Paris Convention Research Articles

Access to Medicines, Article 30 of TRIPS in the Doha Declaration and an Anthropological Critique of International Treaty Negotiations

Para 6 of the Doha Declaration became an important issue because its solution as suggested by various countries in the form of draft proposals was perceived as changing the basic features of the TRIPS Agreement. Once the USA along with its allies the EC, Japan and Switzerland did not agree with developing countries proposals to permit export of patented products under Article 30 of TRIPS to the countries without any capacity or insufficient capacity to manufacture the patented product, the stage was set for a long and arduous negotiation. Developed countries introduced Article 31 solution with an extensive introduction of regulations under the pretext that the existing enforcement measures under the TRIPS Agreement addresses the possibility of patent infringement and not the trade diversion. The reasoning given appears to be incorrect and wrongly raised particularly when the EC had specifically raised this issue of diversion in case of WTO Dispute in Canada-Patent Protection and the Panel had observed as per Canadian argument that any diversion of patented products is the responsibility of patent holder through private infringement action. It appears that what the EC couldn't get through the Panel in Canada Patent Protection dispute, it is trying to get it through Para 6 of the Doha Declaration negotiations. The proposals from both the EC and the USA and repeated by Frederick Abbott asserting that the authoritative interpretation do not have legal certainty till it is decided by the Appellate Body has been decided by the Appellate Body in Japan-Alcoholic Dispute where the Appellate Body observed that the decisions of the Panel and the Appellate Body is binding only on the parties concerned and only by the authoritative interpretations of the Ministerial Conference, an interpretations can be made binding on the WTO Members as a whole. The incapacity or insufficient capacity of the countries to manufacture the patented product raises two other important issues, that of enablement and local working. If the patented product cannot be manufactured because of lack of wherewithals or lack of technically qualified personnel, no patent can be granted for such product. The other issue is that of local working where if the patent is not worked during the specified period i.e. if the patented product has not been manufactured by the patent holder in the territory of the patent, a compulsory license can be granted without payment of any remuneration at all as per Article 5A(2) of the Paris Convention as incorporated in the TRIPS Agreement. All the proposals for the para 6 solutions of the Doha Declaration were combined together for discussion. However, the TRIPS Council Chairman Perez Motta removed all the proposals coming from developing countries while incorporating the restriction on the scope of diseases as desired by the USA and the EC in repetition of the 1990-1991 TRIPS negotiations where in a similar fashion after all the proposals were combined together, Anell and then GATT Chairman Arthur Dunkel removed all the proposals coming from developing countries from the final TRIPS Agreement with Article 1.1 of TRIPS permitting unlimited increase in trade restrictions. The USA tried to put its seal of finality on Perez Motta's note by issuing another document, which it called Moratorium which says that if all the conditions prescribed by Perez Motta are accepted, then the USA would not take any action. The developments during the TRIPS Negotiations and the Para 6 Solution suggest that developing countries' participation in the international negotiations is neither genuine nor effective and the results can only be explained in terms of as a string of negatives-rejection, barriers, repression, denial and dissimulation. The developments leading to Perez Motta's Note and the US Moratorium reflect to a large extent legitimating political power and replacing the privilege of the law with the viewpoint of the objective of certain developed countries.

The development of intellectual property in China

Abstract This article traces the history of intellectual property (IP) development in China and demonstrates the evolutionary change before, and especially the revolutionary change after, the Open Door Policy from 1979. This development of the IP system in China is set out in the context of its social, economic and historical roots. The influence of the major international IP treaties to which China has acceded, such as the Paris Convention, Patent Cooperation Treaty, World Trade Organisation, is described. The many IP statutes within China, and their effects, are defined. The article identifies both positive and negative effects of these major changes and stresses the necessity of constant improvements to the current system of IP protection and enforcement for the economic development of China.

Selection and prioritisation procedure of hazardous substances for the marine environment within OSPAR/DYNAMEC. Oslo and Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic.

