Pluricourts Research Paper No. 14-17: Marte Jervan

PluriCourts Research Paper No.
14-17
The Prohibition of Transboundary

Environmental Harm. An Analysis of the
Contribution of the International Court of
Justice to the Development of the No-harm
Rule.
Marte Jervan
2014
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2486421

Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem for discussion ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Background and actuality ............................................................................................ 2
1.3 Definitions and delimitations....................................................................................... 4

1.3.1 Defining transboundary harm ........................................................................ 4
1.3.2 Delimitations .................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Methodology and sources of law ................................................................................. 6

1.4.1 Traditional sources of international law in an environmental context ........... 6
1.4.2 The development of international environmental law by the ICJ .................. 9
1.4.3 Methodological challenges........................................................................... 12
1.5 Structure..................................................................................................................... 13
2 OVERVIEW OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE NO-HARM RULE .................. 16
2.1 Conceptual origins: state sovereignty ........................................................................ 16

2.1.1 Territorial sovereignty and the PSNR principle ........................................... 17
2.1.2 Territorial integrity and the responsibility not to cause transboundary harm
...................................................................................................................... 19
2.2 Early case law ............................................................................................................ 21

2.2.1 Trail Smelter................................................................................................. 21
2.2.2 Corfu Channel .............................................................................................. 22
2.2.3 Lac Lanoux ................................................................................................... 23
2.2.4 Combined importance of early case law ...................................................... 24
2.3 Soft law and multilateral treaties ............................................................................... 25

2.4 Case law post-Stockholm .......................................................................................... 29
2.4.1 Nuclear Tests I ............................................................................................. 29
2.4.2 Nuclear Tests II ............................................................................................ 33
2.4.3 The advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapons ....................................................................................................... 36
2.4.4 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros ................................................................................ 39
2.4.5 Pulp Mills ..................................................................................................... 42
2.4.6 Summary ...................................................................................................... 44
2.5 The ILC Articles on Prevention................................................................................. 46
3 SUBSTANTIVE OBLIGATIONS.......................................................................... 49
3.1 Environmental harm further defined ......................................................................... 49
3.2 The threshold of harm................................................................................................ 51

3.2.1 Establishing the threshold criterion .............................................................. 51
3.2.2 What is “significant” harm? ......................................................................... 53
3.3 Prevention and control of harm ................................................................................. 55
3.4 Standard of care ......................................................................................................... 58

3.4.1 The required level of prevention .................................................................. 58
3.4.2 The approach taken by the ICJ ..................................................................... 63
3.5 The due diligence standard ........................................................................................ 65

3.5.1 General ......................................................................................................... 65
3.5.2 Contributions of jurisprudence ..................................................................... 66
3.6 Relationship to other environmental principles ......................................................... 70

3.6.1 Common but differentiated responsibility ................................................... 70
3.6.2 Sustainable development .............................................................................. 71
3.6.3 The precautionary principle ......................................................................... 72
ii

4 PROCEDURAL OBLIGATIONS.......................................................................... 76
4.1 Environmental impact assessment ............................................................................. 76

4.1.1 General ......................................................................................................... 76
4.1.2 Contributions of jurisprudence ..................................................................... 78
4.1.3 Summary ...................................................................................................... 87
4.2 Cooperation, prior notification, consultation and negotiation ................................... 88

4.2.1 General ......................................................................................................... 88
4.2.2 Jurisprudence................................................................................................ 89
4.2.3 Summary ...................................................................................................... 92
4.3 The relationship between substantive and procedural obligations ............................ 93

4.3.1 Procedural duties of prevention and due diligence ...................................... 93
4.3.2 Why procedure? ........................................................................................... 96
5 CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ........................................................... 98
5.1 The no-harm rule lex lata........................................................................................... 98

5.1.1 Legal status................................................................................................... 98
5.1.2 Legal content ................................................................................................ 99
5.1.3 Appraisal .................................................................................................... 101
5.2 The role of the ICJ ................................................................................................... 103
5.3 Prospects for future contributions............................................................................ 106

5.3.1 Aerial Herbicide Spraying.......................................................................... 107
5.3.2 Two pending cases between Nicaragua and Costa Rica ............................ 109
6 FUTURE CHALLENGES .................................................................................... 112
6.1 Application of the no-harm rule in a climate change context.................................. 112
6.2 Legal standing and erga omnes ............................................................................... 116
iii
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 120
TREATY LAW ................................................................................................................ 130
DOMESTIC LAW ........................................................................................................... 133
CASE LAW ...................................................................................................................... 134
DECLARATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, REPORTS ETC. ............................................. 142
WEB PAGES .................................................................................................................... 145
iv
1 Introduction
1.1 Problem for discussion

The aim of this study is to provide an analysis of the contribution of the International Court
of Justice (ICJ) to the development of the law concerning transboundary environmental
harm. A cornerstone rule of international environmental law is that states are under an obli-
gation not to cause harm to the environment of other states, or to the areas beyond national
jurisdiction. The essence of this obligation, often referred to as the no-harm rule or the pro-
hibition of transboundary environmental harm, is that states may not conduct or permit
activities within their territories, or in common spaces, without regard to other states or for
the protection of the global environment. The origins of the obligation lie in the old princi-
ple of international law that states are obliged not to inflict damage on, or violate the rights
of other states, which is often expressed by reference to the sic utere tuo ut alienum non
laedas principle (use your own property in such a way that you do not injure other peo-
ple’s).1
This study explores how international jurisprudence has played a role in the process
of translating this principle into a fundamental rule of international environmental law. Fur-
thermore, it explores how international jurisprudence has, in interaction with state practice,
multilateral environmental treaties and the work of the International Law Commission
(ILC), contributed to the crystallization and clarification of the content of this rule. Varia-
tions of the no-harm rule have been adopted in numerous environmental treaties and decla-
rations and the rule is widely regarded to have reached status as customary international
law. However, many questions arise with regard to the application of the rule in real cases,
and its more precise implications in current international law. For example, what is meant
by transboundary environmental damage? Does the rule apply to all types of damage, or
only to damage that exceeds a certain threshold? Furthermore, does the rule require that all
1
The sic utere principle is based on ancient Roman law, and is also a familiar concept in modern legal sys-
tems, see e.g. the Norwegian Neighboring Properties Act § 2.
1
harm exceeding the current threshold is prevented, or is there a standard of care which, if
the source state meets it, may free the same state from responsibility for harm? If so, what
is required by states in terms of conduct under the standard of care? Is the standard differ-
entiated, i.e. lower for developing states?
Through an analysis of relevant international jurisprudence, primarily from the ICJ, I
will attempt to identify the legal content of the rule. The analysis will show that in current
international law, it has taken form as an obligation to prevent and control transboundary
harm and pollution from activities within their jurisdiction and control, accompanied by an
obligation to cooperate to reduce risk of such harm through notification, consultation and
negotiation, and by conducting environmental impact assessments.
1.2 Background and actuality

Environmental problems are widely perceived as one of the greatest challenges of our time.
Human-caused environmental change is widespread and severe both within individual
states, and at a regional and global level.2 Regional environmental problems, i.e. problems
involving multiple nations, include border-crossing air and water pollution, resource ex-
traction impacts, diminished freshwater quality and quantity, nuclear accidents and interna-
tional trade with hazardous waste and toxic chemicals. At a global level, we are faced with
environmental problems such as ozone depletion, extinction of species, ocean pollution,
loss of biodiversity, declining food production and depleted fish stocks, deforestation and
anthropogenic climate change.
Pollution and environmental threats frequently take a transboundary dimension,
causing problems for and inflicting damage on other states than the source state, and to
global common areas. A classic example is an upstream state emitting pollution to a river
which causes damage to a downstream state. A current example is burning of forests and
land in Indonesia, which creates haze pollution consisting of smoke and dust which spreads
2
Nanda and Pring (2003) p. 4.
2
across national borders and causes human health problems in Singapore and Malaysia.3
Another current example is the dispute concerning Colombia’s aerial spraying of toxic
herbicides to coca leaf plantations on locations near its border with Ecuador as part of Co-
lombia’s “war on drugs”, causing damage to people and the natural environment in Ecua-
dor.4
Issues of border-crossing harm and pollution may only be addressed effectively
through cooperation and collaboration between states, and in this regard international law
and institutions play an essential role in providing a framework within which the members
of the international community may cooperate.5 The traditional response of international
law with regard to transboundary problems has been to impose responsibility on the state
guilty of causing harm and accordingly to require the state to refrain from the conduct caus-
ing damage, and to grant adequate reparation to the injured state. 6 As instances of trans-
boundary environmental damage have vastly increased due to industrial development, new
technology and population growth, states have increasingly recognized the need for finding
global solutions to environmental concerns, and that global environmental issues require
rules for protection of natural resources and the environment as a common resource for all
states. It is from this realization international environmental law has emerged. International
environmental law is the branch of international law concerning rights and obligations in
the management of natural resources and the environment, and includes both an evolving
body of specifically environmental norms, and general international law norms applied to
environmental problems.7
3
Palanissamy (2013) p. 1. Information about the 2013 Southeast Asia “haze crises” is available here:
http://blog.cifor.org/fire/#.Uzm0IHY4Xcs (last visited 1 April 2014).
4
The dispute was submitted to the ICJ in 2009, and will be discussed further in section 5.3.
5
Sands and Peel (2012) p. 10.
6
Xue (2003) p. ix.
7
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 2.
3
1.3 Definitions and delimitations
1.3.1 Defining transboundary harm

Surely, not all disadvantageous effects caused by environmental factors should fall within
the scope of the obligation not to cause transboundary harm. In the literature it is argued
that four conditions must necessarily be satisfied for harm to qualify as transboundary
harm, and thus to be covered by the obligation.8
Firstly, the harm must result from human activity.9 Obviously, not all harm caused
by environmental factors that may affect more than one country is caused by human activi-
ties; nature disasters like floods, earthquakes and hurricanes, for example, may also cause
great damage across wide areas.10 In the literature it is held that damaging effects caused by
environmental factors do not fall within the scope of the obligation unless they have some
“reasonably proximate causal relation to human conduct”.11
Secondly, the harm must be a physical consequence of the human activity.12 Harm
caused to natural resources by industrial and agricultural activities are thus typically en-
compassed by the obligation, while for example economic consequences caused by in-
crease in commodity prices due to environmental interferences are excluded.13
Thirdly, there must be a physical effect crossing national boundaries. 14 It is this
boundary-crossing element which initiates application of international law.15 The condition
is not limited to neighboring states, but may also include transboundary effects crossing
8
Schachter (1991) p. 463.
9
Ibid. p. 464.
10
A significant issue in this regard is that some human activities increase, directly or indirectly, the risk of
such catastrophes. While there may often be uncertainty with regard to causal factors in this regard, there is a
tendency towards requiring states to take precautionary measures also where human causation of harm is not
yet scientifically proved, see Xue (2003) p. 6 and section 3.6.3.
11
Ibid. p. 6.
12
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Xue (2003) p. 9.
4
several national boundaries, thereby causing damage to multiple states.16 Transboundary
effects usually cross boundaries through a media, such as water, soil or air, such as when
pollutants from industrial activities conducted in one state forms acid rain, which damages
forests and lakes in other states. Under current international law, the no-harm rule is ex-
panded to also include harm to areas beyond national control.17 The rule thus protects not
only the territories under state control, but also the “global commons”, i.e. the high seas,
the outer space, the atmosphere and the Polar Regions.
The fourth condition is that the harm in question must exceed a certain level of se-
verity that calls for legal action.18 Surely, states cannot engage in or permit activities on
their territory without regard to the impact this may have on areas outside their jurisdiction.
At the same time, a state cannot demand that other states abstain from all activities that
may have transboundary impacts on the environment. Accordingly, not all boundary-
crossing harm is prohibited under the no-harm rule; the harm must exceed a certain degree
of severity.19 As discussed below in section 3.2 the threshold is often held to be “signifi-
cant” or “substantial” harm.
1.3.2 Delimitations
Most of the topics assessed in this study would have deserved further analysis, and I could
have chosen a narrower problem for discussion. However, I have wanted to provide an
overall picture of the contribution of the ICJ to the development and crystallization of the
no-harm rule, taking into account both the substantial content of the rule and the relation-
ship to ancillary procedural obligations. Accordingly, the study takes a broad perspective.
One important delimitation must, however, be established. A traditional distinction in
international law is the distinction between primary and secondary obligations. The no-
harm rule is an example of a primary obligation of international law, and violations of this
16
Ibid.
17
See the discussion of the advisory opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons below in 2.4.3.
18
19
The same considerations are valid with regard to domestic law relating to the rights of neighbors; only
unreasonable interference with a neighbor’s property is prohibited.
5
obligation are regulated by the secondary rules of state responsibility.20 This study will
follow this distinction between primary and secondary obligations. The focus will generally
be on the primary obligation, thus leaving out secondary rules of state responsibility, i.e.
the legal consequences of a breach of the no-harm rule.21
1.4 Methodology and sources of law

