Abstract

The primarily action-oriented nature of obligations in regimes designed to address marine pollution from land-based activities makes establishing whether or not states are complying with their obligations difficult. At the same time, a lack of knowledge about and understanding of the marine environment and effectiveness of responses to pollution make noncompliance likely. These threats might undermine the legitimacy of any regime. However, they do not appear to do so here. Instead, they prompt action to improve on all counts. This effect appears to be largely a result of the tacit recognition of the distinction between willful, norm-generating and operational noncompliance by those party to the regimes, with each type of noncompliance generating a different response.