We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies. Close

II.7.170 (MARPOL PROT. 1978) PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973

The Ratification of Maritime Conventions

Chapter I.7.170

(MARPOL PROT 1978) PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973, AS AMENDED

ADOPTED: Done at London on 17 February 1978
REFERENCE: MARPOL PROT 1978
ENTERED INTO FORCE: 2 October 1983
DEPOSITARY: IMO, London
SECRETARY: IMO, London

IMPLEMENTATION

SIGNATURE, RATIFICATION, ACCEPTANCE, APPROVAL AND ACCESSION

Article IV

1. The present Protocol shall be open for signature at the Headquarters of the Organization from 1 June 1978 to 31 May 1979 and shall thereafter remain open for accession. States may become Parties to the present Protocol by:

  • (a) signature without reservation as to ratification, acceptance or approval; or
  • (b) signature, subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, followed by ratification, acceptance or approval; or
  • (c) accession.

2. Ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument to that effect with the Secretary-General of the Organization.

ENTRY INTO FORCE

Article V

1. The present Protocol shall enter into force twelve months after the date on which not less than fifteen States, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than fifty per cent of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping, have become Parties to it in accordance with article IV of the present Protocol.

2. Any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession deposited after the date on which the present Protocol enters into force shall take effect three months after the date of deposit.

3. After the date on which an amendment to the present Protocol is deemed to have been accepted in accordance with article 16 of the Convention, any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession deposited shall apply to the present Protocol as amended.

IMPLEMENTATION OF ANNEX II OF THE CONVENTION

Article II

1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article XIV(1) of the Convention, the Parties to the present Protocol shall agree that they shall not be bound by the provisions of Annex II of the Convention for a period of three years from the date of entry into force of the present Protocol or for such longer period as may be decided by a two-thirds majority of the Parties to the present Protocol in the Marine Environment Protection Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”) of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (hereinafter referred to as “the Organization”)

2. During the period specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, the Parties to the present Protocol shall not be under any obligations nor entitled to claim any privileges under the Convention in respect of matters relating to Annex II of the Convention and all reference to Parties in the Convention shall not include the Parties to the present Protocol in so far as matters relating to that Annex are concerned.

DENUNCIATION

Article VII

1. The present Protocol may be denounced by any Party to the present Protocol at any time after the expiry of five years from the date on which the Protocol enters into force for that Party.

2. Denunciation shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of denunciation with the Secretary-General of the Organization.

3. A denunciation shall take effect twelve months after receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General of the Organization or after the expiry of any other longer period which may be indicated in the notification.

AMENDMENTS

Article VI

The procedures set out in Article XVI of the Convention in respect of amendments to the Articles, an Annex and an Appendix to an Annex of the Convention shall apply respectively to amendments of the Articles, the Annex and an Appendix to the Annex of the present Protocol.

DECLARATIONS, RESERVATIONS AND STATEMENTS

Algeria

The instrument of accession of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria was accompanied by the following declaration (in the French language):

[translation] “The Government of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria interprets the recourse to arbitration provided in article X of the present Convention as being applicable only with the prior agreement of all parties to the dispute”.

Argentina

The instrument of accession of Argentina contained the following reservations:

[translation] “The Republic of Argentina reserves its position in respect of the provision that disputes relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention as regards the exercise by a riparian State of its sovereign rights or its jurisdiction are to be governed only by the arbitration procedures contemplated in article X and Protocol II, where it is alleged that a riparian State has acted in breach of international rules and standards prescribed for the protection and preservation of the marine environment which are applicable to the riparian State and which have been established by this Convention.

The Republic of Argentina reserves its position in that it does not as yet possess the equipment required by rule 10 of Annex IV and by rule 7 of Annex V, and cannot fulfil the guarantees laid down in these standards.”