This section will provide an overview of the main sources of international environmen-
tal law. International environmental law is not a separate discipline of law, but rather an
integrated part of general international law, and accordingly, the sources of international
environmental law are generally the same sources that all international law derives from.
Addressing the relevant sources of law is convenient both in order to understand the legal
method of the ICJ, and moreover, to understand how international environmental law has
developed. Since the study primarily focuses on the contribution of the ICJ, I will elaborate
on judicial decisions as a source of international environmental law with particular focus on
the role of the ICJ in the development of this branch of law. Lastly, I will address some
methodological challenges I have encountered in the work of the thesis, and explain how I
have met these challenges.
1.4.1 Traditional sources of international law in an environmental context

International law can derive from several sources. The traditional sources are listed in Arti-
cle 38 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Formally, this provision only
applies to the ICJ; it is however generally recognized that it expresses the sources of inter-
national law. The main sources are treaties, customary international law and general princi-
ples of international law.
20
The ILC’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Article 1.
21
The distinction is not always easy to grasp. The obligation not to cause transboundary environmental harm
has primarily been interpreted in the context of the duty to compensate damage which has occurred. There-
fore some elements of state responsibility may be confused with the content of the primary rule. Some of the
elements of the rule, such as causation and fault, do also mirror the general requirements for establishing state
responsibility, see Verheyen (2005) p. 146.
6
Treaties, or “international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing
rules expressly recognized by the contesting states” as referred to in Article 38 (1) litra a,
play a significant role in the context of international environmental law. The extensive pro-
duction of treaty law in this field has led to treaty law being characterized as the primary
source of international law relating to environmental protection, and a great number of trea-
ties address transboundary harm in various forms.22 Most of them are bilateral or regional,
but following the increased global recognition of the need for environmental protection,
there has been a tendency towards adopting global treaties to which all the members of the
UN may submit.23
Customary international law is in Article 38 (1) litra b identified as “evidence of a
general practice accepted as law” and has played a secondary role in international environ-
mental law compared to treaty law.24 The significance of custom is that it can establish
obligations binding on all states, regardless of adherence to treaty law. Furthermore, when
a custom develops alongside a conventional rule, it may supply or inform the content and
effect of this rule.25 Arguably, creation of new customary rules may be seen as advanta-
geous in the context of international environmental law; while the treaty ratification pro-
cess may be troublesome, obtaining universal application may be easier forasmuch as it is
presumed that it is not necessary for states to expressly consent to a crystallized customary
rule, in order to be obliged by it.26 However, a problem with customary rules is that it is
often hard to prove their existence, as this requires evidence of both consistent state prac-
tice (“general practice”), and of opinio juris (“accepted as law”).
The third primary source of international law referred to in Article 38 (1) litra c is
“general principles of law recognised by civilised nations”.27 General principles are of a
22
23
Bugge (2011) p. 61.
24
25
Ibid. p. 112.
26
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 22.
27
Although soft law instruments such as the 1972 Stockholm Declaration and the 1992 Rio Declaration refer
to their provisions as environmental “principles”, these are not necessarily “general principles of law” in the
7
fundamental character and can be found in most of the legal systems in the world. As a
source of international law, they gain legitimacy by recognition from of the international
community (“recognised by civilised nations”), and unlike customary international law,
there is no requirement of universal state practice.28 Certain general principles have played
an important role in international environmental law and appear to have been relied on in
international jurisprudence concerning environmental issues.29
Article 38 (1) litra d further lists subsidiary sources of international law, one of
them being “the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations”.
While writings of publicists have probably played a less important role in developing inter-
national environmental law than the other sources, there is a considerable amount of litera-
ture devoted to issues of international environmental law. Important in the context of this
study is that Article 38 (1) litra d may be interpreted as also including woks of organiza-
tions such as the International Law Commission (ILC).30
The second subsidiary source listed in litra d is “judicial decisions”. Judicial deci-
sions from the ICJ and other international courts and tribunals do not as such make law, but
contributes to the development of the law, particularly through treaty interpretation and
identification of custom.31 Through identifying and applying international legal norms, they
provide the most authoritative guidance of the state of international law at the time they are
decided.32 While there is no doctrine of precedent in the ICJ or in other international tribu-
sense of Article 38 (1) litra c. In order to become binding legal obligations, such soft law principles must
either be recognized as general principles of law, develop into customary international law, or be accompa-
nied by conventional rules.
28
Voigt (2009) p. 160.
29
See for example the discussions of the Trail Smelter case and the first Nuclear Tests case in Chapter 2.
30
See section 2.5.
31
Examples of areas of international law where jurisprudence from the ICJ has been a significant factor in the
legal development are the law of state responsibility, the law of treaties and diplomatic protection; see Tams
(2013) pp. 381, 386.
32
Birnie, et al. (2009) pp. 28, 140.
8
nals,33 international courts and tribunals frequently refer to their own pronouncements.34 In
the following subsection I will elaborate on judicial decisions as a source of international
environmental law with particular focus on the role of the ICJ in the development of this
branch of law.
1.4.2 The development of international environmental law by the ICJ

Judicial decisions have attained an increasingly important role in international environmen-
tal law, particularly over the past three decades, alongside an increasing number of judicial
decisions directly relevant to environmental issues. There are no specialized courts in inter-
national environmental law, but issues of environmental protection and conservation of
natural resources are dealt with by a number of international adjudicating bodies, such as
the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the WTO Dispute Settlement Under-
standing, the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the ICJ.35 Although references will be
made also to decisions of other courts and tribunals where they have made significant con-
tributions to the law concerning transboundary environmental harm, this study primarily
focuses on jurisprudence from the ICJ.
The ICJ enjoys no priority as a forum for dispute settlement in environmental litiga-
tion, and only contributes with a part of an expanding body of international jurisprudence
concerning environmental issues; still, it arguably plays a special role in international law
as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, and the only general court of interna-
tional law.36 Illustrative in this regards are the words of former President of the Court Judge
Gilbert Guillaume who in a speech to the UN on the role of the ICJ, emphasized the essen-
33
As regards the ICJ, this follows from Article 59 of the Statute of the ICJ, which states that decisions of the
Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case. See Guillaume
(2011) p. 9.
34
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 28.
35
Ulfstein (2010) p. 34, Harrison (2013) p. 502.
36
Boyle (2009) section 1.1.
9
tial role of the Court by pointing out that “[i]t alone can address all areas of the law and
accord them their proper place within an overall scheme.”37
There have historically been relatively few cases before the ICJ regarding environ-
mental issues. This is partly due to the novel character of the international environmental
law discipline, but also a consequence of the jurisdictional implications attached to the
Court as a forum for dispute settlement.38 Firstly, only states may apply to and appear be-
fore the Court and secondly, both the state of origin and the effected state must consent to
the jurisdiction of the Court before the case may be heard.39 With regard to the latter it
must also be noted that multilateral environmental treaties generally do not provide re-
course to the ICJ as a standard form of dispute settlement, but rather rely on a range of oth-
er, typically non-binding, dispute resolutions mechanisms.40
The Court’s role in this field of international environmental law has, however, been
growing in recent years. In 1993, the ICJ initiated the creation of a Chamber for Environ-
mental Matters, due to a trend of an increase of cases submitted to the Court concerning
issues of international environmental law.41 In 2006 the Court decided not to reconstitute
the Chamber.42 This decision was not based on a consideration that environmental matters
37
Recited in Owada (2006) p. 32.
38
Fitzmaurice (2013) p. 353.
39
Statute of the ICJ, Article 34. A factor is also general reluctance among states towards submitting their
disputes to international courts; states often prefer to resolve their disputes through negotiations and diplo-
matic means, one important reason for this probably being fear of losing the political control over the out-
come of the dispute; see Ruud and Ulfstein (2011) p. 326.
40
41
In the press release the Court emphasized the developments in the field of environmental law and protec-
tion which had been taking place in recent years, and considered that it “should be prepared to the fullest
possible extent to deal with any environmental case falling within its jurisdiction”. At the time, out of eleven
cases in its docket, two cases, Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru and Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, both discussed
further below, involved important implications for international law on matters relating to the environment,
see Press Release 93/20, 19 July 1993, http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/7/10307.pdf (last visited 5 Janu-
ary 2014).
42
Owada (2006) p. 29, note 56.
10
no longer required special attention of the Court, but rather a consequence of the fact that
no parties have chosen to make use of this option when submitting cases to the Court.43
One reason for this may be that so-called environmental disputes usually only concern en-
vironmental issues for one of the parties,44 and probably also that since having disputes
decided by the ICJ involves huge costs and risk of loss, they generally prefer having their
cases dealt heard by the full Court, rather than in a special chamber.
Despite the limited jurisdictional potential of the Court mentioned above, it is be-
yond doubt that when disputes concerning environmental issues are successfully submitted
to the Court, the ICJ may contribute to the clarification and development of the internation-
al environmental law. The ICJ judge Hisashi Owada has in this regard pointed out three
ways in which the role of the Court in international environmental law seems to be increas-
ingly significant.45 Firstly, the Court contributes to the development of the law by identify-
ing and confirming issues of international environmental law as an element of the public
order of international law through settling bilateral disputes between states; by settling con-
crete disputes, and thus enunciating the general principles involved.46 Secondly, the Court
may contribute to the development by identifying general principles applicable to interna-
tional environmental issues, especially through rendering advisory opinions.47 Finally, the
Court can emphasize the growing importance of international environmental law in con-
temporary international life and the potential service that it can offer to the development of
the law in this field, and this way “strengthen its capacity for dealing with cases pertaining
to disputes specifically relating to international environmental law as such”.48
43
Ibid.
44
For the other party it often concerns economic and developmental interests, see e.g. the Pulp Mills case
discussed below in 2.4.5.
45
Owada (2006) p. 30.
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid. p. 31.
48
Ibid.
11
1.4.3 Methodological challenges
The study will provide a comprehensive and analytical study of the law concerning trans-
boundary environmental harm, with particular emphasis on how international jurisprudence has
contributed to the development of the law in this field. Accordingly, the method I have chosen
largely consists of analysis of case law concerning issues of transboundary harm. As the
main contribution to the development of international environmental law has come from
international conventional law, references will also frequently be made to treaty law. Trea-
ty provisions addressed will be interpreted in accordance with the rules of treaty interpreta-
tions set out in Articles 31 and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention.
A significant challenge throughout this thesis has been to draw the lines between lex
lata and lex ferenda with regard to the content and scope of the no-harm rule. The lines are
in many regards blurred, and consequently, it is not possible to provide conclusive answers
to all of the questions assessed in this study. One reason for this is linked to the no-harm
rule’s alleged status as customary law. A disadvantage with a customary rule as a primary
obligation is that due to the difficulties in ascertaining state practice, customary norms are
often open and vague in character and this frequently makes determining their specific con-
tent a troublesome exercise.49 Furthermore, although the ICJ has played a role in clarifying
central aspects of the law concerning transboundary environmental harm, the Court’s con-
tributions have often come in form of vague and sparse pronouncements, and consequently
it is often also difference in opinion with regard to what a specific finding of the Court
means, and thus what the Court’s contribution actually consisted in.
The vague nature of the no-harm rule leaves considerable room for interpretation.
Both traditional and progressive approaches may be taken when interpreting its legal con-
tent, which is well illustrated by the extensive attention the rule has received by interna-
tional law scholars, often reflecting divided views and different theoretical approaches. In
order to provide an accurate and balanced presentation of the law assessed, I will through-
out the study attempt to indicate where questions remain open, and I will in some regards
point out tendencies and development characteristics, rather than providing conclusions to
49
Verheyen (2005) p. 145.
12
the questions raised. Although it would prove too extensive for the size and scope of this
study to give thorough presentations of all the theoretical approaches reflected in the litera-
ture, I will also generally attempt to indicate where fundamentally divided views are taken
on central issues.
1.5 Structure
To find a good structure for this study has been a challenging task. On one hand, I wanted
to show how international jurisprudence illustrates a gradual development of the law in this
field, and thus demonstrate how the general approach to the law has shifted from being
strictly focused the right of states not to be inflicted damage on by other states, towards a
greater focus on environmental protection. In this regard, a chronological review of the
judicial decisions and their findings seemed expedient. On the other hand, I wanted to dig
deeper into the contributions to the different aspects of the no-harm rule. Since the contri-
bution of international jurisprudence has not been linear – different cases have contributed
to the different aspects of the no-harm rule – I found it convenient in this regard to catego-
rize the analysis of the contribution of these cases according to topic. In order to provide
the reader with a brief outline of the topics discussed in this thesis, and to give the reader an
idea of why I chose the present structure, I will here give a brief presentation of each chap-
ter and its content.
Chapter 2 contains an overview of the evolution of the no-harm rule. Firstly, it ex-
plores the conceptual origins of the rule, and its link to the notion of state sovereignty.
Moreover, it contains a presentation of the most important case law assessed in the study.
The cases are presented chronologically to illustrate how the approach to the rule has
evolved gradually. In order to demonstrate the change in approach to the law from being
strictly focused the right of states not to be inflicted damage on by other states towards one
of environmental protection, the presentation of the cases is divided into two separate sec-
tions. The first contains a presentation of cases prior to, and the other cases subsequent to,
the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, which in the literature has
13
been regarded as the starting point for international environmental law.50 In between these
two sections I will give an account of how the prohibition of transboundary harm was in-
cluded in the Stockholm Declaration, later substantially repeated in the Rio Declaration,
and how the principle has been implemented in multilateral environmental treaties. Finally,
I will also give a brief presentation the work of the International Law Commission (ILC)
concerning prevention of transboundary harm, which also plays an important role in the
discussions in the subsequent chapters.
In Chapters 3-4 I will zoom in on the legal content of the rule, and make an in-depth
analysis of the findings and statements of the cases presented in Chapter 2, which directly
or indirectly have contributed to the crystallization or clarification of the no-harm rule. In
Chapter 3 I address the substantive content of the no-harm rule. The chapter encompasses
discussions of a range of questions that arise with regard to the content and contours of the
rule; inter alia the concept of due diligence and the relationship to other principles of envi-
ronmental law.
The standard of care assessed in Chapter 3 can be analysed in a number of more
specific procedural obligations, obligations to reduce risk of such harm through notifica-
tion, consultation and negotiation, and by conducting environmental impact assessments.
These obligations and how they have been applied and addressed in international jurispru-
dence are addressed in Chapter 4. The chapter also explores the link between substantive
and procedural obligations.
Chapter 5 contains some concluding remarks regarding the scope, content and legal
status of the no-harm rule, and regarding the role of the ICJ in the development of the law
in this field. It also includes a section regarding prospects for future contributions by the
ICJ, where the potential of cases currently pending before the ICJ are commented on.
In Chapter 6 I will identify and comment on some challenges for the application and
further development of the international law concerning transboundary environmental
harm. This includes a discussion of the application of the no-harm rule to one of the major
global environmental problems of our time – climate change. I will also make some com-
50
14
ments concerning legal standing and the concept of erga omnes in the context of environ-
mental harm, and how this concept may be increasingly relevant with regard to global envi-
ronmental problems in the future.
15
2 Overview of the evolution of the no-harm rule
The purpose of this chapter is to present the main features in the development of the obliga-
tion not to cause transboundary harm. In 2.1 I will explaining the link between state sover-
eignty and the no-harm rule, which is important in order to understand the origins of the
rule. In 2.2 I will look at some early cases involving international courts and tribunals re-
garding transboundary harm, and show how they gave new relevance to the old sic utere
principle, and made a basis for this principle to be applied in an environmental context. In
2.3 I will show how elements developed in these cases were entrenched in important soft
law instruments and multilateral treaties. In 2.4 I will present ICJ cases subsequent to the
Stockholm Conference on Human Development that have at some level regarded environ-
mental issues, and where the obligation has been of relevance. Lastly, I will in 2.5 intro-
duce the important work of the International Law Commission related to transboundary
harm, and thus particularly the ILC Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm
from Hazardous Activities.
2.1 Conceptual origins: state sovereignty