In 1998, the contracting parties to the OSPAR Convention agreed on a "Strategy with regard to Hazardous Substances": [... ] the prevention of pollution of the maritime area by continuously reducing discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances thereby moving towards the target of their cessation within one generation (25 years, year 2020) [... ]. In OSPAR, an ad-hoc working group on the development of a dynamic selection and prioritisation mechanism for hazardous substances (called DYNAMEC) has developed a dynamic selection and prioritisation scheme for the marine environment. The approach taken within OSPAR and DYNAMEC to implement the political agreement into practical instruments is summarised in the following.

Meeting of the OSPAR Commission Copenhagen, 26-30 June 2000

Introduction I attended the meeting of the OSPAR Commission as a representative ofthe Uranium Institute, which has NGO observer status. The OSPARConvention (1992) entered into force in 1998: the Convention updates,merges and replaces its two parent Conventions, i.e. the Oslo Convention(1972) and the Paris Convention (1974). A principal objective of theConvention is the prevention of marine pollution of the North EastAtlantic. This was the third Annual Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, whichconsists of 15 European nations and the European Community. In addition,there are several inter-governmental organisations (IGOs) andnon-governmental organisations (NGOs) which are observers. Summary of proceedings regarding radioactive substances The Annual Meeting of the Commission was combined with a meeting of theRAD sub-group which addresses radioactive substances. Key items on theagendas of both meetings were: (i) The NEA study on the radiological comparison of options for spent fuelmanagement - reprocessing/recycle versus dry store. (ii) The forward implementation of the radioactive substances strategy. (iii) The Irish andDanish proposed a resolution/decision on the cessation of reprocessing. The NEA study (Radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel managementoptions - a comparative study) was accepted by all parties as the bestand most authoritative study possible, and it received wide support.Those parties in favour of reprocessing emphasised that on a globalbasis it showed distinctly that there were no significant radiologicaldifferences between recycle and dry store (doses from radon releasedduring uranium mining offset doses from reprocessing discharges), andthat the overall radiological impacts are low. As the report itselfsaid, a decision on which is the most appropriate option will depend ona range of other factors including costs, energy security, etc. Thoseagainst reprocessing noted that it confirmed once again thatreprocessing gave much higher discharges to sea than the dry storeoption. No surprises here! After considerable discussion, the Irish and Danish draft resolutionswere significantly amended by a twin-track approach. Track One was aprogramme for the more detailed implementation of the OSPAR strategy,which received unanimous support. This involves submitting nationalplans and baselines, etc, building up to the ministerial meeting in2003. Track Two contained the residual anti-reprocessing motion,although without any reference to cessation of (or moratorium on)reprocessing, and requiring the authorities for reprocessing sites toreview the discharge authorisations with a view to implementing anon-reprocessing option. This received support from all countries exceptthe UK and France, who both abstained from the vote on the grounds thatthe decision went beyond the competence of OSPAR - i.e. it strayed intoareas of national competence on advice to regulators, and it focused onprocesses, not discharges. The decision will not be binding on France orthe UK. The Commission also agreed a progress report on implementing the OSPARstrategy for radioactive substances, which gives an overview of nationalprogress to date and priority work for the future. Prioritisingdischarge reductions on the basis of dose is one of the points which isemphasised. New terms of reference for the RAD sub-group were agreed. The group isnow called the Radioactive Substances Committee. The next meeting was scheduled to be inTromso, Norway, in January 2001. The next full meeting of the Commissionis 25-29 June, 2001 (Spain). This will not be at ministerial level: thenext ministerial meeting will be in 2003. On the Friday morning there was a press launch of the Quality StatusReport, which is aimed at giving an overview of the environmental healthof the North East Atlantic area. The main concerns are fishing stocksand hazardous substances (organotin anti-fouling treatments andendocrine disrupters), together with climate change. Listed amongstother important issues was meeting public concerns about discharges andeffects of radioactive substances. This topic received virtually nomention in the scientific presentation of the report, although theDanish Environment Minister, Svend Auken, did note that any releases ofradioactive substances were unacceptable to the Danish public and manyothers, and offered `friendly advice' to the UK and France thatreprocessing is not sustainable. He hoped his words would strengthen thehands of the Environment Ministries in these countries. No doubt there is still some way to go on this topic!

