While the legal counsels are battling on the claims with an aggregate value of $II billion approximately, there is hardly any rational discussion on how such claims are pursued before the courts of law and the basis of such claims.

The shipping industry in Pakistan needs to be aware that the principals of law on the subject have been fairly established so is the identity of the defendants.

As disclosed in the reports , at least a quantity of 30,000 MT of Iranian light crude spilled into the waters at Clifton causing massive damage to marine and public lives.

The popular beaches of Karachi that were directly affected by the accident were heavily populated. The financial centres around Chundrigar Road could oversee and inhale the toxic vapours of the slick.

The trading activities at the nation's primary financial market remained seriously threatened. The counts of loss or damage shall therefore be categorised in the following:

Personal injuries; loss to environment and marine life; disruption (or loss) of trade and commerce; costs and expenses required for preventive measures. Tasman Spirit was an old tanker that was constructed way back in 1968 in Japan and classed by NK (Kippo Kyokai) as Oil Tanker.

For the year 2003 when the National Shipping Corporation of Pakistan (NSCP) contracted her for the carriage under a charter party it must have secured an appropriate fitness certificate that the tanker was seaworthy for the purposes she had contracted for and withstand the perils of the voyage.

Moreover, the vessel must have secured an appropriate and sufficient insurance cover. Above all, the vessel must be a member of one of the 'protection and indemnity' clubs commonly known as P&Is. The foundation of a vessel's financial obligations shall be found either in the domestic law or international conventions governing the sea borne trade.

As I examine the Pakistani legislation the legal instruments that may assist include I] the Karachi Port Trust Act 1886, Ports Act of 1908, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924, Protection of Environment Act 1997 and Pakistan Maritime Zones Act 1976.

The scope and objective of all the instruments does not squarely cover the calamity brought about by Tasmin Spirit. Even where one succeeds in applying one or more of the statues, the level of compensation or criminal penalty suggested in the statues is gravely insufficient.

For instance a person found liable for breaching environmental quality standards under KPT Act of 1886 ' shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding Rs10 million ($ 173913 @ $=PKR57.50).

The scope of criminal penalty under Ports Act of 1908 is restricted to 'simple imprisonment which may extend to six months' without an award of financial compensation. PEPA of 1997 however would apply if the 'national environmental quality standards' were violated.

The fate of such standards and the their monitoring body namely the Pakistan Environmental Protection Council is least known in the shipping industry. In any case, PEPA was designed to cater primarily for air and noise pollution. There is an apparent vacuum. A question shall therefore arise whether some assistance is expected from the international conventions.

The history of such conventions owe a lot to the maritime accidents. Before the Torrey Canyon accident off the Islands of Scilly in 1967, the maritime states could hardly imagine the level of agony and disaster which an oil spill may bring to coastal states.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) became an active body churning out useful suggestions for the marine managers and vessel owners.

The suggestions incorporated in the conventions brought about regimes relating mainly to prevention of pollution, safety of life if pollution does occur and liability for the pollution.

The relevant conventions may be classified as SOLAS Conventions 1960/1974, MARPOL convention 1973/1978 and 'liability' and 'fund conventions' of 1969/1992. For the purpose of this article it is the LIABILITY and the 'Fund Convention' that are relevant.

The fund convention governs the liability of the ship owners by obliging them firstly to maintain an insurance cover for all the vessels carrying more than 2000 tons of oil as cargo (excluding the bunkers if any) secondly holding them strictly liable for the pollution and thirdly (and concurrently) limiting their financial liability depending upon the gross registered tonnage (GTR) of the vessel.

For instance, a vessel with GTR over 140,000 shall not, in any case, be liable for a sum, in any one claim, for more than SDR 59.1 million. The terms SDR or 'special drawing rights' is borrowed from the financial jargon of the International Monetary Fund.

The actuaries hold one SDR equals to $1.34. As such a vessel and her owners shall not be paying more than a sum of $80 million. The owners of the vessel shall go scot-free leaving the claimant in Tasman Spirit with the remainder.

For that, the claimant must seek the compensation from the insurers of the vessels which is usually available with the P&I club of which the vessel is the member.

As is known by now the vessel was the member of American.

P&I club, an old and reliable club that was established during first world war. The club has fairly strong financial ability to meet a claim of the size now pending before the courts.

It is however neither inherent nor automatic that the club or its counsels shall come and determine the scope of loss or liability and send the cheque from New York.

The club has to be satisfied that quantum of claim is justified on the basis of documentable damage or loss. The relevant assignments are carried, on behalf of the victims or claimant, by accredited marine surveyors.

As of now there is no such appointment and it seems that the matter is left to fate. There are reportedly serious lapses so far namely that Pakistan has not ratified the fund convention of 1971 nor the protocol of 1992 nor any survey is arranged to the satisfaction of the P&I. The damage or loss caused by oil pollution is compensated by two tier compensation system

First tier system: Individual tanker owner together with the P&I compensate the first tier under Civil Liability Convention of 1969 (CLC Convention) now superseded by the convention of 1992. Second tier system: Compensation for the loss not covered by first tier is provided by 1971 fund convention now superseded by the convention of 1992.

The research on the ratification of conventions reflects that Pakistan did ratify SOLAS and MARPOL conventions but opted not to ratify the CLC and Fund conventions. By doing so, whose interests were served? Would we like to waken up now to find alternate mechanism for compensation and ratify, for future, CLC and Fund conventions?