The obligation not to cause harm to the environment of other states, or to the areas beyond
national jurisdiction cannot be understood separately from the notion of state sovereignty.
In the present section I will explain how the no-harm rule sets limitations on one side of the
principle, territorial sovereignty, and how the rule is at the same time initially based on
another side of the principle, the concept of national territorial integrity.
State sovereignty is a founding principle and a prerequisite for the system of inter-
national law.51 The core of the principle is that all states are sovereign and not subject to
any other determination but their own, and that all states have equal rights and duties, re-
51
Perrez (1996) p. 1188. Codifications of the principle are found in the UN Charter, Article 2 (1) where it is
proclaimed that “sovereign equality of all its Members” is a principle of the UN, and in the 1970 UN Declara-
tion on Principles of International Law concerning UN Friendly Relations which states that “[a]ll States enjoy
sovereign equality”.
16
gardless of differences in social, economic, political or other forms of status. 52 The princi-
ple is unique in the way that it has the support of all states, regardless of ideology and polit-
ical opinions, and since almost every international relation is connected to the self-
determination and independency of states in some way, it is a starting point in almost every
question concerning international relations.53
2.1.1 Territorial sovereignty and the PSNR principle

One principal corollary of sovereignty is that states have jurisdiction, prima facie exclu-
sive, over a territory and a permanent population living there.54 The exclusive jurisdiction
that states have over their territory is sometimes referred to as territorial sovereignty, and is
connected to a defined geographical area, which consists of land territory with subsoil,55
internal waters56 and the territorial waters,57 including the air space over it as well as to its
bed and subsoil,58 and the air space above its territory, up to outer space.59 States also have
limited sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the contiguous zone,60 in the exclusive eco-
nomic zone61 and over the resources on the continental shelf.62 A traditional view in inter-
national law is that states are by virtue of their sovereignty, initially free to wield authority
over and exploit the natural resources within this geographical area that constitutes its terri-
52
Ibid.
53
Cassese (2005) p. 48.
54
Sands and Peel (2012) p. 11, Brownlie (1990) p. 287.
55
Ruud and Ulfstein (2011) p. 137.
56
UNCLOS, Article 2. Internal waters are the waters between the land territories and out to baseline of the
territorial sea including rivers, lakes etc. cf. UNCLOS, Article 8.
57
UNCLOS, Article 2. The territorial waters are limited up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline cf. UN-
CLOS, Article 3.
58
UNCLOS, Article 2.
59
Outer space is the area beyond the air space subject to the jurisdiction of a state, UNCLOS, Article 2. See
also Ruud and Ulfstein (2011) p. 164.
60
UNCLOS, Article 33.
61
UNCLOS, Article 55, 56.
62
UNCLOS, Article 76, 77.
17
tory, and to pass laws and make decisions regarding its environment and management of
the natural resources.63 This right of states to manage the environment within their territory
is reflected in the principle of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (PSNR prin-
ciple).
The PSNR principle has its origins in the decolonization process during the 1950s
and 1960s; an important part of the liberation of the former colonies was to make sure that
they were given full sovereignty of over their own natural resources. 64 Although the princi-
ple does not have its basis in environmental issues, it is today of great importance in the
field of environmental law because states frequently refer to it when arguing that interna-
tional organizations and other states cannot decide how they shall dispose of their own nat-
ural resources.65 An important statement on permanent sovereignty over national resources
that is claimed to have status as customary international law66 is found in a UN resolution
from 1962:
The right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and re-
sources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the wellbeing of
the people of the State concerned … The exploration, development and disposition of such re-
sources, as well as the import of the foreign capital required for these purposes, should be in
conformity with the rules and conditions which the peoples and nations freely consider to be
necessary or desirable with regard to the authorization, restriction or prohibition of such activi-
67
ties.
This statement indicates that states are considered to have a superior and inherent right to
use and control their national resources. Except for the explicit limitation that the right is to
be used to benefit citizens of the state, the principle is formulated rather absolute. An abso-
63
64
Nyland (2009) p. 170.
65
Bugge (2011) p. 67.
66
Perrez (1996) p. 1191.
67
The 1962 General Assembly Resolution on the “Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources”.
18
lute principle of sovereignty over natural resources could mean, at worst, that every state,
in accordance with international law, is free to exploit all of its natural resources and de-
stroy the natural environment of its territory completely.68 Strong environmental concerns
thus indicate that there should be a positive duty upon states to protect their own environ-
ment. There is difference in opinion about whether such a duty exists in international law
today. The way the principle of sovereignty has traditionally been interpreted in the area of
environmental law, indicates that international environmental law applies solely beyond the
areas subject to state sovereignty.69 Whether it is legally justifiable under the present inter-
national law to take a more progressive approach and include areas within national jurisdic-
tion, is an interesting issue subject to much attention by international law scholars.70 It
would, however, go beyond the scope of this thesis to expand on the issue.
Furthermore, the whole distinction between the “environment of a state” and the
environment outside its jurisdiction made in the traditional interpretation of the principle of
state sovereignty and the ancillary principle of PSNR is of course problematic, as the inter-
dependence between the ecosystems of the biosphere does not respect artificial boundaries
between states.71 Due to this ecological interdependence most, if not all, environmental
impacts can be said to have a transboundary aspect.72
2.1.2 Territorial integrity and the responsibility not to cause transboundary harm
Despite the absolute formulation of the PSNR principle, it is beyond doubt that there are
limitations to how states can dispose of their own natural resources. The increase in pollu-
68
Bugge (2011) p. 68.
69
Nyland (2009) p. 168.
70
See e.g. Nicolai Nyland “Er stater folkerettslig forpliktet til å beskytte miljøet? En analyse av tradisjonelle
og nye måter å se rettsforholdet mellom stater og miljøet” (2009).
71
See e.g. the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment “Ecosystems and Well Being-Synthesis”, available at
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf (last visited 4 March 2014).
72
This is evident where environmental resources are shared, such as international lakes and rivers, but emis-
sions of greenhouse gases and genetically modified organisms, for example, may also have severe impacts on
the environment of other states, and areas beyond national jurisdictions, see Sands and Peel (2012) p. 12.
19
tion from industrial activities and the need to share natural resources such as rivers, but also
the atmosphere over the past century, has entailed large cutbacks on state sovereignty and
the right to dispose freely of natural resources.73 For example, an expanding body of treaty
regimes establishes limitations on the territorial sovereignty of states that have acceded to
them, by imposing obligations to act in accordance with certain standards of conduct, re-
quiring cooperation and consultation between states in environmental matters.74
The territorial sovereignty of states is also limited by another principal corollary of
state sovereignty; the duty not to intervene in an area of exclusive jurisdiction of other
states. This obligation of states to respect the territory of others is often referred to as the
concept of “territorial integrity”. The link between territorial sovereignty and territorial
integrity is expressed in the Island of Palmas arbitration, where the Permanent Court of
Arbitration stated that
Territorial sovereignty … involves the exclusive right to display the activities of a State.
This right has as corollary a duty: the obligation to protect within the territory the rights of
other States, in particular their right to integrity and inviolability in peace and in war, to-
gether with the rights which each State may claim for its nationals in foreign territory.75
Accordingly, state sovereignty itself comprises an inherent limitation on the right of states
to dispose of their territory and exploit their natural resources. Territorial sovereignty and
integrity are thus really two sides of the same coin, and neither of the concepts is absolute
or unrestricted.
While the obligation not to cause transboundary harm was in early case law based
solely on the concept of territorial integrity, and only applicable to harm to the territory of
other states,76 it is, as the subsequent discussion of this chapter will demonstrate, in more
recent case law recognized that the scope of the obligation is expanded to also include harm
73
Verheyen (2005) p. 150.
74
See section 2.3, where some of these treaty regimes will be assessed.
75
Island of Palmas arbitration, Netherlands v. the United Kingdom, 1928, RIAA vol. 2, at p. 839.
76
See the discussion of the Trail Smelter arbitration in 2.2.1.
20
to areas beyond national control.77 This implies that the rule’s link to territorial integrity is
weakened today. As a modern rule of environmental law, the no-harm rule comprises two
partly opposing objectives: that states have sovereign rights over their natural resources,
and that states must refrain from causing environmental harm. International texts that in-
clude the no-harm rule, therefore also often include a confirmation of the sovereign right of
states to exploit their own resources.78
2.2 Early case law
2.2.1 Trail Smelter

