Public International Law
Lecture 6
Introduction
- AS operated by Greenpeace. Protested against oil drilling of Russia. Too many risks
involved with catastrophic impact on the natural environment.
- Russia is not alone in this request for oil. Norway as well. The industry has the
technology for oil drilling.
- Yet few oil companies and states that exploit in the Arctic Circle. The economic costs
are really high and risks are very high. It is a harsh climate.
- The climate change has made it easier to drill for oil.
- On the one hand, states would like to use all means to increase economic development.
- On the other hand states acknowledge that they have an obligation to protect the
human as well as the environment. This is in the interest of the current generation and
future generation.
- In 1987 Commission of UN published a report “Our common future”. Economic
development must be sustainable. Sustainable development = development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.
- This has been recognized by states and international courts and tribunals, as a
fundamental concept/principle towards economic development.
- States are required to weigh the interest of current generations and future generations,
against the protection of the environment.
- Sustainable development:
a) Protection of the environment
b) Economic development
Protection of the environment
- Mankind has not shown much interest at the environment. The environment was to be
used for economic purposes, as well as to be used for fun.
- There was little interest of the ecosystem.
- This changed at the end of the 19th century and beginning of 20th century. Started with
the establishments of NGO’s, which aimed the protection of the environment.
- Examples: national park on the Rocky Mountains.
In NL 1905: Moments of Nature. To save the ‘Naardemeer’ in 1906, from being turned
into a waste dump. First national monument.
International environmental law
- After 1945 WOII, international community realized that the protection of the
environment was not an intern state concern. International concern. It required an
international approach.
- UN again played a big role in the development.
- UN organized conferences, which started in 1972 with the UN Conference on the
Human Environment in Stockholm. Intended to establish general rules and treaties,
which would aim to protect the environment.
- Conference was followed every 10 years by another.
- 1992 Rio Conference was highly successful by adopting the Rio Declaration. Many
believed to reflect existing CIL.
- This is particularly true for the obligation of states to prevent harm following from
activities carried out within the jurisdiction of states, that may cause harm to other
states as well as the environment in areas beyond jurisdiction Principle 2.
, - This declaration is not formally binding. It is not a treaty of a resolution; it is a
declaration adopted by all states present at the conference. The substance of the norms
though is CIL.
- This declaration confirms the link between economic development and the protection
of the nature.
- Reflection of CIL is particularly true to prevent environmental harm carried out within
jurisdiction of states, that may cause harm to environment of other states and
environment beyond national jurisdiction.
- Laid down in principle 2 of the declaration. Activities may not cause harm.
- This rule was first confirmed in 1930/1940 in a dispute between the US and Canada.
The dispute was submitted to an international arbitration tribunal. The case is known as
the Trail Smelter dispute.
- The cause for this dispute was the activities of a lad and sink smelter
(hoogoven)/factory in a town in northwestern Canada. The smoke of this smelter, cost
environmental damage and damage to citizens in the US. People got sick because the
smoke was blowing over the boarder.
- The US government decided to start legal proceedings against Canada for allowing its
territory to be used in such a way to cause harm to the territory of US. Tribunal ruled for
US, and held Canada responsible for its failure to prevent air pollution caused by this
factory, and the damage caused to the environment of the US.
- This was decided in 1938 and 1941.
Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay)
- This was confirmed multiple times by the Court. This dispute is described. Focus on
paragraphs that relate to this principle.
- Argentina and Uruguay are bordering states. Reason for this dispute, was that Uruguay
allowed the construction of two pulp mills (wood factories) on the boarder of the river in
Uruguay.
Argentina was displeased about this decision, that private companies could establish pulp
mills. These could lead to environmental damage to the river, namely pollution to the river.
Uruguay committed a wrongful act against Argentine and was therefore responsible
towards Argentina.
- The legal basis was a treaty concluded in 1975, between these states. The treaty was to
manage the river and all issues related to the use of the river. This statute contained a
compromissory clause.
- Uruguay and Argentina agreed that with any dispute, they would submit this dispute to
the ICJ.
- The jurisdiction of the ICJ is limited by the interpretation of the statute. The statute
required to consult with each other, and to notify each other when they were allowing
construction work. ICJ found that Uruguay did not meet these procedural rules, by not
telling Argentina.
- The statute stated that states would not pollute the river.
- CIL to determine the scope of the statute. According to the ICJ, states must show due
diligence in order to oblige to this obligation. Inspanningsverplichting en niet
resultaatsverplichting.
- This obligation to show due diligence, also means that states must investigate in
advance before they authorize any construction works, any consequences to the
environment.
- Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is needed, before construction can be taken.
- This EIA should not only be taken before the project, but also during the duration of the
project. States must continue to monitor the environmental consequences. Continuous
investigations are needed.