Developments in International Patent Law Harmonization

It is well known that efforts to achieve worldwide harmonization of patent systems are not yet complete. Early work on building a complete system, however, started as early as the late 19th century, when the Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property was concluded. Since that time, many steps towards a comprehensive harmonization of patent legislation have been taken on the national, regional and worldwide levels. The present contribution outlines these efforts and attempts to demonstrate that current developments are preparing the path for further harmonization of patent law in the future, whereby modern information technologies may play a decisive role. For the World Intellectual Property Organization, the main challenges consist in finalizing the Patent Law Treaty on patent formalities at a Diplomatic Conference in May and June of this year, and, subsequently, to endeavor to further harmonize patent laws as well as to study possible developments of the Patent Cooperation Treaty. In order to fully achieve these goals, it will be necessary that all circles involved concentrate their attention on further cost reductions and simplification of patent procedures in the interests of the users of the patent system worldwide.

The North Sea

The North Sea is a semi-enclosed, epi-continental large marine ecosystem (LME) in northern Europe. It is relatively shallow (average depth 90 m), extending north to the Norwegian Trench (700 m); the climate is temperate. Because of highly developed industry and agriculture in its watershed, pollution from contaminants and nutrients has been a major environmental issue for decades. Atmospheric inputs of contaminants are also important. Fisheries, and the protection of species and habitats, have become major concerns, and legislation is still developing to address threats to biological diversity, especially of coastal areas which are under pressure from numerous activities. The regulatory framework for the management of the North Sea is constantly changing. The 1992 ‘Paris Convention’ came into force under the auspices of the Oslo and Paris Commissions (OSPARCOM) in 1998. With the increasing influence of the European Union, there is considerable overlap between the EU and OSPAR, leading to duplication between these and other organizations such as the International Conferences for the Protection of the North Sea and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Although a great deal of scientific research has been carried out in this region, the need for additional data is still a crucial precursor to management.

Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, Kingston-upon-Hull, 21-24 June 1999

Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, Kingston-upon-Hull, 21-24 June 1999

The dispute resolution services of the World Intellectual Property Organization

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been in existence in various incarnations, as an intergovernmental organization for well over 100 years, its origins going back to the conclusion of the Paris Convention for the Protection of the Industrial Property in 1883. WIPO, which has 171 Member States, provides a range of services aimed at facilitating or strengthening the protection of intellectual property at the international level. The newest addition to its activities is the provision of services for the resolution of international intellectual property disputes. Those services are provided by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, which commenced operations in October 1994. Copyright 1999 by Oxford University Press.

Protection, conservation and biological diversity in the North East Atlantic

1. The development of the new Oslo and Paris (OSPAR) Convention and its relationship with the International Conferences for the Protection of the North Sea (North Sea Conferences) and the European Union (EU) are described. 2. It is debatable whether the EU, through its Habitats Directive, is able to take action beyond Territorial Waters and could be applied to International Waters. 3. Implementation of EC and international legislation is realized through Member States legislature. There is variation between countries. 4. An additional annex to the new OSPAR Convention was to be adopted in July 1998 to cover the protection of species and habitats in the Exclusive Economic Zones of the North East Atlantic. 5. Classification systems in the EU and the North East Atlantic are complementary to the scientific knowledge and ecological understanding which is required for sound management. 6. Through the example of the control of fisheries, it is demonstrated that the protection of fish species could be incorporated in a general framework and not separated from the rest of the marine ecosystem, especially the pelagic and benthic trophic levels. 7. Wider international collaboration is recommended, notably on biological monitoring and on the production of periodic assessments of the quality of the environment. 8. Simplification of the regulatory framework is suggested to the benefit of more integrated scientific research. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Patent-related activities in Serbia from 1921 to 1995

In 1883 the Kingdom of Serbia was a co-founder of the well-known Paris Convention dedicated to protection of industrial property. This paper presents the analysis of inventive activities in Serbia in the period from 1921 to 1995. The available patent statistics is analyzed from the aspects of: (a) patenting structure according to the International Patent Classification sections, and (b) patenting dynamics. The findings of analysis indicate: (1) the fields in which technology development potentials are created in Serbia, and (2) the variations in inventors' productivity as a direct consequence of the variation in the country's innovation policy.