The Trail Smelter79 dispute that arose between Canada and the United States in the 1930s is
broadly regarded as the first step in giving the sic utere principle actuality as a fundamental
rule of modern international environmental law. The background for the dispute was that
atmospheric emissions from a private owned smelter operating on Canadian territory had
caused damage to agricultural interests in the United States. To solve the dispute that arose,
the two governments concluded a special agreement submitting their dispute to arbitra-
tion.80 The questions posed to the arbitral tribunal was whether Canada was responsible for
the damage that the sulphur dioxide emissions stemming from the smelter caused to the
crops and lands in the US, and whether Canada was required to refrain from causing dam-
age to US territory in the future. The tribunal concluded that Canada was responsible for
the damage caused by the smelter and granted compensation to the US, and furthermore
prescribed a regime for control of emissions to prevent future transboundary pollution from
the smelter.81 The tribunal stated that
77
See the discussion of the advisory opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons below in 2.4.3.
78
Examples are the Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration and Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration, which
will be commented on in section 2.3.
79
The Trail Smelter arbitration, the United States v. Canada, 1938 and 1941, RIAA vol. 3, pp. 1905-1982
(hereinafter Trail Smelter).
80
Convention for settlement of difficulties arising from operation of smelter at Trail, Ottawa, signed in Otta-
wa in 1935.
81
Trail Smelter, p. 1908
21
under the principles of international law, as well as of the law of the United States, no State has
the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in
or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious
consequence and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence.82 (Emphasis add-
ed.)
Accordingly, the tribunal implicitly denied that states are free to allow or engage in activi-
ties entailing harmful transboundary effects.
In its reasoning under the question of whether, and to what extent, the smelter
should be required to refrain from causing damage to US territory in the future, the tribunal
looked at scientific developments on air pollution, and referred to “general pronouncements
by leading authorities concerning the duty of a State to respect other States and their territo-
ry” and observed that with regard to the applicable principles both international and domes-
tic law took the same approach.83 It also drew on analogies from jurisprudence of the US
Supreme Court on pollution crossing federal boundaries84 although the special agreement
did not require the tribunal to rely on domestic case law at this point. This use of sources of
law, with invocation of both domestic and international law, indicates that the tribunal con-
sidered the obligation it formulated to be a general principle of law.85
2.2.2 Corfu Channel

The second important decision is the Corfu Channel case. In this case from 1949 the ICJ
held Albania responsible for damages to British warships in the North Corfu Strait.86 The
warships sailed through a passage which was part of Albanian territorial waters and previ-
82
Trail Smelter, p. 1965.
83
Ibid. p. 1963.
84
Ibid. pp. 1964-1965.
85
According to Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the ICJ, the essential element to general principles of law is
that they are “recognized by civilized nations”, see section 1.4.1.
86
The Corfu Channel case, the United Kingdom v. Albania, ICJ Rep. (1949) p. 4 (hereinafter Corfu Chan-
nel).
22
ously swept for mines. On the way through, two of the ships struck mines, causing explo-
sions that led to severe material damage to the ships, and the death of 44 people.87
The dispute that subsequently arose between the UK and Albania was referred to
the ICJ. One of the questions before the Court was whether Albania was responsible for the
explosions in Albanian waters and for the damage and loss of human life which resulted
from them, and whether this entailed a duty to pay compensation.88 In this regard, the Court
stated that every state is “under an obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used
for acts contrary to the rights of other States”.89 This is a statement quite similar to the Trail
Smelter norm cited above, but formulated in more general terms. Like the Trail Smelter
case, the Court did not base the statement on treaty law, but referred to “certain general and
well-recognized principles”,90 and the ICJ thus recognized the existence of a general prin-
ciple of law prohibiting states from violating the rights of or inflicting damage on other
states. The Court thus generalized the Trail Smelter principle, and furthermore found that it
can be violated by an act as well as an omission.91
2.2.3 Lac Lanoux

A third case often mentioned in the same breath as Trail Smelter and the Corfu Channel, is
the Lac Lanoux arbitration.92 Lac Lanoux is a lake inside French territory, situated in the
Pyrenees. The waters flowing from the lake crosses the border to Spain where it ultimately
flows into the Ebro, one of Spain’s largest rivers.93
87
Corfu Channel, pp. 10, 12-13.
88
Ibid. p. 15.
89
Ibid. p. 22.
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid. p. 23. See also section 3.4.2.
92
The Lac Lanoux arbitration, Spain v. France, French original in RIAA (1957) vol. 12 (hereinafter Lac
Lanoux). An incomplete English translation is found in Yearbook of International Law Commission (1974),
vol. 2 part 2 p. 194 (hereinafter Lac Lanoux, English translation).
93
Lac Lanoux, English translation, p. 194.
23
In 1917 the French Government made plans to utilize the water of Lac Lanoux.
France planned to adopt a development project which would transform the lake by estab-
lishing a dam and change the course of streams that originally flowed towards Spain, using
the diversion to produce electrical power.94 The two governments repeatedly negotiated
and exchanged views on the question of the use of the water, but Spain opposed to all pro-
posed plans. The Spanish Government held that the project would be injurious to the Span-
ish rights and interests, inter alia because it would result in shortage of water for irriga-
tion.95 As no results were obtained from the negotiations, the two Governments decided to
refer the dispute to an arbitral tribunal.96
The question posed to the tribunal was whether the French Government was violat-
ing the treaty that regulated the administration of these and other waters common to Spain
and France in carrying out works for the use of the water of the lake, without a preliminary
agreement between the two Governments.97 The tribunal recognized that territorial sover-
eignty is not unlimited in stating that “admittedly, there is a rule prohibiting the upper ri-
parian State from altering the waters of a river in circumstances calculated to do serious
injury to the lower riparian State”.98 This tribunal did, however, not find the principle rele-
vant in the case because the French project would not alter the waters of the Spanish riv-
er.99 The tribunal also concluded that France could carry out the project without Spain’s
consent, and accordingly that Spain could not veto the planned project.100
2.2.4 Combined importance of early case law

Although Trail Smelter only considered pollution of air, the tribunal’s reasoning was based
on the concepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity; it thus had a potential to be extend-
94
Ibid. p. 194.
95
Ibid. p. 198.
96
Arbitration Treaty between France and Spain, signed 10 July 1929.
97
Lac Lanoux, English translation. p. 195.
98
Ibid. p. 197.
99
Lac Lanoux, p. 308.
100
See also section 4.2.2.
24
ed to other forms of transboundary damage.101 The Corfu Channel case did not concern
environmental issues or shared natural resources, and support of a more specific principle
on harm in relation to the environment can therefore not be directly inferred from it, but
still, it confirmed a general principle of international law that underlies some of the most
fundamental rules of international environmental law. In Lac Lanoux, the principle first
asserted in Trail Smelter with regard to air pollution, and then later in more general terms
in Corfu Channel was reaffirmed in the context of international watercourses law. Togeth-
er, these three decisions gave the old sic utere principle new importance in relation to
transboundary environmental harm, and as will be shown in the following chapters, they
gave rise to the development of important rules of environmental law.
It must, however, be noted that none of these cases focused on environmental protec-
tion. Although the Trail Smelter and Lac Lanoux arbitrations regarded alleged harm to the
environment of another state, the focus was rather narrowly on territorial integrity and the
consequences of transboundary damage.102 The idea of the environment as a common
good, worth protecting regardless of whether the territory of a specific state is injured, did
not find its way to any international court until several years later, after the adoption of the
Stockholm Declaration in 1972.103
2.3 Soft law and multilateral treaties

The flexible and negotiable nature of the norm expressed in Trail Smelter was utilized in
the formulation of perhaps the most important principle of the 1972 Stockholm Declara-
tion, Principle 21, which was repeated twenty years later in Principle 2 of the 1992 Rio
Declaration.104 The wording of Principle 21 illustrates how the law relating to transbounda-
101
Stephens (2009) p. 133.
102
Viñuales (2008) p. 236.
103
The declaration was unanimously adopted at the first intergovernmental conference devoted to environ-
mental issues, the UN Conference on the Human Environment.
104
In Principle 2, two words were however added: “their own environmental and developmental policies”.
Environmental protection and economic development are often conflicting objectives, and thus, the seemingly
minor change in the formulation may suggest that developmental objections may be emphasized on the ex-
25
ry harm is based on a compromise between the two basic objectives pulling in opposing
directions; the sovereign right of states to exploit their own natural resources, and the right
not to have their environment destroyed or damaged by other states:
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of interna-
tional law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmen-
tal policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do
not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction. (Emphasis added.)
With an explicit reference to “damage to the environment” and by extending the jurisdic-
tional scope of the principle to “areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction” the rule
asserted in Trail Smelter, Corfu Channel and Lac Lanoux thus turned the focus from strict-
ly on territorial integrity, to environmental protection.
It was recognized by the parties that to give effect to the obligation expressed in
Principle 21, a more specific body of law would have to be developed.105 Therefore, the
declaration also included a provision which called on states to
cooperate to develop further the international law regarding liability and compensation for the
victims of pollution and other environmental damage caused by activities within the jurisdiction
or control of such States to areas beyond their jurisdiction.106
After the Stockholm Conference there was a great expansion of environmental treaties.
Several of these incorporate or refer to principle 21/2 in various ways, depending on the
pense of environmental objectives, which indicates a substantial change of the principle. However, the change
will probably not have had any practical effect; states pursued their developmental policies when exploiting
their natural resourced also before the change of words, and the change can therefore rather be regarded as a
confirmation of what was already accepted.
105
106
Principle 22.
26
purpose and object of the particular treaty.107 The principle is for example, not surprisingly,
included in treaties specifically aiming at preventing transboundary effects, such as the
1991 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Es-
poo Convention) and the 1992 Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Ac-
cidents (Industrial Accidents Convention). In these treaties the principle is expressed as an
obligation on states to take appropriate measures in terms of preventing transboundary im-
pacts.108
Principle 21/2 is also included in treaties that seek to protect the global commons,
such as the high seas and the atmosphere. A good example is the 1982 UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which in Article 193 state that “States have the sovereign
right to exploit their natural resources pursuant to their environmental policies and in ac-
cordance with their duty to protect and preserve the marine environment” This provision
focuses on protection on the environment per se, rather than on protection of the environ-
ment of affected states, which is typically the approach in treaties addressing shared re-
sources, such as the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses
and International Lakes (UNECE Water Convention).109
Several treaties include the principle in their preamble, either by including the prin-
110
ciple, or by referring to the whole Stockholm Declaration.111 These treaties often have
more developed and specialized versions of, or supplements to it in the actual treaty text.
107
Stephens (2009) p. 153.
108
Espoo Convention, Article 2 (1); Industrial Accidents Convention, Article 3.
109
Articles 1 (1), 2 (1), 2 (2) (b).
110
See e.g. the 2nd recital of the preamble of the Ozone Layer Protection Convention, the 8 th recital of UN-
FCCC, and the 3rd recital of the London Convention which all wholly incorporates the principle. The London
Convention was replaced in the London Protocol, which does not refer to the principle, but the Rio Declara-
tion is mentioned in the preamble as one of the relevant international agreements to be taken in to account,
and its Article 2 states that “[c]ontracting Parties shall individually and collectively protect and preserve the
marine environment from all sources of pollution”.
111
See e.g. the 3rd recital of the preamble of the Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from
Land-Based Sources for instance refers to “the recommendations of the United Nations conference on the
human environment, held in Stockholm in June 1972”.
27
This may be explained by the vague and scant wording of Principle 21/2 which does not
give much guidance to states on how to deal with activities involving risk of environmental
harm. Consequently, there is a pressing need for clarification and elaboration of the princi-
ple, for it to function as an environmental management tool in a global context.112
This is for example reflected in the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of
the Ozone Layer (Ozone Layer Protection Convention) which elaborates on the principle in
the sense that it has more specific provisions on how to prevent environmental harm in a
global context. The convention requires states to take appropriate measures “to protect hu-
man health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from
human activities which modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer”,113 and that they
shall in this regard “[c]o-operate by means of systematic observations, research and infor-
mation exchange in order to better understand and assess the effects of human activities”114
and “[a]dopt appropriate legislative or administrative measures and cooperate in harmoniz-
ing appropriate policies to control, limit, reduce or prevent human activities”.115
Another example is the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity
Convention) which main objective is “conservation of biological diversity”.116 This con-
vention fully incorporates the principle in its Article 3, which is given the exact same for-
mulation as Principle 21. But in addition to imposing an obligation on states to ensure that
their activities do not cause damage to the environment by incorporating Principle 21/2, the
convention sets out related procedural obligation, such as the obligation to develop national
strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.117
Interesting is also the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN-
FCCC). It has been debated whether it is possible to identify specific rights and obligations
from the UNFCCC, because it is a framework convention and does not have a complete
112
Stephens (2009) p. 153.
113
Article 2 (1).
114
Article 2 (2) (a).
115
Article 2 (2) (b).
116
Article 1.
117
Article 6.
28
and detailed regulatory regime.118 However, Article 2, which states that the ultimate objec-
tive of the convention is “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate sys-
tem”, indicate that the purpose of the treaty is to impose a duty to prevent dangerous cli-
mate change. Furthermore, Article 4 (2) litra a may be interpreted as specifically commit-
ting developed states to limit their emissions of greenhouse gases, stating that the parties to
Annex 1 (i.e. the industrialized states) shall “adopt national policies and take corresponding
measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting its anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs”.
2.4 Case law post-Stockholm
2.4.1 Nuclear Tests I

