Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:28:24.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International environmental law as a special field*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

M.A. Fitzmaurice
Get access

Extract

The purpose of this Article is to review international environmental law as, in a certain sense, a special field of international law. In doing this, it is not the intention to argue, or even imply, that international environmental law constitutes in some way a special branch or regime separate from the mainstream of traditional or classical international law. Rather, what we will be doing is to look, firstly, at certain ways in which special features of the environment as a subject matter of international law have resulted in particular solutions, applications or rules within the general principles of international law which, if not necessarily unique to, are at least particularly characteristic of, environmental law. Secondly, we shall see, however, that the attempt to provide a necessary legal framework to meet the problems of the environment, both alone and in relation to other perceived problems of the modern world, are stretching and possibly straining the limits of classical international law. The result is that international environmental law is at present also characterised by the rise of novel theories, many of which are not universally accepted, but which may, neverthless be very influential in the whole field, political, legal and scientific, of environmental protection.

Type
Diversity in Secondary Rules and the Unity of International Law
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 25 , December 1994 , pp. 181 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Timoshenko, G., ‘Biological Security Global Change Paradigm’, 1 Co. JIELP(1990) p. 127.Google Scholar

2. Doos, B.R., ‘Challenges to the Environment Requiring International Action’, in Lang, W. and Neuhold, H., eds., Environmental Protection and International Law (1990).Google Scholar

3. Handl, G., ‘Environmental Security and Global Change: the Challenge to International Law’, YIEL (1990) p. 4.Google Scholar

4. See also Birnie, P.W. and Boyle, A.E., International Law and The Environment (1992) pp. 9–32Google Scholar; Kiss, A. and Shelton, D., International Environmental Law (1991) pp. 95–115.Google Scholar

5. Hague Recueil (1967-II) p. 335.

6. Handl, loc. cit. n. 3 at p. 33.

7. Handl, loc. cit. n. 3 at p. 32.

8. Hague Recueil (1957-II) p. 38.

9. Ibid., at p. 39.

10. Jennings, R. and Watts, A., eds., Oppenheim's International Law, 9th edn., Vol. I (1992) p. 408.Google Scholar

11. Loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 345.

12. SirJennings, Robert, ‘Environmental Policy and Law, 22/5/6’ (1992) p. 312Google Scholar, (text of a statement made by the author to the UNCED entitled ‘The role of the ICJ in the Development of International Environment Protection law’).

13. Brown Weiss, E., ‘Introductory Note, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development’, 31 ILM (1992) p. 814Google Scholar; Brown Weiss, E., International Environmental Law: Contemporary Issues and the Emergence of a New World Order, 81 Georgetown LJ (1993) p. 675Google Scholar; P. Malanczuk, Towards Global Environmental Legislation, Paper for the UN/IAF Workshop on ‘Organizing Space Activities in Developing Countries: Resources and Mechanisms’ (1993).

14. Brown Weiss, ‘International Environmental’, loc. cit. n. 13, at p. 697.

15. Sax, J.L., ‘A General Survey of the Problem’, in Science for Better Environment, Proceedings of the International Congress on the Human Environment (1976) pp. 753 and 755.Google Scholar

16. Handl, loc. cit. n. 3, pp. 5–7.

17. Gehring, T., ‘International Environmental Regimes: Dynamic Sectoral Legal Systems’, 1 YIEL (1990) p. 38.Google Scholar

18. Gehring, loc. cit. n. 17, at p. 35.

19. Gehring, loc. cit. n. 17, at pp. 36–37.

20. The text may be found in 26 ILM (1987) p. 2550.

21. Gehring, loc. cit. n. 17, at pp. 47–50.

22. Ibid., p. 52.

23. Handl, loc. cit. n. 3, at p. 11.

24. Recommendation c(74) 233, 14 November 1974; Recommendation c(72) 128, 26 May 1972.

25. Ibid., Rosas, A., ‘Issues of State Liability for Transboundary Damage’, Nordic JIL (1991) p. 34.Google Scholar

26. Doeker, G. and Gehring, T., ‘Private or International Liability for Transnational Environmental Damage – The Precedent of Conventional Liability Regimes, 2 J Environmental L (1990) pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Pinto-Dobering, I. R., ‘Liability for the Harmful Consequences of Instances of Transfrontier Pollution not Prohibited by International Law’, 38 ÖzöRV (1987) p. 106.Google Scholar

28. 11 ILM (1972) p. 284.