The depositary received, on 28 December 1995, the following communication from the Chargé d’Affaires, Embassy of the Argentine Republic, London:

[translation] “The Argentine Republic rejects the statement by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in connection with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as amended by the Protocol of 1978, to the effect that Annexes I, II, III (optional) and V (optional) of the Convention shall apply to the Malvinas Islands ‘with immediate effect’.

The Argentine Republic recalls the adoption, by the General Assembly of the United Nations, of resolutions 2065(XX), 3160(XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, acknowledging the existence of a dispute concerning sovereignty and urging the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations with a view to identifying means of pacific and final settlement of the outstanding problems between the two countries, including all matters concerning the future of the Malvinas Islands, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”

Australia

The instrument of ratification of Australia contained the following declaration:

declaring, as permitted under article XIV of the Convention, that Australia will not be bound by Annexes III, IV and V thereof;”

Bahamas

The instrument of accession of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas contained a declaration in accordance with article XIV of the Convention “that it does not accept any one or all of Annexes III, IV and V”.

Belgium

The instrument of accession of the Kingdom of Belgium was accompanied by the following declarations (in the French language):

[translation] “With reference to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, and the Annexes, done at London on 2 November 1973, I hereby declare that Belgium does not yet accept Annexes III, IV and V of the Convention.

This declaration is made in accordance with the provisions of article XIV.1 of the Convention.

Furthermore, I declare that the provisions of Annex I will be applied in accordance with the recommendations in the circular issued by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization under references MEPC/Circ.97 and MEPC/Circ.99.”

Brazil

The instrument of ratification of the Government of the Federal Republic of Brazil contained a statement (in the Portuguese language) to the effect that the Government of Brazil expresses a “reservation to article X of the Convention and to its Protocol No. II as they conflict with article XV of the Law of Introduction to the Brazilian Civil Code”. The instrument also “notes, in this respect, that Annexes III, IV and V are optional under the terms of article XIV of the Convention”.

Brunei Darussalam

The instrument of accession of Brunei Darussalam on the 1973 MARPOL Convention contained the following declaration:

“In accordance with article XIV the Government of Brunei Darussalam hereby DECLARES that it does not accept Annexes III, IV and V to the Convention.”

Bulgaria

The instrument of accession of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria to the 1973 MARPOL Convention contained the following reservations:

[translation] “1. The People’s Republic of Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the Annexes III, IV and V to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

2. The People’s Republic of Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the provision of article X of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships under which any dispute between two or more Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, which is not settled by negotiation or by any other means shall, at the request of one of the Contracting Parties concerned, be submitted to international arbitration.

The Government of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to international arbitration.”

Canada

At the time of its accession, Canada deposited the following declarations:

“1. ‘Optional annexes’

In accordance with article 14 of the Convention Canada declares that it does not accept Annexes III, IV and V of the Convention at this time.

2. Arctic waters

Canada makes the following declarations based on article 234 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed by Canada on 10 December 1982:

  • (a) The Government of Canada considers that it has the right in accordance with international law to adopt and enforce special non-discrimination laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered waters where particularly severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice covering such waters for most of the year create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological balance.
  • (b) Consequently, Canada considers that its accession to the Protocol of 1978, as amended, relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL 73/78) is without prejudice to such Canadian laws and regulations as are now or may in the future be established in respect of Arctic waters within or adjacent to Canada.”

The depositary received a communication dated 18 November 1993 from the Embassy of the United States of America in London as follows:

“. . . refer to the declarations concerning Arctic waters contained in the instrument of accession by the Government of Canada to the Protocol of 1978 to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as amended. The Government of the United States of America considers that Canada may enact and enforce only those laws and regulations, in respect of foreign shipping in Arctic waters, that are within 200 nautical miles from the baselines used to measure the breadth of the territorial sea determined in accordance with international law:

  • — that have due regard to navigation and the protection and preservation of the marine environment based on the best available scientific evidence in Arctic waters; and
  • — that are otherwise consistent with international law, including articles 234 and 236 and other relevant provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

Subsequently, the depositary received the following communication from the Governments of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom:

“ . . . refer to the declaration made by Canada at the time of its accession to the Protocol of 1978 to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 1973) relating to Article 234 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982.