“The Same Effect” United States Provisional Patent Applications and Paris Convention Priority Rights

The Slovenian Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) is an administrative body which operates as an institution within the Ministry of Science and Technology. The Office is at the same time a part of governmental administration and operates according to the relevant legislation in the field of intellectual property. The internal units of SIPO and their activities are defined by the Law on Organisation of Ministries and the Law on Administrative Procedure, as well as a number of other laws and international conventions. SIPO maintains professional co-operation with institutions with whom it signs agreements.The basic task of SIPO is to administer the laws relating to copyrights as well as patents, semiconductor topography, trademarks, service marks, industrial designs and appellation of origin in order to promote industrial and technological progress in Slovenia. This mission is performed by: •• examining applications, issuing patents and registering trademarks, service marks, industrial designs;•• making patent and trademark information available to the public; and•• supervision in the field of copyright; granting permission for newly established collective administration.In its five years of operation, the Office has been taking the challenge provided by its position as an important opportunity to establish a model for optimal functioning of the state.

Patents in Imperial Russia: A History of the Russian Institution of Invention Privileges under the Old Regime by Anneli Aer

TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 517 he then devotes little space to describing these buildings, dismissing them as technologically stagnant. Consequently, the reader never learns exactly what ordinary cast iron front buildings were (and are) like. Most of this chapter is devoted to a discussion of the fire resis­ tance of cast iron, a matter that was much debated in the 19th cen­ tury, and Friedman does his best to convince the reader that cast iron is an unsatisfactory building material. However, his evidence does not support this conclusion. One example he uses to show the vulnerability of cast iron fronts was the burning of the Manhattan Savings Institution Building in 1895 (p. 37). Yet contrary to what Friedman writes, this building did not have a cast iron front. Unfortunately, readers searching for the informative nuggets will probably be discouraged in their quest by the writing. This book needed a thorough editing, which it did not get. The text is repeti­ tious; for example, the material on pages 36-37, even the quotation, is repeated on page 57. The awkward phrasing, extraneous detail, and repetition, moreover, will not only put offall but the most deter­ mined readers; they often obscure the author’s point. Yet the case studies that discuss the structures of extant old build­ ings are worth reading. The most memorable of these concerns an early-20th-century skeleton frame building that, during recent re­ pairs, was found to have no column in an outside corner of the top floor. As a result of leaks, the column, which should have been car­ rying wall beams, had rusted to nothing, and the beams were resting on the brick curtain wall. This result is what skyscraper-skeptics in the 19th century feared would happen to steel in exteriorwalls. More such case studies and some discussion of how well actual practice conformed with experts’ recommendations, and even with the build­ ing laws, would have made for a better book. Sara Wermiel Dr. Wermiel is a visiting scholar with the STS Program at MIT and specializes in 19th-century high-tech building construction technology. She is completing a book manuscript on the history of fireproof construction in the United States. Patents in ImperialRussia: A History oftheRussian Institution ofInvention Privileges under the Old Regime. By Anneli Aer. Helsinki: The Finnish Academy of Science and Letters, 1995. Pp. x+231; figures, tables, appendices, notes, bibliography, index. FIM140 (paper). The author takes as his task the examination of the origins and development of the Russian institution that governed the granting of patents. Aer seeks to fill a gap in the literature on both Russian economic institutions and Russian legal concepts. Specifically, he uses “the institution of invention privileges” as a point of departure to gain insights into Russian conceptions of property rights as they 518 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE pertained to inventors’ patents. The study thus addresses the much larger question of how Russia was able to import the Western institu­ tion of the patent and make it conform to the Russian political, so­ cial, and cultural environment, even though the patent was based on concepts of property rights that arose in an entirely different legal tradition and culture. The main focus is on the period from 1861 until 1896, at which time a new patent statute was enacted, but Aer also gives some attention to the 18th-century background and to the first half of the 19th century. Readers interested in comparative European perspectives will find this book useful. Although it is not meant as a truly comparative study, a general comparative approach informs the work. Aer dis­ cusses patent systems in France, Germany, Finland, Great Britain, and the United States in order to establish the context for Russian policies. In addition, his coverage of international developments in patent agreements during the 1870s and 1880s and of Russia’s re­ fusal to sign the Paris Convention in 1883 is very thorough. One area of direct comparison concerns the confidence of inventors in their respective systems. Aer concludes that British inventors had a strong faith in their legal system even though their patent system actually worked poorly, whereas in Russia inventors’ faith was low...

