Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

In April 2002, the International Max Planck Research School for Maritime Affairs at the University of Hamburg started its work. It was established through the cooperation of various disciplines including ecology, meteorology, economics, and law. The twelve scholars at this school represent many institutions: the University of Hamburg Institutes for Oceanography, for Maritime Law and the Law of the Sea, and for Foreign and International Private Law, and the Max Planck Institutes for Meteorology, for International Law, and for Comparative and International Private Law. Anyone familiar with the peculiarities of research knows that such interdisciplinary research is rather uncommon. Indeed, there does not appear to be another Max Planck Research School that involves such a wide range of disciplines. Lawyers may well consider interdisciplinary research simply to be a private lawyer and a public lawyer discussing the same subject. In recent years, interdisciplinary research in law and economics or law and social and political science has become more common; but cooperation between lawyers and scientists remains exceptional.

In addition to natural risks such as rising sea levels, storm surges, or tsunami waves, the pollution of the marine environment represents a serious threat to coastal inhabitants. However, contrary to the first factors mentioned, pollution does not present a direct danger to human life. Societies have recently started to become aware of marine pollution, however, awareness is increasing rather slowly and is not sufficiently developed everywhere. Nevertheless, pollution of the sea damages the marine ecosystem irreversibly over long time scales, endangering a broad spectrum of resources, from seafood to recreational spaces. The struggle against marine pollution requires environmental knowledge within society, political resolve, and money. Industrial nations, which are also the biggest polluters, are meeting these criteria to some extent, but among them there is no uniform position on marine pollution. Developing countries are in danger of repeating the environmental mistakes of previous decades, but on a greater magnitude. The current state of the sea is characterized by considerable pollutant load in the shelf regions of the most industrialized nations (e.g., the Northwest European shelf), but there is also a trend of improvement in these areas. Sea shelves of less developed countries (e.g., the East Asian waters) exhibit an increasing burden. Industrial nations must share their experiences and provide conceptual and financial help to less developed countries.

Persistent toxic substances (PTS) are organic chemicals that are environmentally persistent and harmful to human health and to the environment. Bioaccumulation or increase in concentration of a pollutant from the environment to the first organism in a food chain refers to how pollutants enter a food chain. They can be released into the environment in various ways including during their production, application (e.g., pesticides), or combustion (e.g., dioxins). Whether produced by natural or anthropogenic processes, PTS have a particular combination of physical and chemical properties allowing them to remain intact for exceptionally long periods after release into the environment. PTS migrate between different environmental compartments and undergo long-range transport (LRT) by natural processes in both the atmosphere and oceans, thus becoming ubiquitous global contaminants. PTS are distributed throughout the oceans as a consequence of atmospheric deposition and direct introduction into aquatic systems. Scientific and political interest in the fate and behaviour of PTS in the environment arises from concern over human exposure to these chemicals and their discovery in pristine environments far from source regions. There is international interest in reducing and (possibly) eliminating releases of PTS, and in reducing risks to regional and global environments. International agreements, such as the UNEP Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the UNECE Convention on Longrange Transboundary Air Pollution, and the OSPAR Convention, require assessment criteria of the environmental risks posed by PTS based on sound scientific knowledge and models.

The Baltic cod stock is currently well below safe biological limits. Recent estimates of spawning biomass fall below B (the precautionary biomass level, below which recruitment is impaired), implying the stock has a reduced reproductive capacity (ICES, 2003, 2004b). Consequently, the stock is classified “as being outside safe biological limits,” posing concerns for Baltic Sea fisheries management (IBSFC, 2004).

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations. It was established by a constitutive Convention that was adopted in 1948 and entered into force in 1958. The purposes of the Organization, as stated in Article 1(a) of the Convention, are “to provide machinery for cooperation among Governments in the field of governmental regulation and practices relating to technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping engaged in international trade; to encourage and facilitate the general adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety, efficiency of navigation and prevention and control of marine pollution from ships”..

In public international law the European Union (EU) is called an organisation for economic integration, however, its environmental duty goes beyond economic integration, and is global in scope. The EU has fixed itself on the objective of “promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems.” It has ratified all of the main UN environmental conventions, in particular, the Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, it is widely considered that EU foreign policy is at present largely rhetoric. The lack of sincere policy also affects foreign environmental issues and protection of the marine environment. Indeed, the EC has not developed a consistent policy to address the protection of the marine environment, either at the global or regional level.

For more than three decades, the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) has acted as the main environmental policy-maker for the Baltic Sea area by developing specific measures to protect and conserve its unique marine environment. The Commission, working through intergovernmental co-operation between all the coastal countries, has produced many environmental gains over the past 30 years. These gains validate the belief that the deterioration of one of the most polluted seas in the world can be arrested and the state of the marine environment improved.

It is estimated that more than 50% of packaged goods and bulk cargoes currently transported by sea can be regarded as dangerous, hazardous or harmful to the environment. These cargoes include products transported in bulk, such as solid or liquid chemicals and other materials, gases, and products needed and produced by oil refineries. Some of these substances, materials and articles are dangerous or hazardous from a safety point of view, and are also harmful to the marine environment. Others are only hazardous when carried in bulk and some may be considered as harmful to the marine environment. Between 10–15% of cargo transported in packaged form falls within this category.

Preventing pollution is the best way to protect the marine environment. Because pollution will never be totally eliminated, compensation for pollution damage is an important form of protection. Compensation is necessary for environmental restoration, but it also functions as a deterrent, and thus, has a preventive effect. The polluter-pays-principle, a main concept in environmental law, embodies the concept of compensation.

The and other international agreements, in particular those concerning the protection of the marine environment against oil pollution, provide for an individual liability of polluters. There has been an increasing trend to hold individuals or corporations liable for oil pollution damage. No such trend exists in respect of State liability, neither subsidiary in cases where the individual polluter does not provide compensation, nor in cases where environmental damage results from the violation of a State’s own non-compliance of international environmental obligations. In respect of the latter general international law on state responsibility is of relevance.