When a ship suffers a maritime casualty and has caused or threatens to cause oil pollution, a cleanup operation is usually initiated. In this situation, a range of different legal issues arises pursuant to the Pollution Act.
Examples include whether the relevant parties acted in line with the duty of preparedness and the duty to take action. Particularly important is the State’s competence to intervene by issuing orders and/or by assuming command over the operation. If the State intervenes, it will subsequently claim its expenses to be reimbursed by the party liable for the accident. This is in line with the polluter-pays principle.
However, oil pollution liability is also subject to regulation by the Maritime Code, which implements the Liability Convention and the Bunker Convention. If the incident falls within the scope of these rules it has many implications, the most conspicuous being that liability becomes subject to limitation. Thus, the application of these rules may lead to significant exceptions from the polluter-pays principle and potentially leave the state unable to claim full reimbursement.
In sum, the article analyses the potential conflict within the regulation of maritime oil pollution, and then examines the interrelation between – and the possible harmonisation of – the applicable legislation.
About the authors
Martin Hugo Starberg and Tommy Bruun are currently working as associate lawyers in Deloitte Advokatfirma AS and Advokatfirma DLA Piper Norway DA, respectively. This article was submitted as a thesis while the authors were enrolled in the Master of Maritime Law (LLM) program at the Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law (NIFS), University of Oslo.
MarIus 441
STARBERG, Martin and Tommy BRUUN: State Intervention and Claim for Reimbursement. In the wake of a maritime oil pollution incident. 2014. 110 pages.
How to order or subscribe to the periodical MarIus and the yearbook SIMPLY - ISSN 0332-7868