Lithuanian Patent Specifications on CD-ROM

After Lithuania declared its independence on 11 March 1990, it started re-establishing national industrial property legislation. In 1991, the State Patent Bureau was established; between 1991 and 1995, the Lithuanian legislation on the protection of Company Names, Trademarks and Service Marks, Patents and Industrial Designs was accepted. During 1992–1994, Lithuania became a member of the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and a Cooperation and Extension Agreement with the European Patent Organisation (EPO) for the extension of European Patents to Lithuania. This paper reviews the information process of the Industrial Property protected in Lithuania (including European Patent Applications and European Patents), illustrated by statistics on Lithuanian Industrial Property documents published, reports on the qualities of the PRECES CD-ROM on which Lithuanian Patent Specifications are included, and presents directions for the improvement of the Lithuanian Industrial Property Dissemination System.

Scaniainventor v. Commissioner of Patents

82Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Relevance in interpreting national legislation — Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883, as revised — Australian patents legislation — The law of Australia

World patent information: Newton D. C. and Paranjpe P. P. Une étude sur l'information relative aux brevets en Inde. 17 (4), 241–244

After Lithuania declared its independence on 11 March 1990, it started re-establishing national industrial property legislation. In 1991, the State Patent Bureau was established; between 1991 and 1995, the Lithuanian legislation on the protection of Company Names, Trademarks and Service Marks, Patents and Industrial Designs was accepted. During 1992–1994, Lithuania became a member of the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and a Cooperation and Extension Agreement with the European Patent Organisation (EPO) for the extension of European Patents to Lithuania.This paper reviews the information process of the Industrial Property protected in Lithuania (including European Patent Applications and European Patents), illustrated by statistics on Lithuanian Industrial Property documents published, reports on the qualities of the PRECES CD-ROM on which Lithuanian Patent Specifications are included, and presents directions for the improvement of the Lithuanian Industrial Property Dissemination System.

World patent information: Jialian S. Progrès, problèmes et perspectives—La première décennie du système de brevets chinois. 17 (4), 263–265

After Lithuania declared its independence on 11 March 1990, it started re-establishing national industrial property legislation. In 1991, the State Patent Bureau was established; between 1991 and 1995, the Lithuanian legislation on the protection of Company Names, Trademarks and Service Marks, Patents and Industrial Designs was accepted. During 1992–1994, Lithuania became a member of the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and a Cooperation and Extension Agreement with the European Patent Organisation (EPO) for the extension of European Patents to Lithuania.This paper reviews the information process of the Industrial Property protected in Lithuania (including European Patent Applications and European Patents), illustrated by statistics on Lithuanian Industrial Property documents published, reports on the qualities of the PRECES CD-ROM on which Lithuanian Patent Specifications are included, and presents directions for the improvement of the Lithuanian Industrial Property Dissemination System.

World patent information: Mills D. M. Quelques observations sur la nouvelle loi ghanéenne en matière de brevets. 17 (4), 235–240

After Lithuania declared its independence on 11 March 1990, it started re-establishing national industrial property legislation. In 1991, the State Patent Bureau was established; between 1991 and 1995, the Lithuanian legislation on the protection of Company Names, Trademarks and Service Marks, Patents and Industrial Designs was accepted. During 1992–1994, Lithuania became a member of the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and a Cooperation and Extension Agreement with the European Patent Organisation (EPO) for the extension of European Patents to Lithuania.This paper reviews the information process of the Industrial Property protected in Lithuania (including European Patent Applications and European Patents), illustrated by statistics on Lithuanian Industrial Property documents published, reports on the qualities of the PRECES CD-ROM on which Lithuanian Patent Specifications are included, and presents directions for the improvement of the Lithuanian Industrial Property Dissemination System.