. . . takes note of this declaration by Canada and considers that it should be read in conformity with articles 57, 234 and 236 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In particular, the . . . Government recalls that article 234 of that Convention applies within the limits of the exclusive economic zone or of a similar zone delimited in conformity with article 57 of the Convention and that the laws and regulations contemplated in article 234 shall have due regard to navigation and the protection and preservation of the marine environment based on the best available scientific evidence.”

Chile

The instrument of accession of the Republic of Chile contained the following declaration:

[translation] “The Government of Chile does not accept Optional Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, in accordance with article 14(1) of the Convention.”

China

The instrument of accession of the People’s Republic of China contained a declaration in accordance with article XIV of the Convention that it “is not bound by Annexes III, IV and V of the . . . Convention”.

Colombia

On 15 July 1986, the depositary received a communication from the Chargé d’Affaires a.i. of the Colombian Embassy which contained the following statement:

[translation] “In accordance with article 16(2)(g)(ii) of the Convention . . . express approval by Colombia is necessary before the amendments enter into force with respect to it.

Although it is true that MARPOL 73/78 has been fully ratified by Colombia, namely the 1973 Convention, its 1978 Protocol and the five Annexes, . . . there have been difficulties in implementing it effectively mainly due to the high financial cost of the Convention requirements. It follows from the above that if we have not been able to meet all the requirements, we shall be even less able to comply with the amendments which, to some extent, are more stringent than the Convention.

Once the ports have been successfully equipped with adequate reception facilities and ships flying the national flag are equipped in accordance with the requirements of the Convention, consideration will be given to incorporating higher standards.

. . . The requirements of express approval of the amendments by Colombia does not imply that they are considered inappropriate. On the contrary, Colombia recognizes the importance of the amendments and will be making a thorough study of them with a view to adopting the full maritime and port infrastructure so as to include the amendments in future regulations.”

Cuba

The instrument of accession of Cuba contained the following declaration:

[translation] “The Government of the Republic of Cuba, in accordance with article 14 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, declares that it does not accept, for the time being, the Optional Annexes to the Convention.”

Cyprus

The instrument of accession of the Republic of Cyprus contained the following statement:

“With the exception of Annexes III and IV of the Convention.”

Denmark

The instrument of accession of the Kingdom of Denmark was accompanied by the following reservation:

“ . . . The accession of Denmark is . . . until further notice, subject to reservation with regard to the obligations of Greenland and the Faroe Islands under the Protocol.”

Finland

The depositary received on 6 October 1986 a communication from the Ambassador of Finland containing the following:

“I have the honour to inform you that the Governments of the Baltic Sea States at the seventh meeting of the Helsinki Commission decided that the notification to the International Maritime Organization according to regulation 5(13) of MARPOL 73/78, Annex II on the date at which the special area requirement shall take effect in the Baltic Sea Area should be submitted at such a time as to ensure that the MARPOL 73/78 special area provisions would be applied in the Baltic Sea Area right from the start of the application of Annex II to MARPOL 73/78.

On the understanding that the said amendments are deemed to have been accepted by 5 October 1986 and that the Annex so amended will be applied from 6 April 1987, the present letter constitutes notification on behalf of the Governments of the Baltic Sea States that the special area provisions shall apply in the Baltic Sea Area as of 6 April 1987.”

In the light of this communication and in accordance with regulation 5(13)(a) of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78, the requirements of regulations 5(7), (8), (9) and (10) of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78, as amended, will apply, therefore, to the Baltic Sea with effect from 6 April 1987, the date on which Annex II becomes effective.

France

The instrument of approval of the French Republic contains the following declaration (in the French language):

[translation] “French ships cannot be subject to the provisions of regulation 10 (paragraphs 2 and 3), as regards the Mediterranean Sea area only, and of regulation 12 of Annex I except when they have called at ports provided with the facilities required by those provisions.

