Non-persistent oil spills, involving substances such as gasoline, kerosene, and jet fuel, pose acute yet under-recognized threats to marine ecosystems due to their rapid dissipation and toxic effects. Despite existing international liability frameworks—principally the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Civil Liability Convention (CLC) 1969 and the International Oil Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Fund Conventions—the treatment of non-persistent oil remains legally and ecologically inadequate.

This article critically analyzes these conventions alongside national legal regimes, particularly the United States’ Oil Pollution Act (OPA) 1990 and India’s jurisprudence on absolute liability, to assess gaps in compensation, enforcement, and environmental redress. While the CLC imposes strict liability and sets tonnage-based limits, many jurisdictions find these provisions insufficient for addressing the full spectrum of ecological harm. The IOPC Fund provides supplemental compensation but often struggles with quantifying damage from non-persistent oil spills due to their volatile and short-term nature. The article highlights the divergence between international and domestic systems, noting that some states, like India, rely on broader constitutional mandates and judicial innovation to protect environmental rights. Through doctrinal and comparative legal analysis, this research advocates for a hybrid liability regime that blends strict and absolute liability principles, raises or abolishes compensation caps, and mandates ecological restoration for even short-lived oil spills. The study underscores the urgent need for reform in global maritime liability laws to ensure effective, fair, and science-based compensation frameworks capable of addressing evolving environmental risks.