There is a story that goes the rounds from time to time that, each year, an insurance broker gives a lavish dinner for his friends in the marine insurance industry at which the master of the Torrey Canyon is the subject of a solemn toast of honour. Although

I have never been invited to this dinner, I can believe that it might well take place and the solemn toast might well really be given, for since that ill-fated ship went aground on the Seven Stones reef, not only has the reinsurance limit for shipowners’ oil pollution liability risks risen steadily1, but the international diplomatic, legal and insurance fraternity have had a field day making more and better conventions, laws and regulations concerning oil pollution from ships. Of course, it cannot all be put down to the Torrey Canyon, or her master: the list of subsequent casualties which have hit the world’s headlines in connection with oil pollution, either real or threatened, is long; Metula, Argo Merchant, Amoco Cadiz, Andros Patria, Eleni V, Tarpenbek, Tanio to name but a few. But it was the Torrey Canyon incident in March, 1967, which spurred the nations (and the major oil and shipping companies) for the first time into trying to do something really positive, not only on the prevention of oil pollution, but also on the question of liability. I would like to select some strands from the web of provisions developed since 1967 and take a look at them to see how far we have come since then on the international scene, with particular reference to developments at IMO.

There was no International Convention dealing with liability for oil pollution from ships at the time of the Torrey Canyon incident. This meant that if oil from a ship polluted the shore of one or more States, the question of whether or not an individual or governmental authority could sue for his resulting loss, and if so, in what State, was in practice governed largely by the internal law of his State. This presented