Conclusion

Whilst 'iron fertilisation of the oceans" is intended to ameliorate the problem of climate change and global warming, it itself raises myriad problems.

Following my research, my personal feeling is that the proposal will not be pursued further.
I base this conclusion on three factors:

1. There is insufficient scientific evidence to suggest it would work.
2. There is sufficient scientific evidence to suggest it would cause ecological damage in the oceans. This would be unacceptable to any government concerned with environmental issues, and/or popular opinion and pressure.
3. While the process is probably legal, legislation would have change to make it worthwhile. The Kyoto treaty would have to be updated, to include phytoplanktonic primary production within the terms of carbon trading. Without that change, no profit could be made from selling carbon-credits, so no government could buy allowances to offset their emissions from burning fossil fuels. This removes the motive from the prime protagonists.
   Given the evidence gathered so far, such changes are inconceivable.

"One simple way to avert this potential tragedy is to remove the profit incentive for manipulation of the ocean commons. We suggest that ocean fertilization, in the open seas or territorial waters, should never become eligible for carbon credits." 'Dis-Crediting Ocean Fertilization'
Sallie W. Chisholm,* Paul G. Falkowski, John J. Cullen
"Science" Volume 294, Number 5541, Issue of 12 Oct 2001, pp. 309-310.

Despite this conclusion, I do feel that maritime laws should be updated to cover this - and any proposals to geoengineer the oceans.

Any significant attempt to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide must fulfil 3 criteria: It must be cheap, plentiful and inert.
Whilst iron-enrichment is cheap, and iron is plentiful, under no circumstances can the process be considered inert.
The global-warming problem must be tackled by other methods.