Lecture 6
Introduction
- AS operated by Greenpeace. Protested against oil drilling of Russia. Too many risks
involved with catastrophic impact on the natural environment.
- Russia is not alone in this request for oil. Norway as well. The industry has the
technology for oil drilling.
- Yet few oil companies and states that exploit in the Arctic Circle. The economic costs
are really high and risks are very high. It is a harsh climate.
- The climate change has made it easier to drill for oil.
- On the one hand, states would like to use all means to increase economic development.
- On the other hand states acknowledge that they have an obligation to protect the
human as well as the environment. This is in the interest of the current generation and
future generation.
- In 1987 Commission of UN published a report “Our common future”. Economic
development must be sustainable. Sustainable development = development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.
- This has been recognized by states and international courts and tribunals, as a
fundamental concept/principle towards economic development.
- States are required to weigh the interest of current generations and future generations,
against the protection of the environment.
- Sustainable development:
a) Protection of the environment
b) Economic development
Protection of the environment
- Mankind has not shown much interest at the environment. The environment was to be
used for economic purposes, as well as to be used for fun.
- There was little interest of the ecosystem.
- This changed at the end of the 19th century and beginning of 20th century. Started with
the establishments of NGO’s, which aimed the protection of the environment.
- Examples: national park on the Rocky Mountains.
In NL 1905: Moments of Nature. To save the ‘Naardemeer’ in 1906, from being turned
into a waste dump. First national monument.
International environmental law
- After 1945 WOII, international community realized that the protection of the
environment was not an intern state concern. International concern. It required an
international approach.
- UN again played a big role in the development.
- UN organized conferences, which started in 1972 with the UN Conference on the
Human Environment in Stockholm. Intended to establish general rules and treaties,
which would aim to protect the environment.
- Conference was followed every 10 years by another.
- 1992 Rio Conference was highly successful by adopting the Rio Declaration. Many
believed to reflect existing CIL.
- This is particularly true for the obligation of states to prevent harm following from
activities carried out within the jurisdiction of states, that may cause harm to other
states as well as the environment in areas beyond jurisdiction Principle 2.
, - This declaration is not formally binding. It is not a treaty of a resolution; it is a
declaration adopted by all states present at the conference. The substance of the norms
though is CIL.
- This declaration confirms the link between economic development and the protection
of the nature.
- Reflection of CIL is particularly true to prevent environmental harm carried out within
jurisdiction of states, that may cause harm to environment of other states and
environment beyond national jurisdiction.
- Laid down in principle 2 of the declaration. Activities may not cause harm.
- This rule was first confirmed in 1930/1940 in a dispute between the US and Canada.
The dispute was submitted to an international arbitration tribunal. The case is known as
the Trail Smelter dispute.
- The cause for this dispute was the activities of a lad and sink smelter
(hoogoven)/factory in a town in northwestern Canada. The smoke of this smelter, cost
environmental damage and damage to citizens in the US. People got sick because the
smoke was blowing over the boarder.
- The US government decided to start legal proceedings against Canada for allowing its
territory to be used in such a way to cause harm to the territory of US. Tribunal ruled for
US, and held Canada responsible for its failure to prevent air pollution caused by this
factory, and the damage caused to the environment of the US.
- This was decided in 1938 and 1941.
Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay)
- This was confirmed multiple times by the Court. This dispute is described. Focus on
paragraphs that relate to this principle.
- Argentina and Uruguay are bordering states. Reason for this dispute, was that Uruguay
allowed the construction of two pulp mills (wood factories) on the boarder of the river in
Uruguay.
Argentina was displeased about this decision, that private companies could establish pulp
mills. These could lead to environmental damage to the river, namely pollution to the river.
Uruguay committed a wrongful act against Argentine and was therefore responsible
towards Argentina.
- The legal basis was a treaty concluded in 1975, between these states. The treaty was to
manage the river and all issues related to the use of the river. This statute contained a
compromissory clause.
- Uruguay and Argentina agreed that with any dispute, they would submit this dispute to
the ICJ.
- The jurisdiction of the ICJ is limited by the interpretation of the statute. The statute
required to consult with each other, and to notify each other when they were allowing
construction work. ICJ found that Uruguay did not meet these procedural rules, by not
telling Argentina.
- The statute stated that states would not pollute the river.
- CIL to determine the scope of the statute. According to the ICJ, states must show due
diligence in order to oblige to this obligation. Inspanningsverplichting en niet
resultaatsverplichting.
- This obligation to show due diligence, also means that states must investigate in
advance before they authorize any construction works, any consequences to the
environment.
- Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is needed, before construction can be taken.
- This EIA should not only be taken before the project, but also during the duration of the
project. States must continue to monitor the environmental consequences. Continuous
investigations are needed.
