mariners-academy.com

Both the 1969 CLC and the 1992 CLC are in force and continue to coexist at the international level. The two conventions share central features, but differ in some respects, which will be highlighted below.

1. In terms of geographical application, the 1969 CLC is more narrow
   in scope, only applying to pollution damage that is suffered in the territory or territorial sea of a Contracting State. Pollution damage suffered in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or equivalent area of a Contracting State to the 1969 CLC is not covered by the CLC 1969. By contrast, the 1992 CLC extends to any pollution damage suffered in the territory, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or equivalent area of a Contracting State, providing a much more extensive coverage.
2. The definition of “oil” varies slightly between the two Conventions but, in both cases, covers pollution from persistent oil, such as crude oil and fuel oil, rather than non-persistent oil, such as light diesel oil, gasoline or kerosene. The 1992 CLC refers specifically to “persistent hydrocarbon mineral oil and omits “whale oil”, as one of the provided examples.
3. It should be noted however that the 1969 CLC only applies to ships which are actually carrying oil in bulk as cargo, i.e. laden tankers. The 1992 CLC also covers spills of bunker oil from tankers in ballast and is therefore broader in its scope of application.
4. The 1969 CLC precludes claims against the “servants or agents of the owner”, whereas the 1992 CLC provides a much more extensive list of persons who cannot be held accountable under the scheme of the Convention. The excepted persons will, however, remain liable if it is proved that the damage resulted from their intentional act or omission or that they acted recklessly with knowledge that such damage would probably result.
5. The limit of the shipowner’s liability under the 1969 CLC (as amended) is significantly lower than that under the 1992 CLC. Under the 1969 CLC, the shipowner is entitled to limit his liability in respect of any one incident to an aggregate maximum amount of 14 million SDR. By contrast, the 1992 CLC has limits up to a current maximum of 89.77 million SDR, offering significantly greater protection to claimants.