Only two years after the Stockholm Conference, the ICJ got the opportunity to address the
content and legal status of the rule which had now been formulated with explicit reference
to the environment in Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration, when a dispute arose be-
tween New Zealand and Australia on one side and France on the other, concerning the le-
gality of atmospheric nuclear tests conducted in the South Pacific by the French Govern-
ment from 1966 to 1972.119 New Zealand asked the Court to adjudge and declare that the
nuclear tests conducted in the region giving rise to radio-active fall-out, constituted a viola-
tion of New Zealand’s rights under international law and “that these will be violated by any
further such tests”.120 Australia’s submission was slightly different as the Court was asked
to declare whether carrying out further atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific was
inconsistent with rules of international law.121 Accordingly, while Australia focused on the
118
Voigt (2008) p. 5.
119
Nuclear Tests case, Australia v. France, ICJ Rep. (1974) p. 253 (hereinafter Nuclear Tests I, Australia v.
France) and New Zealand v. France, ICJ Rep. (1974) p. 457 (hereinafter Nuclear Tests I, New Zealand v.
France).
120
Nuclear Tests I, New Zealand v. France, para. 28.
121
Nuclear Tests I, Australia v. France, para. 11.
29
illegality of atmospheric tests in the area, New Zealand emphasized the illegality of nuclear
testing per se, regardless of method.
The Court interpreted the submissions and found that the objective of the applica-
tion was a termination of French atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific.122 It further
found that since France, by stating that it intended to cease atmospheric testing, had as-
sumed an obligation not to carry out further nuclear tests in the atmosphere in the South
Pacific, and consequently, the objective of the New Zealand and Australia’s applications
had been accomplished and the dispute thus no longer existed.123 The Court did therefore
not pronounce upon the merits in this case, and avoided to assess the claims presented by
Australia and New Zealand. This decision may be criticized as based on a misconceived
interpretation of the claims presented by the claimants, particularly the claims of New Zea-
land which was not limited to atmospheric tests.124
It is nevertheless interesting to look at how Principle 21 was addressed by the par-
ties in the proceedings, as this may indicate what Australia and New Zealand’s opinio juris
with regard to the principle was at the time.125 Particularly Australia presented extensive
argumentation concerning the principle and its applicability in this case. In 1963 the Nucle-
ar Test Ban Treaty had been adopted, but since France was not party to the treaty, it was
asserted that nuclear tests in the atmosphere were prohibited by customary international
law.126 Australia’s Solicitor-General Mr. Ellicott argued that the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
combined with resolutions of international organizations which called for an end to nuclear
testing in the atmosphere, evidenced opinio juris for a prohibition of nuclear tests.127 He
122
Ibid. para. 31.
123
Nuclear Tests I, New Zealand v. France paras. 55-56 and Australia v. France para. 59.
124
Nuclear Tests I, New Zealand v. France, para. 28. See Stephens (2009) p. 143.
125
On pleadings as evidence of custom, see Sands (1998) p. 605. Sands suggests that pleadings in this regard
have the same value as “opinions of official legal advisors, official manuals on legal questions, and policy
statements”.
126
Okowa (2000) p. 100.
127
Nuclear Tests I, Australia v. France, Provisional Measures, Oral Proceedings, p. 185.
30
noted that Principle 21 addressed the “the very center of the problem in the present case”
and suggested that
the significance of pronouncements of this character as evidencing the evolution of a rule of cus-
tomary international law which prohibits State conduct tending towards pollution and the creation
of hazards to human health and the environment and in particular a rule prohibiting the conduct
of atmospheric nuclear tests.128
Mr. Ellicott further argued that the specific function of the Stockholm resolution and decla-
rations “is that they reflect what the community regards as an acceptable standard of con-
duct in these matters – and correlatively what the community regards as an unacceptable
standard” and as the protection of the environment and human health are matters that have
relatively recently gained the attention of the international community, “it stands to reason
that the traditional standards of State freedom to pursue activities which may affect them
must undergo some restriction”.129 Mr. Ellicott repeatedly referred to Principle 21 and pre-
sented strong environmental arguments. Australia’s main argument, however, appears to
have been that the fall-out from the atmospheric tests both violated Australian sovereignty,
and thus based in traditional international law.130
The added separate opinions of this case are interesting because they demonstrate
how divided the judges were in their views on the legal status of the obligation not to cause
transboundary harm and its link to environmental protection, at the time. Jugde Petrén vot-
ed for the Court’s judgment, but argued that the admissibility depended on the existence of
a rule of customary international law which prohibited states from carrying out atmospheric
tests of nuclear weapons giving rise to radio-active fall-out on the territory of other
states,131 because if it did not, “the dispute would have no object falling within the domain
128
Ibid.
129
Ibid.
130
Ibid. pp. 185-186.
131
Separate opinion of Judge Petrén, p. 305.
31
of the Court’s jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Court is only competent to deal with disputes in
international law”.132 He noted that
[t]he Australian Government considers that its sovereignty has thereby been infringed in a man-
ner contrary to international law. As there is no treaty link between Australia and France in the
matter of nuclear tests, the Application presupposes the existence of a rule of customary interna-
tional law whereby States are prohibited from causing, through atmospheric nuclear tests, the
deposit of radio-active fall-out on the territory of other States. It is therefore the existence or
non-existence of such a customary rule which has to be determined.133
He concluded that there was no such rule of customary international law due to the lack of
state practice; it was not proved that a sufficient number of states capable of manufacturing
nuclear weapons desisted from carrying out atmospheric tests because they consider this to
be prohibited under international law.134 Similar approaches were taken by Judges Gros135
and Ignacio-Pinto136 in their separate opinions.
Jugde Castro took a quite different approach in his dissenting opinion.137 He noted
that Australia's complaint against France of violation of its sovereignty by introducing
harmful matter into its territory without its permission, “is based on a legal interest which
has been well known since the time of Roman law”, namely the sic utere principle.138 He
pointed out that it is a feature of modern law that the owner of a property is liable for
smoke and smells that oversteps the physical limits of his properties, and referred both to
Trail Smelter and Corfu Channel.139 On this basis he implied the existence of a rule of cus-
tomary international law prohibiting noxious fumes of international properties and held that
132
Ibid. p. 302.
133
Ibid. p. 304.
134
Ibid. p. 306.
135
Separate opinion of Judge Gros, p. 276.
136
Separate opinion of Judge Ignacio-Pinto, p. 308.
137
Dissenting opinion of Judge de Castro, p. 372.
138
Ibid. p. 388.
139
Ibid. p. 388-389.
32
[i]f it is admitted as a general rule that there is a right to demand prohibition of the emission by
neighbouring properties of noxious fumes, the consequence must be drawn, by an obvious anal-
ogy, that the Applicant is entitled to ask the Court to uphold its claim that France should put an
end to the deposit of radio-active fall-out on its territory.140
2.4.2 Nuclear Tests II