29. Pinto-Dobering, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 108.

30. Handl, G., ‘State Liability for Accidental Transnational Environmental Damage by Private Persons’, 74 AJIL (1980) p. 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Tovlad and Cristal are private liability agreements for the oil transporting and the oil processing industries. Brennan, B., ‘Liability and Compensation forOil Pollution from Tankers under Private International Law, Tovalop, Cristal and the Exxon Valdez’, 2 Geo. Int. Env. L Rev. (1989) p. 1.Google Scholar

32. Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (Paris Convention), 6 EY (1960).

33. ILM (1972) p. 277.

34. Doeker and Gehring, loc. cit. n. 26, at pp. 8–9.

35. Gehring, T. and Jachtenfuchs, M., ‘Liability for Transboundary Environmental Damage Towards a General Liability Regime?’, 4 EJIL (1993) p. 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Ibid., p. 105.

37. Idem.

38. The FSFRC is one of a number of international bodies which have been set up in relation to what are generally now referred to as international watercourses and which are also variously described as border river and lake basins commissions. For an extensive study of the Commission see Fitzmaurice, M., ‘The Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission’, Hague YIL (1992) pp. 33–67.Google Scholar

39. Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 4, at p. 16.

40. For a general discussion of the subject, and with particular reference to the importance of the intention of the parties in drawing the line between law and ‘soft law’, see Borchardt, G.M. and Wellens, K.C., ‘Soft Law in the European Community Law’, 14 EL Rev (1989) p. 267.Google Scholar

41. Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., International Economic Law (1989) pp. 42–45.Google Scholar

42. Schwarzenberger, G., ‘The Principles and Standards of International Economic Law’, Hague Recueil (1966-I) p. 117 at p. 127.Google Scholar

43. Seidl-Hohenveldern, op. cit. n. 41, at pp. 173–175.

44. Botha, M., ‘Legal and Non-legal Norms – A Meaningful Distinction in International Relations?’, 11 NYIL (1980) p. 91.Google Scholar

45. Gruchala-Wesierski, T., ‘A Framework for Understanding Soft Law’, 30 McGill LJ(1984) p. 40.Google Scholar

46. Baltic Sea Environment Protection, Doc. No. 26, (1987) pp. 30–36.

47. Boyle and Birnie, op. cit. n. 4, at p. 191.

48. Boyle, A., ‘International Law and the Protection of the Global Atmosphere: Concepts; Categories and Principles’, in Churchill, R. and Freestone, D., eds., International Law and Global Climate Change (1991) p. 18.Google Scholar

49. Quentin-Baxter's Second Report on International Liability – ‘Schematic Outline’, in ILC Yearbook (1982-II) p. 63, sections 3 and 4; Barboza, Sixth Report, UN Doc. A/CN.4/428 (1990) (6th Report).

50. See the Preliminary Report of Quentin-Baxter, ILC Yearbook (1980-II) p. 248.

51. It may be noted that this distinction is, in fact, only possible in the English language; languages such as French and Spanish, for instance, having only the single word ‘responsabilite’ and ‘responsabilidad’, respectively, to cover both meanings.

52. Goldie, L., ‘Concept of States and Absolute Liability and the Ranking of Liability in Terms of Relative Exposure to Risk’, 16 NYIL (1985) pp. 175 and 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. Horbach, N.L.J.T., ‘The Confusion about State Responsibility and International Liability’, 4 LJIL (1991) p. 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Erichsen, S., ‘Das Liability-Project des ILC, Forentwicklung des Allgemeinen Umweltrechts Oder Kodifizierung eines Haftung für besonders gefährliche Aktivitäten?’, 51 ZaöRV (1991) p. 94.Google Scholar

54. 3 RIAA (1941) pp. 1911 and 1965. See also the Lake Lanoux arbitration {France v. Spain) 55 AJIL (1959) p. 156.

