EEC laws in the form of Directives controlling a number of dangerous or “blacklisted” substances are in the pipeline. Mercury recently became the first of such substances to be controlled. The passage of EEC legislation on mercury canvassed many issues of policy and led to a framework within which subsequent Directives could be enacted. This paper will examine the reasons for the main policy differences that arose between the United Kingdom and her Common Market partners during the passage of the Mercury Directive, and address itself to some of the problems and implications resulting from the introduction of EEC law to an area already covered by U.K. and international law.

Three systems of law govern the discharge of mercury into the aquatic environment of the U.K., namely International law, EEC law and U.K. law. While EEC legislation1 is the main transnational vehicle for controlling mercury pollution, the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources, Paris 1974 (the Paris Convention) deals with the same subject and affects both EEC and U.K. law. As a result, there are a variety of complex, interconnected jural issues arising out of the theoretical and operational interaction of these three systems.2 Attractive though they may be, these questions are not explored in this paper which approaches the subject from a somewhat different perspective. After a brief description of the relevant laws applicable in the U.K., we shall refer to the Paris Convention with a view to explaining two aspects of its functioning; its relevance (as International law) to both