In 1995, France decided to carry out a series of underground nuclear tests in the South Pa-
cific. As a response to this, New Zealand attempted to reactivate the proceedings from
1974 case by invoking paragraph 63 of this judgment, where the Court had stated that it
based its decision on France’s declaration to refrain from further nuclear testing, and that
“if the basis of the Judgment were to be affected, the Applicant could request an examina-
tion of the situation in accordance with the provisions of the Statute”.141
The question brought before the Court was whether these new tests would violate
the rights under international law of New Zealand and other states, and that it was unlawful
for France to undertake the tests without first conducting an environmental impact assess-
ment.142 The ICJ concluded that as France was now engaged in underground nuclear test-
ing, and since the 1974 judgment dealt only with atmospheric tests, it could not take ac-
count of the arguments derived by New Zealand.143 Consequently, the Court did not ad-
dress the merits, and once again avoided a proper assessment of the claims presented to it.
The Court did, however, give an important obiter dictum in its dismissal of New Zealand’s
request. The Court referred to “the development of international law in recent decades”144
and stated that:
140
Ibid. p. 389.
141
Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of
20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests Case, New Zealand v. France, ICJ Rep. (1995) p. 288 (hereinafter
Nuclear Tests II).
142
Nuclear Tests II, para. 6.
143
Ibid. para. 63.
144
Ibid.
33
Whereas moreover the present Order is without prejudice to the obligations of States to respect
and protect the natural environment, obligations to which both New Zealand and France have
in the present instance reaffirmed their commitment.145 (Emphasis added.)
The formulation “the obligations of States” implies an understanding of the obiter as a ref-
erence to obligations whose validity is not dependent on a basis in treaty law, which indi-
cates that the Court here recognizes that the obligations referred to are either general prin-
ciples of international law, or customary international law norms. Furthermore, this state-
ment arguably indicates that the Court took notice of an evolving body of international law
concerning environmental protection. However, it appears quite unclear precisely what
obligations the Court was referring to. To provide some context for the Court’s statement
and to determine what obligations New Zealand and France had “reaffirmed their commit-
ment” to in this case, it is thus necessary to look at the claims presented by the parties in
the proceedings.
One of the environmental obligations addressed by both France and New Zealand in
their pleadings was the obligation to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or con-
trol do not cause damage to the environment of other states or areas beyond any jurisdic-
tion.146 New Zealand asserted that this was a “well-established principle of customary in-
ternational law”147 and France picked up on this assertion, expressly recognizing that a gen-
eral obligation to protect the environment existed, although it did not consider it to be a
breach of this obligation to carry out nuclear tests.148 Hence, the disagreement in this regard
145
Ibid. para. 64.
146
Other environmental obligations referred to was a general prohibition of introduction of radioactive mate-
rial into the marine environment, the precautionary principle and the duty to conduct environmental impact
assessment. France clearly enough did not affirm its commitment to the first two, but seemingly accepted that
it had an obligation to carry out environmental impact assessment, although questioning the scope of the
obligation and denied having violated it, see Nuclear Tests II, Oral Proceedings, pp. 16-20. The concept of
environmental impact assessment will be discussed further below in section 4.1.
147
Nuclear Tests II, Oral Proceedings, p. 11.
148
Ibid. p. 57.
34
seems to be not about the content of the law, but about the law’s application to the acts, and
it is thus plausible that this is one of the obligations referred to in the Court’s obiter.
The separate opinions of the three dissenting judges, Judges Weeramantry, Koroma
and Judge ad hoc Sir Geoffrey Palmer, also support the theory that the majority in its obiter
referred to an obligation not to cause transboundary environmental harm. All three judges
mentioned the principle, although only Judge Weeramantry expressly stated that “no nation
is entitled by its own activities to cause damage to the environment of any other nation”
and that this was a rule of customary international law.149 He described it as a “fundamental
principle of modern environmental law”, and further stated that
[i]t is in the context of such a deeply entrenched principle, grounded in common sense, case
law, international conventions, and customary international law that the Court must reach a de-
termination as to whether a prima facie case of danger to its rights has been made out by New
Zealand.150
Judge Koroma was somewhat more moderate, stating that “under contemporary interna-
tional law, there is probably a duty not to cause gross or serious damage which can reason-
ably be avoided, together with a duty not to permit the escape of dangerous substances”
(emphasis added).151 Judge Palmer did not expressly address the question of the principle’s
legal status, but recognized that the “obvious and overwhelming trend of these develop-
ments from Stockholm to Rio has been to establish a comprehensive set of norms to protect
the global environment” and further that there is “widespread recognition now that there
are risks that threaten our common survival.”152
149
Dissenting opinion of Judge Weeramantry, p. 347.
150
Ibid. pp. 346-347.
151
Dissenting opinion of Judge Koroma, p. 378.
152
Dissenting opinion of Judge Palmer, p. 409.
35
2.4.3 The advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapons
An important contribution to substantial issues of international environmental law was
made in the advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons.153
In 1995 the UN General Assembly requested the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the
following question: “Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted
under international law?”154 The Court gave its advisory opinion in 1996, addressing this
complex and very wide question. There was no reference to the environmental impact of
the use of nuclear weapons in the question posed, but some states that participated in the
proceedings before the Court had argued that the use of nuclear weapons was unlawful
according to “existing norms relating to the safeguarding and protection of the environ-
ment”.155 Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration was among the legal instruments in-
voked.156 A number of states argued that the principle reflected customary law, and alt-
hough some argued that the principle was irrelevant to the case, none challenged this view
on the legal status of the principle.157
In its discussion of the relevance of environmental norms for the question of the le-
gality of nuclear weapons, the Court made some important remarks with regard to interna-
tional environmental law. It explicitly recognized that the environment “is under daily
threat and that the use of nuclear weapons could constitute a catastrophe for the environ-
ment” and that it “is not an abstraction but represents the living space, the quality of life
and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn.”158 The Court recalled
its obiter dictum from Nuclear Tests II cited above, and further stated:
153
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, advisory opinion, ICJ Rep. (1996) p. 226 (hereinafter
Legality of Nuclear Weapons).
154
Legality of Nuclear Weapons, para. 1.
155
Ibid. para. 27.
156
Ibid.
157
158
36
The existence of the general obligation of States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction
and control respect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national control is now
part of the corpus of international law relating to the environment.159
Although the Court found that the use of nuclear weapons was not specifically prohibited
by existing international law, it emphasized that international law did indicate that “im-
portant environmental factors that are properly to be taken into account in the context of the
implementation of the principles and rules of the law applicable in armed conflict”.160 The
Court concluded that “the most directly relevant applicable law governing the question …
is that relating to the use of force enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the law ap-
plicable in armed conflict”,161 and went on to discuss provisions of the Charter relating to
the threat or use of force and law applicable in situations of armed conflict, including prin-
ciples of humanitarian law and neutrality. The Court’s final conclusions made no explicit
reference to environmental law.
With its statement that the existence of the general obligation of States to ensure
that activities within their jurisdiction and control respect the environment of other States
or of areas beyond national control is now part of the corpus of international law relating
to the environment, the Court affirmed the general principle that had been expressed in the
Corfu Channel case in the context of environmental protection, and recognized the necessi-
ty of environmental protection, regardless of whether there had been a violation of another
state’s territory or not. The reference to the obligation being part of “the corpus of interna-
tional law relating to the environment”162 indicates that the principle is part of the interna-
tional law which is binding on states regardless of treaty law. The statement has later been
159
Ibid. paras. 29, 32.
160
Ibid. para. 33.
161
Ibid. para. 34.
162
Ibid. para. 29.
37
repeated in several decisions of international courts and tribunals,163 and many scholars
regard this statement as recognition of Principle 21/2 reflecting customary law.164
Seeing the statement as a confirmation of the norm being part of customary interna-
tional law is not unproblematic as it is formulated in vague and scant terms, and moreover,
the Court failed to refer expressly to the principle as a customary norm. A scholar who em-
braces a more careful interpretation of the statement is Jorge Viñuales. He stresses that
saying that the principle is “part of the corpus of international law relating to the environ-
ment” is not the same as saying that it is part of general international law. He further em-
phasizes that in the paragraphs preceding this statement, the Court was mostly concerned
with treaty law, with explicit references to “the treaties in question”.165
Judge Weeramantry seems to have taken notice of this ambiguity in the Court’s
statement.166 In his dissenting opinion, he recognized explicitly the customary status of
several important environmental principles. Judge Weeramantry has often taken quite pro-
gressive views in environmental context,167 and the views he presented in his dissenting
opinion is his alone and cannot be regarded as an elaboration of the view of the majority. It
is nonetheless interesting to look at his approach to the legal status of the principle. His
pronouncements on the matter are in great contrast to the ambiguity in the formulations of
the majority:
Environmental law incorporates a number of principles which are violated by nuclear weapons.
The principle of intergenerational equity and the common heritage principle have already been
163
See the discussion of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros and Pulp Mills cases below. The statement has also been
repeated by other international tribunals; see e.g. the Iron Rhine arbitration, Belgia v. the Netherlands, PCA
(2005) paras. 222-223 (hereinafter Iron Rhine).
164
See e.g. Sands and Peel (2012) p. 191, Nanda and Pring (2003) p. 21 and ILC Rep. (2001) Document
A/56/10 p. 37, para. 3.
165
Viñuales (2008) p. 246.
166
Ibid.
167
See his dissenting opinions in Nuclear Tests II, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros and the Kasikili/Sedudu Island
case, Botswana v. Namibia, ICJ Rep. (1999) p. 1045.
38
discussed. Other principles of environmental law, which this request enables the Court to rec-
ognize and use in reaching its conclusions, are the precautionary principle, the principle of trus-
teeship of earth resources, the principle that the burden of proving safety lies upon the author of
the act complained of, and the ‘polluter pays principle’, placing on the author of environmental
damage the burden of making adequate reparation to those affected. There have been juristic ef-
forts in recent times to formulate what have been described as "principles of ecological securi-
ty" - a process of norm creation and codification of environmental law which has developed un-
der the stress of the need to protect human civilization from the threat of self-destruction …
These principles of environmental law thus do not depend for their validity on treaty provisions.
They are part of customary international law. They are part of the sine qua non for human sur-
vival.168 (Emphasis added.)
2.4.4 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros
The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case was the first contentious case in which the ICJ considered
issues in international environmental law in depth.169 The background for the dispute was
the construction of a barrage system on the River Danube. In 1977, Hungary and Czecho-
slovakia had signed a treaty which provided for construction and operation of a system of
locks, as a joint investment by the parties, according to the treaty’s preamble for the pur-
pose of “the broad utilization of the natural resources of the Bratislava-Budapest section of
the Danube river for the development of resources, energy, transport, agriculture and other
sectors of the national economy of the Contracting Parties”.170 The project, which started in
1978, included the building of locks at Gabčíkovo on Czechoslovak territory, and Nagyma-
ros on Hungarian territory.
The project received intense criticism in Hungary, and in 1989 the Hungarian Gov-
ernment decided to suspend the works at Nagymaros while waiting for various environ-
168
Dissenting opinion of Judge Weeramantry, pp. 502-503.
169
The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case, Hungary v. Slovakia, ICJ Rep. (1997), p. 7 (hereinafter
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros).
170
Treaty concerning the construction and operation of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros System of Locks, signed
16 September 1977.
39
mental studies to be concluded.171 Later the same year, Hungary abandoned the works at
Nagymaros due to concerns for its national environment in the region. 172 Czechoslovakia
had at this point already committed enormous resources to the project.173 Negotiations were
being held, and Czechoslovakia started looking at alternative solutions, among them the so-
called “Variant C” solution, which entailed a unilateral diversion of the river by Czecho-
slovakia on its territory.174 In 1991, work on Variant C began. Discussions between the
parties continued, but the parties failed to reach an agreement, and in 1992 the Hungarian
Government transmitted a note to the Czechoslovak Government terminating the treaty.175
Slovakia, which had now become an independent state, proceeded to the damming of the
river. In 1993 the dispute was submitted to the ICJ.
The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros judgment is significant in relation to several issues of
international law. With regard to international environmental law and the no-harm rule,
particularly three aspects of the judgment are of interest.176 The first aspect concerns the
questions whether Hungary was permitted to suspend and abandon the project without in-
curring international responsibility because of a “state of necessity”. 177 In this regard, the
Court considered the basis conditions for a state of necessity to be invoked.178 One of the
conditions is that the act (of necessity) is the only means of safeguarding an “essential in-
terest”.179 The Court noted that ecological preservation of territory was among the situa-
tions that could occasion a state of necessity and proclaimed that it had “no difficulty in
acknowledging that the concerns expressed by Hungary for its natural environment in the
171
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, para. 22.
172
Ibid.
173
Separate opinion of Judge Weeramantry, p. 116.
174
175
Ibid.
176
See also Viñuales (2008) p. 249.
177
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros. para. 49.
178
The conditions for a state of necessity to be invoked are set forth in the Draft Articles on State Responsi-
bility, and are recognized as customary international law.
179
40
region affected by the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project related to an ‘essential interest’ of
that State.”180 Although Hungary’s submission regarding this question did not succeed be-
cause some of the other key component elements of a state of necessity were not present,181
the Court expressly recognized Hungary’s concerns relating to protection of the natural
environment. In the literature, commentators have argued that this part of the judgment
supports the fact that norms of customary international law on environmental protection are
evolving.182
The second aspect is that in connection with its statement on environmental protec-
tion being an essential interest, the Court further emphasized “the great significance that it
attaches to respect for the environment”183 and recited the paragraph from the advisory
opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons discussed above regarding the general obliga-
tion on states to ensure that their activities respect the environment of other States or of
areas beyond national control being part of “the corpus of international law relating to the
environment”.184 This may indicate that the Court considered the general obligations re-
ferred to in the advisory opinion to have the same basis as the essential nature of environ-
mental protection, and that this basis was general international law in the meaning custom-
ary law of general principles of law.185
The third aspect is that with regard to its claim that the notification of termination of
the treaty was lawful, and thus effective, Hungary noted that “subsequently imposed re-
quirements of international law in relation to the protection of the environment precluded
180
Ibid. para. 53.
181
Ibid. paras. 42, 44-45.
182
McIntyre (1998) p. 85, Viñuales (2008) p. 249. According to Viñuales, the Court acknowledged “that
environmental interests may amount to ‘essential interests’ in the meaning of the customary rule providing for
the state of necessity defense. While an interest is conceptually different from a norm, the legally protected
interest assumes that such interest has legal relevance irrespectively (in this case) of any treaty”.
183
184
Ibid. para. 53.
185
Viñuales (2008) p. 249.
41
performance of the Treaty”.186 With regard to this question, the Court spoke of environ-
mental norms in a way that may be read as a reference to their being customary interna-
tional law: “On the other hand, the Court wishes to point out that newly developed norms
of environmental law are relevant for the implementation of the Treaty”.187
2.4.5 Pulp Mills