Moreover, the French ships cannot be fitted with the equipment provided for in regulation 16 of the same Annex until such time as such equipment is actually available.“

The depositary received on 11 August 1982 the following correction to the text transmitted earlier (in the French language):

[translation] “As far as the Mediterranean Sea area only is concerned, the provisions of regulation 10 (paragraph 2) of Annex I of the Convention can be applied to tankers engaged in voyages within the Mediterranean only if such tankers are proceeding to a port equipped with the reception facilities required by regulation 12 of the Convention.

The second paragraph of the declaration is deleted.”

The depositary received a communication dated 23 July 1983 from the Chargé d’affaires, Swedish Embassy in London. The Communication, the full text of which was circulated by the depositary, includes the following:

“I am under instruction to state that the declaration, as corrected by the aforementioned communication, is regarded by the Swedish Government, as was the declaration in its original version, as a reservation which is not in conformity with paragraph 1 of article 14 of the 1973 Convention, nor compatible with the object and purpose of MARPOL 73/78. The Swedish Government, therefore, is unable to accept the declaration made by the French Government.”

The depositary received a communication dated 12 August 1983 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. Royal Norwegian Embassy in London. The communication, the full text of which was circulated by the depositary, includes the following:

“I am instructed to inform you that the Government of Norway has taken due note of the communication, which is understood to be a declaration on the part of the Government of France and not a reservation to the provisions of the Convention with the legal consequence such a formal reservation would have had, if reservations to Annex I had been admissible.”

Iceland

The instrument of accession of the Republic of Iceland was accompanied by a declaration in accordance with article XIV of the Convention “that Iceland does not accept Annexes III, IV or V of the Convention”.

India

The instrument of accession of the Republic of India contained the declaration “that the Government of the Republic of India shall not be bound by the provisions of Annexes III, IV and V of the said Convention”.

Indonesia

The instrument of accession of the Republic of Indonesia contained the following declarations (in the English language):

“1. In accordance with the provisions of article XIV(1) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that it does not accept all provisions of Annexes III, IV and V of the present Convention.

2. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia understands the words ‘international law’ in regulation 1(9) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 on the Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil to mean the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

Israel

The instrument of accession of the State of Israel contained a declaration in accordance with article XIV of the Convention “excluding optional Annexes III, IV and V of the Convention”.

Italy

The depositary received a communication dated 30 January 1984 from the Italian Embassy in London which includes the following:

“. . . The Italian Government objects to the reservation on the part of France as specified in document PMP/Circ.15 of the 13 August 1982.

Said reservation is contrary to the spirit and the letter of rule 10, Annex I, of the above-mentioned Convention in relation to paragraph 2 as well as paragraph 7 which makes the construction of collecting-devices in the categories of ports specified in the document compulsory. Moreover, the French reservation sets up a facultative trend where binding provisions exist, as per Annex I of the MARPOL Convention 73/78, and would appear to be incompatible with the Italian legislation on the subject which lays down very restrictive principles.”

On 9 July 1985, the depositary received a communication from the Government of Italy stating that:

“It is the intention of the Italian Government to accept the amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, even if they will enter into force for Italy only after specific approval of special legislation.”

Further to the communication received from the Government of Italy on 9 July 1985, the depositary was advised by the Italian Embassy, in a communication received on 21 January 1986, “that the Italian Government, in accordance with article 16, MARPOL 78, will accept the above-mentioned amendments after the relative legislation procedure has been completed.”

Japan

The instrument of accession of Japan was accompanied by the following reservation (in the English language):

“in giving effect to the provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 in accordance with the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, Japan reserves the right:

  • (1) to discharge its obligations under the provisions of Annex I to the Convention in accordance with the recommendations in the circular issued by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization (MEPC/Circ.97 and MEPC/Circ.99) on the implementation of the said provisions; and
  • (2) to discharge its obligations under the provisions of regulation 13(3), appendix II and appendix V of Annex II to the Convention in accordance with recommendations in the documents, similar in nature to the circular referred to in paragraph (1), which shall be adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee on the implementation of the said provisions and appendices.”

