Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.3.3-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The questions raised concerning environmental liability and specific liability in the area of maritime transport are different in nature despite appearances. The text adopted by Parliament is going to breed confusion.
The concept of environmental liability, which is still tentative, is based on the need to determine who is responsible and to establish a causal relationship between the event in question and the pollution: it entails long procedures and delays in providing compensation.
The system of liability without fault laid down by the CLC/IOPCF international conventions has the advantage for victims of designating a responsible party who must be insured and creating a compensation fund which, in theory, is available immediately in the case of pollution.
Nevertheless, the experience of recent oil slicks shows that it is absolutely vital to extend this system to cover charter companies and include changes to biodiversity. The role of the IOPCF must be substantially improved and it should be made permanent.
These requests must be put to the IMO by the Member States that are most directly involved and most prepared to take action. If this does not work, it will be up to these same states to urge the European Union to operate unilaterally, as the United States has done, by taking over responsibility for making these vital improvements."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples