•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The increasing involvement of coastal states in the regulation of oil pollution within their territorial waters has raised serious questions about the constitutional validity of state legislation imposing liability on parties responsible for unlawful oil discharges. The admiralty clause of the United States Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." This grant to federal courts of original jurisdiction over all admiralty or maritime cases has been construed to be more than a grant of judicial competence. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the admiralty clause to incorporate by reference the corpus of general maritime law into the law of the United States and to empower its courts to try cases governed by maritime common law principles. The Maine Coastal Conveyance of Oil Act, one of the most comprehensive state oil pollution control statutes, illustrates the potential state-federal conflict created by the oil pollution problem. The Maine Act imposes liability on "oil terminal facility" licensees that is potentially more extensive than that imposed by the Federal Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. Further, the Maine Act's remedial provisions exceed those available under the WQIA and appear to conflict directly with the liability limitations established in the Federal Limited Liability Act. Whereas the Maine Act's liability provisions could result indirectly in the imposition of unlimited liability on a vessel owner for all damages resulting from an unlawful discharge of oil, the Federal Limitation Act restricts the shipowner's liability to the value of the ship and its cargo. This Comment will analyze the possible federal-state conflicts revealed by a comparison of provisions of the Maine Act with federal liability provisions.

First Page

47

Download

Share

COinS