Liberia

The instrument of ratification deposited on 28 October 1980 did not specifically exclude Optional Annexes III, IV and V. However, by a communication dated 27 July 1983 the Government of Liberia requested that the instrument be accepted as having been rectified so as to exclude the said Annexes. The Secretary-General notified Contracting States of this communication and proposed, in the absence of objection from any Contracting States to the 1978 Protocol, to rectify the instrument of ratification as requested by Liberia. In the absence of any such objection the Secretary-General rectified the Liberian instrument of ratification and drew up a procews-verbal of rectification dated 31 August 1983. In a communication dated 17 October 1983 the French Government stated that in view of the nature of the rectification requested, it had no objection to the rectification being made, but without such a decision constituting a precedent.

Myanmar

The instrument of accession of the Government of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma contained a statement to the effect that the Government of Burma does not accept Annexes III, IV and V of the Convention.

Netherlands

The instrument of approval of the Kingdom of the Netherlands contained declarations in accordance with articles XIII and XIV of the Convention and article IV of the Protocol as follows:

  • — that the Kingdom of the Netherlands ACCEPTS, for the Kingdom in Europe and for the Netherlands Antilles, the said Convention . . . and Protocol . . .
  • — that the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept, either for the Kingdom in Europe or for the Netherlands Antilles, Annexes III, IV and V, and appendices thereto of the Convention.”

The instrument of approval was also accompanied by the following declaration:

“1. Since the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands acknowledges that full compliance with the discharge requirements of Annex I by ships is contingent upon the availability of adequate facilities for oily wastes as called for by the said Annex, it expresses its deep concern regarding the present inadequacy of such facilities in many ports of the world;

2. The provisions of Annex I will be implemented in compliance with the recommendations as contained in the circular issued by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization, under numbers MEPC/Circ.97 and MEPC/Circ.99.”

Norway

The instrument of accession to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, deposited by the Kingdom of Norway was in respect of Annexes I, II, III and V.

Oman

The instrument of accession of the Sultanate of Oman contained the following declarations:

“(1) For the purposes of this Convention the term ‘within the jurisdiction’ is interpreted to mean the jurisdiction presently applied by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman under the country’s Marine Pollution Law of 1974 which extends to 50 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

(2) With reference to the obligation laid down under regulation 10, paragraph 7, subparagraph b(i); or regulation 12, paragraph 4 of Annex I concerning the reception facilities to be provided by the State Parties, the Government of the Sultanate of Oman wishes to declare that it intends to carry out this obligation but owing to a very high cost involved it is unlikely that it will be in a position to implement this provision before the next four to five years.”

The depositary received communications dated 15 March 1985 from the Royal Netherlands Embassy and 13 August 1985 from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany stating that in their understanding “the jurisdiction to be exercised by the Sultanate of Oman under its Marine Pollution Law of 1974 beyond the limits of the territorial sea cannot exceed the jurisdiction recognized by international law”.

Republic of Korea

The instrument of accession of the Republic of Korea contained the following reservation:

“Reservation: The Republic of Korea declares pursuant to article XIV of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 that she is not bound by Annexes III, IV and V of the Convention.”

South Africa

The instrument of accession of the Republic of South Africa contained a declaration in accordance with article XIV of the Convention that “the Government of the Republic of South Africa does not accept Annexes III, IV and V of the Convention”.

Spain

The instrument of ratification of the Spanish State contained a declaration in accordance with article XIV of the Convention that it does not accept Annexes III, IV and V of the Convention.

Switzerland

The instrument of accession of the Swiss Confederation was accompanied by the following declaration (in the French language):

[translation] “The Federal Council declares that Switzerland does not consider itself bound by Annexes III, IV and V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.”

Syrian Arab Republic

The instrument of accession of the Syrian Arab Republic contained the following reservations:

[translation] “1. The Syrian Arab Republic does not consider itself bound by Annexes III, IV and V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973.

