A comparison between the international and US regimes regulating oil pollution liability and compensation

Abstract

Abstract Despite its search for a universal oil spill liability and compensation regime, the maritime community continues to face the dichotomy between the US approach and that adopted by the rest of the world. Both regimes have a two-tier structure that is composed of a liability scheme and a fund scheme. However, the significant differences between the two regimes can be found in the liability limit of a responsible party and the scope of recoverable damages. This explains the reasons why the US took a unilateral approach instead of participating in the international one. In the short term, it seems that the current dual system will continue. In the long term, however, it would be desirable to establish a unified international regime which would enable all actors to direct their energies toward handling oil spills rather than grappling with unilateral legislation in individual jurisdictions of the world. Even before an establishment of a unified international regime, harmonization between the two regimes would not only be helpful for the ultimate unification, but also desirable for transactions of the industries concerned under the current dual system.