The Pulp Mills188 dispute arose as Uruguay authorized and started the construction of two
pulp mills sited on the banks of the River Uruguay, a river which forms the international
boundary between Uruguay and Argentina, and which is used for recreation, fishing, drink-
ing water and tourism by both states.189
In 1975 Argentina and Uruguay had entered into a treaty, the Statute of the River
Uruguay, in order to “establish the joint machinery necessary for the optimum and rational
utilization of the River Uruguay, in strict observance of the rights and obligations arising
from treaties and other international agreements in force for each of the Parties.”190 The
Statute required that if a party were planning activities involving risk of significant damage
to the other party, prior notification was obligatory, and the party planning the activity
could only proceed if the notified country had no objections.191 Furthermore, the Statute
established the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay (CARU), consisting of
an equal number of representatives of each party, whose functions included monitoring of
projects, regulation and coordination.192
In 2006, Argentina filed an application instituting proceedings against Uruguay to
the ICJ, where it expressed concerns that the mills posed “major risks of pollution of the
186
187
Ibid. para. 112. See also Viñuales (2008) p. 249.
188
The Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, Argentina v. Uruguay, ICJ Rep. (2010) p. 14
(hereinafter Pulp Mills).
189
Pulp Mills, Application instituting proceedings, para. 5.
190
Ibid. para. 6.
191
Ibid. para. 7.
192
Ibid. para. 6.
42
river, deterioration in biodiversity, harmful effects on health and damage to fish stocks, as
well as to the extremely serious consequences for tourism and other economic interests”, in
addition to visual pollution and noise which would allegedly be caused by the mills.193 Ar-
gentina claimed that Uruguay had violated specific provisions entrenched in the 1975 Stat-
ute, but also that substantive and procedural provisions of customary and conventional
rules were breached, as the Statute incorporated obligations of international law by refer-
ence.194 These were, more specifically, substantive obligations to take all necessary
measures for the optimum and rational utilization of the river and to prevent transboundary
environmental damage, and procedural obligations to notify, inform and cooperate. 195 Ar-
gentina also contended that since Uruguay’s alleged procedural violations were inevitably
connected to its substantive violations; a breach of procedural obligation also entailed a
breach of substantial obligations.196
Article 60 of the 1975 Statute established that any dispute concerning the interpreta-
tion or application of the Statute, that could not be settled by negotiations, would be sub-
mitted to the ICJ, and both parties thus acknowledged that the ICJ had jurisdiction in this
case. However, the Court found that the claims relating to noise and visual pollution were
outside its jurisdiction, because the 1975 Statute only protected the aquatic environment of
the river.197
In the judgment on the merits, the Court started by assessing whether procedural
duties had been breached by Uruguay. In this regard, the Court stated that the procedural
duties to notify, inform and cooperate were grounded in a principle of prevention, which as
a customary rule had its origin in “the due diligence that is required of a State in its territo-
ry”.198 To describe this principle, the statement from Corfu Channel that it is “every State’s
obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of
193
Ibid. para. 15.
194
Ibid. para. 24.
195
Ibid.
196
Ibid. para. 68.
197
Pulp Mills, paras. 48-52.
198
Ibid. para. 101.
43
other States” was repeated.199 The Court further stated that “a State is obliged to use all the
means at its disposal in order to avoid activities which take place in its territory, or in any
area under its jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the environment of another State”
and further pointed to its own pronouncement in the advisory opinion on the Legality of
Nuclear Weapons where it established that this obligation was part of the corpus of interna-
tional law relating to the environment.200
The Court found that Uruguay was obliged to inform CARU prior to the authoriza-
tion of the mills when it was discovered that the project involved a risk of causing signifi-
cant harm to Argentina, and that it had breached this obligation.201 It also stated that in or-
der to fulfil the obligations to cooperate and notify Uruguay was required to conduct envi-
ronmental impact assessments.202 The Court did however not find that Uruguay had
breached any substantive obligations under the 1975 Statute or general international law, as
Argentina had not proved any substantial harm besides smell and noise from the mills,
which as mentioned above, it found not to fall within its jurisdiction.203
2.4.6 Summary
As seen above, the Court’s opportunity to address the rule reflected in Principle 21/2 in the
Nuclear Tests cases in 1974 and 1995, respectively, was never utilized for procedural rea-
sons. The divided views among the judges adding dissenting and separate opinions on the
legal status of Principle 21/2 and its link to environmental protection in the first Nuclear
Tests case shows that it was not widely accepted that this principle reflected customary law
at the time. When the proceedings where sought reactivated 21 years later, the arguments
proposed by New Zealand regarding customary status appeared more forceful and well
grounded, and viewed in connection with the dissenting opinions of Judges Koroma, We-
eramantry and Palmer, and the Court’s somewhat vague obiter dictum on “obligations of
199
Ibid.
200
Ibid.
201
202
Ibid. para. 119.
203
Ibid. paras. 263-264. The ICJ also stated that Argentina had the burden of proof of harm, see section 3.6.3.
44
States to respect and protect the natural environment”, indicate that the support of the cus-
tomary nature of the principle had increased.
In the Legality of Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion, the principle was finally ad-
dressed by the majority of the Court, which acknowledged that a general obligation of
states to “ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control respect the environment
of other States or of areas beyond national control is now part of the corpus of internation-
al law relating to the environment” (emphasis added).204 Although the statement was not
without ambiguity, this paragraph has widely been interpreted as a confirmation of its re-
flection of customary international law, and the fact that the paragraph in question was sub-
sequently repeated in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, in addition to the classification of environ-
mental concerns as an “essential interest” and the reference to “newly developed norms”
also strengthens this view. In Pulp Mills, the Court repeated the statement once again, and
also made some important pronouncements that clarify certain aspects of how a state must
conduct itself to fulfil the obligation. This will be discussed more in depth in Chapter 3 and
4.
Based on the reviewed pronouncements of the ICJ cited above, it seems defendable
to conclude that the Court considers the no-harm rule to be a general rule whose validity is
not dependent on basis in any treaty law.205 The subsequent discussions of the study are
thus based on the assumption that the rule is of a customary character. The issue of legal
status is, however, not uncontroversial and subject to much attention and divided views in
the literature, and in Chapter 5 I will elaborate on the issue, and present some objections to
the view that the rule is part of customary international law.206
204
205
Identification of custom is one way which the ICJ may contribute to the development of international law,
see Tams (2013) p. 386. A statement made by the ICJ with regard to determining what an international law
rule is, is generally treated as “the most authoritative statement on the subject and accepted by law” by the
international community, see e.g. Buergenthal (2009) p. 404.
206
The issue of the legal status of the obligation is complex, and a thorough assessment of whether the obliga-
tion does indeed reflect customary international law would require an extensive empirical assessment and
search for evidence of state practice and opinio juris, which again would go beyond the scope of this study.
45
2.5 The ILC Articles on Prevention
Before I go on to analyse further the content of the obligation not to cause transboundary
environmental harm in light of the above presented cases, I will introduce a collection of
works which seems to have influenced the development and clarification of the law in his
field in collaboration with international jurisprudence, namely the work of the International
Law Commission on the law concerning transboundary harm. The ILC is a body of interna-
tional law experts established for the purpose of promoting “the progressive development
of international law and its codification”.207 Since it was established in 1947, it has contrib-
uted with works on about thirty topics of international law, concerning a great variety of
issues, and its works are generally considered good evidence of, and even as authoritative
statements of existing law.208
Following the international community’s recognition of a need for more generalized
rules and principles regarding transboundary harm issues, the ILC was given the task of
formulating a legal framework built on the Trail Smelter decision and Principle 21/2.209
The work was initiated in 1978 under the topic “International liability for injurious conse-
quences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law”. 210 The intention was to
supplement the rules on state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts and establish
rules governing liability for transboundary harm that arises from activities that are not per
se prohibited.211
After years with slow progress due to controversies with regard to the scope of the
work, the ILC divided its work on the subject into two core topics, the first being the scope
and nature of the duty to prevent transboundary harm and what amounts to a breach of this
primary rule, and the second being who should bear the costs of damaging impacts if the
207
Statute of the ILC, Article 1. See also Article 13 of the UN Charter which states that the General Assembly
shall “initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of … encouraging the progressive devel-
opment of international law and its codification”.
208
Rutledge (2011) p. 1088.
209
Stephens (2009) p. 155.
210
Ibid.
211
46
state of origin has discharged its obligation to prevent, but harm still occurs.212 The works
have resulted in two separate texts; the 2001 Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary
Harm from Hazardous Activities213 (hereinafter Articles on Prevention) and the 2006 Draft
Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of
Hazardous Activities (hereinafter Principles on Allocation of Loss).214 The former will play
a central role in the following discussion of this study.
The Articles on Prevention is a set of articles which attempts to develop Principle
21/2 into a legal framework more capable of judicial application. In the literature it has
been argued that the articles are essentially codifying already existing obligations and “se-
curely based in existing precedents”, drawing on case law, treaties and soft law instruments
such as the Rio Declaration.215 Because the ILC does not in its work distinguish between
codification and progressive development, it is often difficult to see when the work is of a
de lege ferenda character rather than an expression of already existing law. However, also
the part of the work which goes beyond simply codifying existing law is of importance. As
mentioned in 1.4, Article 38(1) litra d the Statute of the ICJ, which lists “teachings of the
most highly qualified publicists” as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law,
is commonly interpreted to include work by organizations such as the ILC.216 Accordingly,
the Articles on Prevention have on several occasions been cited in the pleadings of the par-
ties in cases concerning transboundary harm, both before the ICJ and other international
courts and tribunals.217
In accordance with Article 1, the Articles on Prevention apply to activities which
involve a risk of “causing significant transboundary harm through their physical conse-
212
See the 3rd recital of the preamble of the Principles on the Allocation of Loss.
213
ILC Report (2001) Document A/56/10 p. 370.
214
Ibid. Chapter VII.
215
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 141, Stephens (2009) p. 159.
216
There are also several examples of the Court relying on or utilizing the work of the ILC, see e.g. the ICJ’s
citing of the ILC’s former Article 33 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility as an agreeable expression
of the doctrine of necessity, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, para. 50.
217
See e.g. the MOX Plant Arbitration (Jurisdiction and Provisional Measures) (2003) PCA and Pulp Mills.
47
quences”. Article 3 require states to take undertake the steps and measures which would
generally be considered appropriate and proportional to the degree of risk of harm in the
specific instance. Article 4 require states to cooperate in good faith in terms of preventing
such activities from causing significant transboundary harm, while Article 5 require states
to take the necessary legislative, administrative or other action including the establishment
of suitable monitoring mechanisms to implement the provisions of the Articles. In accord-
ance with Article 6 and 7, states shall also require prior authorization for planned activities,
and any decision in respect of the authorization of an activity shall be based on an assess-
ment of the possible transboundary harm caused by that activity, including any environ-
mental impact assessment. If the assessment indicates a risk of causing significant trans-
boundary harm, Article 8 requires the state of origin to provide the state likely to be affect-
ed with timely notification of the risk and the assessment. States must also enter into con-
sultations, when one of the states concerned requests it, with a view to achieving acceptable
solutions regarding measures to be adopted in order to prevent harm, and shall seek solu-
tions based on an equitable balance of interests, in accordance with Articles 9 and 10.
The mentioned, most central, provisions of the Articles on Prevention and ancillary
commentaries will be addressed more in-depth in subsequent chapters, parallel with the
analysis of what can be derived from case law with regard to the content of the obligation
not to cause transboundary environmental harm.
48
3 Substantive obligations
The previous chapter demonstrated that states are under a general obligation not to cause
damage to the environment of other states or to areas beyond national jurisdiction. In the
present chapter I will analyse the features presented in Chapter 2 more in depth for the pur-
pose of identifying the more precise legal content of the obligation. The chapter mainly
focuses on the substantive content of the rule.
Sections 3.1. and 3.2 include a discussion of the question to what extent environ-
mental protection is encompassed by the no-harm rule, and a more in-depth analysis of the
threshold criterion which was briefly introduced in 1.3.1. In section 3.3, I look at how it
seems well established that the no-harm rule is not simply one of responsibility ex post fac-
to, but also require states to prevent and control transboundary harm. In sections 3.4 and
3.5 I discuss whether the no-harm rule is an obligation of result, or rather one to act with
due diligence in preventing harm, and what is required by states under such a due diligence
obligation. Lastly, in 3.6 I discuss the relationship to other environmental principles.
3.1 Environmental harm further defined