55. ICJ Rep. (1949) p. 22.

56. 11 ILM (1972) p. 1416.

57. Boyle, A., ‘State Responsibility and International Liability for Injurious Consequences of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law: A Necessary Distinction?’, 39 ICLQ (1990) p. 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58. Akehurst, M., ‘International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law, 16 NYIL (1985) p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59. Horbach, loc. cit. n. 53, at p. 72.

60. Horbach emphasises that he uses the expression ‘liability for wrongful act’ as a ‘secondary rule’, ibid.

61. Boyle, loc. cit. n. 57, p. 11.

62. Ibid.

63. Pinto-Dobering, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 94.

64. Horbach, loc. cit. n. 53, at p. 72.

65. Draft Arts. 8 and 9 (1989), UN Doc. A/CN.4/423.

66. See Brownlie who stresses that reparations in State responsibility are a flexible concept, taking into account both issues of substantive law and reparations: Brownlie, I., State Responsibility, Part I (1983) p. 234.Google Scholar

67. Chorzów Factory (Indemnity case) (1928) PCIJ Rep. (Series A. No. 17.) pp. 47–48.

68. ILC Yearbook (1983-II) pp. 212–213, paras. 40–42.

69. Boyle, loc. cit. n. 57, at p. 11.

70. Horbach, loc. cit. n. 53, at p. 72.

71. Zemanek, K., ‘State Responsibility and Liability’, in Winfied, P.H., et al. , eds., Environmental Protection and International Law (1991) p. 2.Google Scholar

72. Mazzeschi, R.P., ‘Forms of International Responsibility for Environmental Harm’, in Francioni, F. and Scovazzi, T., eds., International Responsibility for Environmental Harm (1991)p. 35.Google Scholar

73. Fauchille, M., Traite de droit international public, 8th edn. (1925) p. 2.Google Scholar

74. Lammers, J.G., Pollution of International Watercourses (1984) p. 568.Google Scholar

75. Verdross, A.. Völkerrecht, 5th edn. (1964) pp. 293–294.Google Scholar

76. Boyle, loc. cit. n 57, at pp. 15–16; Handl, loc. cit. n. 30, at p. 541.

77. Boyle, loc. cit. n. 57, at p. 23.

78. Jenks, W., Liability for Ultra Hazardous Activities in International Law, 17 Hague Recueil (1966) p. 99.Google Scholar

79. UN Doc. A/CN 4/423 (1989) Art. 2.

80. ICJ Rep. (1969) paras. 85, 87; ICJ Rep. (1974) paras. 71, 78.

81. Many international organs or organisations adopted similar principles in their resolutions or recommendations. To name a few: the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in its 1978 Draft Principles of Conduct in the Field of the Environment for the Guidance of States in the Conservation and Harmonious Utilisation of Natural Resources Shared by Two or More States, in 17 ILM (1978) p. 1097; the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development contributed to the development of the above-mentioned and other principles relevant to transfrontier pollution in its 1974 Recommendation on Principles concerning Transfrontier Pollution (Doc. (74) 224), in 14 ILM (1975) p. 242 and subsequent recommendations.

82. Art. 8 of the Draft Articles on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, Draft Report of the ILC, UN GAOR, 43rd Session, UN Doc. A/CN L.463/Add.4 (1993), hereinafter referred to as ‘ILC Watercourse Draft’.

83. Draft Art. 6 of the Draft Rules on State Responsibility, ILC Yearbook (1984-II) p. 2.

84. UN Doc. A. CN/4/405 (1987) p. 17, para. 55.

85. Gehring and Jachtenfuchs, loc. cit. n. 35, at p. 95.

86. States have, in accordance with the Charter of the UN and principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources, pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or to areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

87. Lipper, E., ‘Equitable Utilisation’ in Garretson, A.H., Haytonand, R.D., Olmstead, C.J., eds., The Law of International Drainage Basins (1967) pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

88. Boyle, loc. cit. n. 57, at p. 23.

89. Ibid., p. 24.

90. 28 ILM (1989) p. 1308.