Survey of patent documentation from the Pacific Rim Countries

The patent documents issued by a number of the Pacific Rim Countries (Australia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam) and their coverage by the major secondary sources of patent information (INPADOC/EPIDOS, Derwent WPI, CAS, EDOC, JAPIO, CHINAPATS and PATOLIS) are reviewed; difficulties which searchers of these sources may experience are pointed out. ∗ ∗ After submission of this article, the following new information has been announced: 1. Singapore has deposited an instrument of accession to the Paris Convention, which will enter into force on 23 February 1995; 2. Derwent Information Ltd announced their intention to enhance the coverage of Pacific Rim countries in their World Patent Index file during 1995. Japanese coverage will be extended to include all subject matter for JP-A ( Kokai) documents. Coverage of the People's Republic of China (CN) will be extended to include examined documents. New coverage will be commenced for patents from Singapore (SG) and the Philippines (PH).

Economic models of compensation for damage caused by nuclear accidents: Some lessons for the revision of the Paris and Vienna Conventions

In this paper the economic analysis of accident law is used to examine the liability for nuclear accidents. It is argued that the classic system of individual liability of a nuclear power plant operator with a financial cap on compensation and individual insurance by national pools is not effective. The current system leads to a too low compensation for victims and lacks an adequate internalization of the nuclear risk. Hence, it is argued that the economic analysis of law can provide useful insights for the revision of the Paris and Vienna Conventions on the liability for nuclear accidents. It is also argued that higher amounts of compensation can be generated only if the idea is accepted that all plants share the costs of an accident wherever it occurs. This could be realized through a mutual pooling system. Such a system could also be fitted into the revision of the Paris and Vienna Conventions.

Dealing with contaminated dredged materials with reference to the Oslo Convention 1972 and the new Paris Convention 1992

Protection of the sea has received much political attention—for example, at successive North Sea Conferences environmental ministers have formulated a stringent policy with the aim of reducing pollution in the north-east Atlantic. In the past this area received many substances from many sources, but gradually intergovernmental action since 1972 in the Oslo and Paris Conventions has succeeded in tracing the major sources and understanding the effects of these inputs on the marine environment. After long discussion, many dumpings and discharges have been ended because they were considered harmful to the marine environment. Dredging activities were included in the discussions but they may be regarded as being a special case compared with many other disposals. In general, clean dredged material for sea disposal offers no problems, although restrictions may be caused by physical impacts, mainly to habitats for living organisms. However, this material also has positive, often even beneficial uses. In contrast, contaminated material disposal is restricted and the internationally accepted rule is that the material should not create hazards to human health, harm living resources and marine life or damage amenities or interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea. There are in principle three options for dealing with polluted sediments: doing nothing, remedial action in situ, removal of the contaminated material; occasionally treatment is a possibility. The distinction has been made between the disposal of industrial waste, sewage sludge or dredged material. Industrial waste disposal is now prohibited; sewage sludge may be dumped until 31 December 1998, although dredged material may still be stored at sea under certain conditions. The Oslo Convention 1972 decided with regard to dredged material: that pollution has to be tackled at the source; dumping at sea is forbidden, although dredged materials may be excluded from this; land disposal prevails, although in several countries there is a growing resistance to disposal on land; there should be a precautionary approach against marine disposal; a stand-still principle should be followed where the quantities disposed in a certain year should not be exceeded nor should the quality of the receiving water be reduced; marine disposal should be phased out and, where appropriate, time-limits set; and the polluter pays. Dredged material is regarded as polluted and as a consequence may in general not be disposed of at sea when it contains substances listed in the Annexes of the Convention. Exceptions to this are indicated by the terms ‘a trace contaminant’, ‘rapidly rendered harmless’ or ‘significant amounts’. Therefore, to achieve uniformity in the application of the Convention, guidelines have been prepared by a joint London Dumping Convention/Oslo Commission working group of experts on dredged material. Several characteristics must be considered when choosing a site for marine disposal and interests such as beach recreation, sport and commercial fishing, nature, cultural or historical interests, navigation, military interests and cables and pipelines should be taken into account. Also the capacity of the area to assimilate disposed matter per time unit must not be exceeded, especially in low energy areas. It is considered that in discussions of the environmental aspects of dredging it is important that associations such as PIANC argue for safe and economic navigation.