensive study of the Paris Commission has been done by Saetevik. Boehmer-Christiansen has done a comparative analysis of marine pollution control in Europe in the 1970s. More studies have been made of the legal obligations following from the different conventions applying to the North Sea. See, e.g., P. Fotheringham and P. W. Birnie, "Regulation of North Sea Marine Pollution," in TheEffectiveManage-mentofResources, ed. C. Mason (London, 1979), pp. 168-223. 22. Oran Young, ResourcesRegimes:NaturalResourcesandSocialInstitutions (Los Angeles and Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), p. 136. 23. QualityStatusof theNorthSea,Summary (n. 8 above), p. 7.
24. Boehmer-Christiansen, p. 45. 25. Oslo and Paris Commissions, TheFirstDecade:InternationalCo-operationinProtectingOurMarineEnvironment (London: Oslo and Paris Commissions, 1984), p. 36. 26. The difficulties of using "failure" and "success" as measurement criteria dur- ing international negotiations is discussed by Arild Underdal, "Causes of Negotiating Failure," Internasjonalpolitikk (1984): 81-97. 27. Boehmer-Christiansen, p. 46.
28. K. Sperling, "Protection of the North Sea: Balance and Prospects," MarinePollutionBulletin 17, no. 6 (June 1986): 242. 29. Oslo and the Paris Commissions, p. 372. 30. Ibid., p. 39. 31. The assumptions vary, but most pollutants entering the sea-as much as 80%-originate from land or from the atmosphere; both are covered by the Paris Commission. 32. Saetevik (n. 7 above), p. 43.
33. Boehmer-Christiansen (n. 18 above), p. 49. 34. Saetevik, pp. 42-52. 35. For an elaboration of this point, see Arild Underdal, ThePoliticsofInterna-tionalFisheriesManagement:TheCauseoftheNorthEastAtlantic (Oslo: Universitetsfor- laget, 1980). 36. "Tough North Sea Deal, but Sewage Slips Through," NewScientist (December 3, 1987), p. 3.
37. Environmental Data Services, Ltd. (ENDS), UK'sDefensiveEfforts PayOffatNorthSeaConference, Report 118 (November 1984). Author's note.-Environmental Data Services, Ltd. (ENDS), Unit 24, Finsbury Business Centre, 40 Bowling Green Lane, London, England. Their publications are printed by Southwell Press, Camberly, Surrey, England. 38. Environmental Data Services Ltd, OpeningSkirmishesonHealthofNorthSea, Report 141 (October 1986). 39. Steinar Andresen, "A Comprehensive North Sea Convention: New Ap- proach-Old Policy?" in TheStatusof theNorthSeaEnvironment:Reasons forConcern, ed. Gerhard Peet, Proceedings of the 2d North Sea Seminar 1986 (Amsterdam: Werkgroep Nordzee, 1987). 40. Peet, "The North Sea Conference" (n. 19 above), p. 262. 41. Konrad von Moltke, "International Commissions and Implementation of In- ternational Environmental Law," InternationalEnvironmentalDiplomacy, ed. John E. Carroll (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 87-95.
42. This question is discussed by Folkert de Jung, "The Second Ministerial Con- ference on the Protection of the North Sea: An Historic Event? NorthSeaMonitor (January 1988), pp. 2-4. 43. Ministerial Declaration (London, November 1987), Art. 16, No. 2. 44. Ibid., Art. 16, No. 11. 45. Ibid., Art. 16, No. 21. 46. Ibid., Art. 16, No. 22(a). 47. Ibid., Art. 16, No. 24(b) and (c). 48. Ibid., Art. 16, No. 22(b) and (c).
49. QualityStatusof theNorthSea,Summary (n. 8 above), p. 6. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid., p. 7.
52. The "free-rider" problem has been clearly illustrated in connection with the role of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and non-OPEC mem- bers concerning the prices of oil. The strong increase of oil prices in the 1970s was, at least in part, a result of the dominant role played by OPEC. However, countries like the United Kingdom and Norway have also benefited from the price hike without being OPEC members; they were "free-riders."
53. The analysis by de Jung (n. 42 above) points to several "loopholes" in the Declaration. 54. Ibid., p. 2. 55. Britain Calls for Task Force to Model North Sea Pollution," NewScientist (November 26, 1987), p. 26.
56. Ministerial Declaration, Art. 7. 57.NewScientist (December 3, 1987), p. 3. 58. Ibid. 59. Ministerial Declaration, Art. 16, no. 38 (n. 44 above). 60. De Jung, in his analysis of the London Conference, claims that it will have no effect. Norwegian officials, however, appear to believe that the "sharpening" in the text may have an impact. 61. QualityStatusof theNorthSea,Summary (n. 8 above), p. 5.
62. Saetevik (n. 7 above), pp. 52-67, discusses the perceptions of the North Sea countries as to which countries are exporters and which are importers of land-based pollution. 63. This view on the role of the EEC, Belgium, and France has been expressed by Norwegian and Dutch officials involved in the North Sea environmental regime. To a large extent it is supported by the studies made by Boehmer-Christiansen and Saetevik. See, e.g., Saetevik, pp. 68-74. 64. QualityStatusof theNorthSea,Summary, p. 1. 65. Ibid.
66. jorgen Wettestad, "The Outcome of the 1987 North Sea Conference. Science Counts, but Politics Decides?" InternationalChallenges 8, no. 2 (1988): 33. 67. Ibid., p. 34. 68. jorgen Wettestad, "Science, Politics and Ocean Pollution: Explaining the Outcome of the 1987 North Sea Conference," InternationalChallenges 8, no. 3 (1988): 26-32. 69. Ibid. 70. Ibid.