2. The Syrian Arab Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article X of the above-mentioned Convention which provides that any dispute between two or more Parties to the Convention concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which is not settled by negotiation or by any other means shall be submitted, upon request by any of the Parties involved, to international arbitration. The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic declares that it is necessary, in each individual case, to obtain the agreement and acceptance of all Parties to the dispute to refer it to international arbitration.

3. The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic declares that, to the fullest extent possible, it will apply its efforts and material resources to carrying out the provisions of regulations 10 to 12 of Annex I of the above-mentioned Convention with regard to the construction of reception facilities in Syrian oil ports and terminals.”

U.S.S.R.

The instrument of accession of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics contained the following statements:

[translation] “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, while acceding to the Protocol of 1978 to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, does not accept optional Annexes III, IV and V to the above-mentioned Convention.

In acceding to the said Protocol, the U.S.S.R. also considers it necessary to reaffirm the position set forth in the note of the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. in Great Britain No.37/AN of 20 December 1982 in connection with the statements made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany about the extension of the Convention and the Protocol thereto to West Berlin. The U.S.S.R. proceeds as before on the basis that these statements are unlawful and void of legal force.”

United Kingdom

The instrument of ratification of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland contained a statement to the effect that the Government of the United Kingdom “ . . . [reserves] the right not to apply the said Protocol in respect of any territory for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible until three months after the date on which the Government of the United Kingdom notify the Secretary-General of the [International Maritime Organization] that the said Protocol shall apply in respect of any such territory”.

The instrument of ratification was also accompanied by a declaration under article XIV of the Convention that “the United Kingdom does not accept any one or all of Annexes III, IV and V (referred to as ‘Optional Annexes’) of the Convention”.

The instrument of acceptance of Optional Annexes III and V contained a statement to the effect that the Government of the United Kingdom “. . . [reserves] the right not to apply the said Annexes III and V in respect of any territory for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom are responsible until three months after the date on which the Government of the United Kingdom notify the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organisation that the said Annexes shall apply in respect of any such territory”.

United States

The instrument of ratification of the United States of America deposited on 12 August 1980 did not specifically exclude Optional Annexes III, IV and V. However, a communication from the United States of 30 November 1981 advised that the instrument of ratification did not apply to the said Annexes.

By a communication dated 27 July 1983 the United States informed the Secretary-General that the absence from the instrument of ratification of a declaration excluding the application of the said Annexes was due to a clerical error and requested that the instrument of ratification should be regarded as having been rectified by the communication of 30 November 1981 so as to exclude the said Annexes. The Secretary-General notified Contracting States of this information and proposed, in the absence of objection from any Contracting States to the 1978 Protocol, to rectify the instrument of ratification as requested by the United States. In the absence of any such objection the Secretary-General rectified the United States instrument of ratification and drew up a procès-verbal of rectification dated 31 August 1983. In a communication dated 17 October 1983 the French Government stated that in view of the nature of the rectification requested, it had no objection to the rectification being made, but without such a decision constituting a precedent.

By a notification received on 16 October 1980, the Government of the United States stated “that the United States considers that Annex I and II of the Protocol apply only to seagoing ships”.

The instrument of acceptance of Optional Annex V contained the following understanding:

“(1) The United States Government shall make every reasonable effort to have the Gulf of Mexico designated a ‘special area’ governed by the terms of regulation 5 of Annex V to the 1978 Protocol Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL 73/78).

(2) The President shall include this understanding incorporated by the Senate in the Resolution of Ratification in the Instrument of Ratification to be deposited with the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization.”

Vanuatu

The instrument of accession of the Republic of Vanuatu contained the following statement:

“3. The Republic of Vanuatu does not accept Annexes III, IV and V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973.”

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.

Enter your email address to log in as a user on your corporate account.
Remember me on this computer

Not yet an i-law subscriber?

Devices

Request a trial Find out more

Unable to display the content
Unable to display the content
Unable to display the content
Unable to display the content