91. Nuclear Test case (1973) Pleadings I, p. 14.

92. Naulilaa case, Portugal v. Germany, 2 RIAA (1928) p. 1012.

93. Malanczuk, P., ‘Countermeasures and Self-defence as Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness in the International Law Committee’, in Spinedi, M. and Simma, B., eds., United Nations Codification on State Responsibility (1987) p. 214.Google Scholar

94. Air Services Agreement case, 18 RIAA p. 416, para. 83: ‘[i]t is generally accepted that all counter-measures must, in the first instance, have some degree of equivalence with the alleged breach; this is a well-known rule … ’

95. ILC Yearbook (1980-II) p. 33.

96. O'Connell, M.E., ‘Enforcing the New International Law of the Environment’, 35 GYIL (1992) p. 293.Google Scholar

97. This article states ‘Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustified discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on environmental trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures … (b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.’

98. O'Connell, loc. cit. n. 96, at p. 323 et seq.

99. UN Doc. A/CN.4/360 (23 June 1982) p. 63.

100. Mazzeschi, loc. cit. n. 72, at p. 18.

101. Ibid., p. 29.

102. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects 1972, 10 ILM (1971) p. 965.

103. Handl, loc. cit. n. 30, at p. 529.

104. Gehring and Jachtenfuchs, loc. cit. n. 35, at p. 102.

105. Ibid., p. 103.

106. Sir Robert Jennings in Hague Recueil (1967-II), p. 513.

107. Handl, loc. cit. n. 3, at p. 4.

108. 20 EPL (1990) p. 100.

109. Freestone, D., ‘The Precautionary Principle’, in Churchill, and Freestone, , eds., op. cit. n. 48, at p. 21Google Scholar; Cameron, J. and Abouchar, J., ‘The Precautionary Principle: A Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for the Protection of the Global Environment’, 14 Boston College International Comparative Law Review (1991) no. 1.Google Scholar

110. Nollkaemper, A., ‘The Precautionary Principle in International Environmental Law: What's New Under the Sun’, 22 Marine Pollution Bulletin (1991) No. 3, pp. 107–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and see Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 4, at pp. 95–98.

111. Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 4, at p. 98.

112. Wolfrum, R., ‘Purposes and Principles of International Environmental Law’, 33 GYIL (1990) p. 308.Google Scholar

113. Ibid., p. 327.

114. Higgins, R., Problems and Process – International Law and How We Use It (1994)Google Scholar (being the revised text of the Hague Academy General Course in International Law delivered by Prof. Higgins in 1990) p. 105.

115. Birnie and Boyle, op. cit. n. 4, at p. 191; Munro, R.D. and Lammers, J.G., Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development (1986) p. 40.Google Scholar

116. Boyle, , reviewing the book In Fairness to Future Generations (1989)Google Scholar in 40 ICLQ (1991) p. 230.

117. Idem.

118. Jennings, loc. cit. n. 106, at p. 512.

119. Idem.

120. ICJ Rep. (1970) p. 3.

121. Handl, loc. cit. n. 3, at p. 24.

122. Ibid., p. 33.

123. Ibid., pp. 25–26.

124. Malanczuk, P., ‘“Sustainable Development”: International Law-Making, Financial and Institutional Aspects – Some Critical Thoughts in the Light of the Results of the Rio Conference, in Ginther, K., Denters, E., de Waart, P., eds., Sustainable Development and Good Governance (forthcoming).Google Scholar

125. Dovers, S.R. and Handmer, J.W., ‘Uncertainty, Sustainability and Change’, 4 Global Environmental Change (1992) p. 264.Google Scholar

126. Boyle, loc. cit. n. 116, at p. 231.