There is no doubt that damage and injury to property and persons is covered by the general
obligation not to cause transboundary harm;218 this was recognized already in Trail Smelter
where Canada was found liable for economic harm “to the territory of another or the prop-
erties or persons therein”.219 A more difficult question is to what extent environmental pro-
tection is encompassed by the obligation.220
In Trail Smelter, the tribunal only recognized economic harm, while possible com-
pensation for damage to wider environmental interests such as ecosystem diversity and
218
The terms “harm” and “damage” are used interchangeable in this study, and also encompass pollution
which is a narrower concept than environmental damage, see e.g. Article 1 of the 1979 Convention on Long-
range Transboundary Air Pollution compared to UNFCCC Article 1 (1).
219
220
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 184.
49
wildlife was not discussed,221 but the traditional view reflected in this decision seems to be
abandoned today. In Lac Lanoux a possibility of environmental harm in the pure sense was
indirectly recognized, as the Court referred to changes in composition and temperature of
the waters which allegedly injured Spanish interests,222 and separate claims regarding dam-
age to the environment were for example put forward in the Nuclear Tests cases and in the
case concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru.223 In Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, the
Court implicitly acknowledged that environmental damage could be treated separately,
stating that
Hungary is entitled to compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the diversion of the
Danube, since Czechoslovakia, by putting into operation Variant C, and Slovakia, in maintain-
ing it in service, deprived Hungary of its rightful part in the shared water resources, and exploit-
ed those resources essentially for their own benefit.224
Furthermore, as mentioned in Chapter 2, in Legality of Nuclear Weapons the ICJ referred

explicitly to an obligation of states to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and
control respect the environment, which was reaffirmed in the Pulp Mills and Gabčíkovo-
Nagymaros cases.225
The commentaries to the ILC Articles on Prevention encompass harm having ef-
fects on “human health, industry, property, environment or agriculture in other States”226
and Principle 21/2 of the Stockholm and Rio Declarations refer to responsibility for “dam-
221
In the Trail Smelter case, the tribunal had to follow US law with regard to this issue. Allegedly, US tort
law accepts restoration of ecological loss to a bigger extent today, see Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 184.
222
Lac Lanoux, p. 303.
223
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, Nauru v. Australia, ICJ Rep. (1992) p. 240 (hereinafter Phosphate
Lands in Nauru).
224
225
226
ILC Report (2001) Document A/56/10, p. 388 para. 4. See also Article 2 (b) of the 2001 ILC Articles on
Prevention.
50
age to the environment”, although the concept of environmental damage is not defined.227
That the narrow Trail Smelter approach is abandoned also appears to be a dominating view
in the literature.228 Malgosia Fitzmaurice, for example, argues that the “intrinsic value of
the environment” is covered by the contemporary concept of harm, including both whole
ecosystems and individual components.229 Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell point out that treaty
law does not provide any precise uniform definition of what is meant by the “environ-
ment”, and thus “environmental harm”; the definitions vary depending on the purpose of
the treaty, and a generic definition of harm may thus not be given.230 They argue that while
prospective material injury is an essential element of the no-harm rule, it seems tenable that
the obligation does not only apply to loss of resources of an economic value, but also to the
more intrinsic value of for example natural ecosystems, biodiversity and areas of wilder-
ness and aesthetic significance.231
3.2 The threshold of harm
3.2.1 Establishing the threshold criterion

As indicated in Chapter 1, the no-harm rule does not apply to all transboundary environ-
mental harm – the harm must be of a certain degree of severity. The need for a threshold
criterion lies implicit in the balance between the two objectives commented on in section
2.1, that states have the responsibility not to cause damage outside its territory, but also, by
virtue of their sovereignty, the right to exploit the natural resources within their jurisdic-
tion. A state cannot demand that other states abstain from all activities that may have trans-
boundary impacts on the environment; this would mean a radical interference in the sover-
eign right of states to engage in economic activity within their own territory.
227
But see the Stockholm Declaration, Principle 2 which appears to describe the environment as “the natural
resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna”.
228
See e.g. Sands and Peel (2012) pp. 706-708 and Birnie, et al. (2009) pp. 184-186.
229
230
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 185.
231
Ibid.
51
Principle 21/2 of the Stockholm and Rio Declarations do not formulate explicit
thresholds of harm.232 The second part of Principle 21/2 seems, in itself, to require that
“damage to the environment” must be prevented, regardless of the severity of the damage.
The part must, however, be viewed in connection with the sovereign right of states “to ex-
ploit their own resources”, which is expressed in the first part of the principle. The two
competing objectives must be balanced against each other, which in turn require determina-
tion of a certain qualification of harm. Due to these considerations of territorial sovereign-
ty, a threshold must also be interpreted into other international law instruments prohibiting
environmental harm that does not contain an explicit threshold.
While the need for a threshold criterion is widely recognized, a much debated ques-
tion is what this criterion should be. Different terms have been used for qualifying damage
in different treaties, including “substantial”, “serious”, “appreciable” and “significant”.233
Each of these terms has a different meaning, imposing more or less stringent duties upon
states. Different approaches have also been taken with regard to the issue in international
jurisprudence. Early case law on transboundary harm suggests a relatively high threshold;
in Trail Smelter, the arbitral tribunal only considered activities which caused injury of “se-
rious consequences”,234 and similarly, the tribunal in the Lac Lanoux case set the threshold
at “serious injury”.235
The claims put forward by the parties in more recent jurisprudence do however in-
dicate a lower threshold of harm. In the Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru case, the Gov-
ernment of Nauru requested the Court to adjudge and declare that Australia were “under an
obligation not to bring about changes in the condition of the territory which will cause ir-
232
Other examples of international legal instruments that do not have explicit qualification of thresholds in
their text are UNCLOS, Art. 194 (2) and the Outer Space Treaty, Article 7 (1). It is clear that although they
do not specify the threshold, these and other provisions only apply to harm of a certain qualification.
233
In the ILC’s work on no-navigational use of international watercourses, the threshold criterion has been
changed from “serious” to “appreciable” and then to “significant”, which illustrates how difficult it was to
find a general accepted rules in this field of law, see Xue (2003) p. 8.
234
Trail Smelter case (1941) p. 1965.
235
Lac Lanoux, English translation, p. 197.
52
reparable damage to, or substantially prejudice, the existing or contingent legal interest of
another State”.236 Further, in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case, Hungary claimed that the
“obligation enunciated in Stockholm Principle 21 not to cause substantial damage to the
territory of another State, or to areas beyond national jurisdiction, had over time become a
rule of international law”.237 In Ecuador’s application in the Aerial Herbicide Spraying
case238 it was argued that “fumigations dispersed by Colombia along or near the boundary
line have been carried across the border and have caused significant deleterious effects in
Ecuador”.239 In the Pulp Mills case, the Court explicitly stated that the obligation applied to
“significant damage to the environment”.240
This tendency to lower the threshold mirrors the increased focus on environmental
protection and recognition of the severity of irreversible environmental harm. According to
the literature it is now well established that the rule applies to “significant”241 harm, which
is also the approach taken in the Articles on Prevention.242 According to the commentaries
to the Articles on Prevention, “significant” is “something more than ‘detectable’ but need
not be at the level of ‘serious’ or ‘substantial’”243 which shows that this is meant to be a
lower requirement of harm than that expressed in the Trail Smelter and Lac Lanoux cases.
3.2.2 What is “significant” harm?

Although there seems to be consensus on the requirement of “significant harm”, conclusive
answers to what the exact meaning of “significant” are not possible to find. Severity chang-
es with the circumstances, and therefore its content must be determined in relation to the
236
Phosphate Lands in Nauru, Preliminary Objections, p. 244.
237
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, Hungary’s Memorial, p. 318.
238
The case was settled and removed from the Court’s List on 13 September 2013 at the request of Ecuador.
239
Aerial Herbicide Spraying, Application instituting proceedings, para. 3.
240
Pulp Mills, para. 101.
241
See e.g. Lefeber (1996) p. 86.
242
Article 3.
243
ILC Rep. (2001) Document A/56/10, p. 388 para. 4.
53
specific context of each instance.244 This does not mean, however, that it is up to the states
to determine whether their activities have significant transboundary impact; according to
the commentaries to the Articles on Prevention the threshold shall be measured by “factual
and objective standards.”245
The method of establishing the precise threshold, i.e. where to draw the line be-
tween harm which is significant and harm which is not, is not clear either. Two alternative
approaches are suggested in the literature.246 The first approach implies that the threshold
of harm must be determined by balancing the socio-economic utility of an activity against
its detrimental effects on the environment; thus, the tolerable level of harm becomes higher
as the economic and developmental advantages of the activity increase.247 This method
takes into account economic and technical abilities, and consequently implies that the
threshold of harm varies for developed and developing countries.248 A downside to this
approach is that it could allow the utility of the activity to outweigh the seriousness of the
harm.249
According to the second approach, a de minimis test must be applied to the harm, a
test which implies that if the harm is not minor, i.e. insignificant or trivial, the threshold is
crossed. This approach is taken by the ILC in the Articles on Prevention, as the commen-
taries define significant as something more than “detectable”.250 The approach does how-
ever not clarify what type of harm is significant, and what is insignificant.
244
Ibid.
245
Ibid.
246
Lefeber (1996) pp. 87-89.
247
Ibid.
248
Ibid.
249
According to Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell, such an approach stands in danger of turning the obligation not
to cause transboundary harm into an obligation to use territory equitably and reasonably. They emphasize that
the case for making the threshold dependent on a balance of interests is not a strong one, and that the notion
that states must act with due diligence in preventing significant harm already allows for flexibility in individ-
ual cases, see Birnie, et al. (2009) pp. 187-188.
250
54
3.3 Prevention and control of harm
As demonstrated in Chapter 2, the traditional basis of the regulation of the conduct of states
in the field of international environmental law is the general rule prohibiting causation of
transboundary harm, which is rooted in the principle of state sovereignty, and developed on
the basis of the Trail Smelter arbitration. A significant question is whether the obligation
not to cause transboundary environmental harm is simply responsibility ex post facto, or if
it is also an obligation to prevent and control risk of harm. When environmental harm such
as extinction of species, waste of non-renewable resources, marine pollution or nuclear fall-
outs, first occurs, it is often irreplaceable. Prevention of harm is therefore essential in order
to handle environmental challenges.
Already in Trail Smelter, the significance of prevention of harm was recognized in
international jurisprudence, as the tribunal ordered Canada to take measures to prevent fu-
ture injury,251 and the view that the obligation is one of prevention is reflected in state prac-
tice and more recent judicial understandings of the obligation. For example, in the first Nu-
clear Tests case, the intricate chain of causation between the tests and eventual impacts on
the environment and human health made it difficult to establish serious harm to the satis-
faction of the Court, and Australia thus downplayed the requirement of actual damage to
have occurred, and rather based its argumentation on a view that deposit of radioactive ma-
terial violated international law even if it could not be established that the material had or
would cause environmental harm.252 In the second Nuclear Tests case New Zealand
claimed that the proposal to conduct nuclear testing without a prior risk assessment would
be illegal regardless of whether harm actually occurred.253
Principle 21/2 of the Stockholm and Rio Declarations is often interpreted to encom-
pass an obligation to prevent and control harm.254 In Legality of Nuclear Weapons the ICJ
slightly changed the verbatim of the principle from a responsibility on states to ensure that
251
Trail Smelter, p. 1966
252
Stephens (2009) p.141.
253
Nuclear Tests II, para. 6.
254
See e.g. ILC Rep. (2001) Document A/56/10 p. 390, para 3.
55
the activities within their jurisdiction and control do not “cause damage” to the environ-
ment, to an obligation to ensure that such activities “respect” the environment.255 It is un-
certain whether the Court meant to make any material changes to the principle, however,
the use of the general phrase “respect” may indicate that the principle is extended to in-
stances where no damage is caused. That states are obliged to prevent harm has later been
recognized by the ICJ. For example, in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case, it was confirmed
that “in the field of environmental protection, vigilance and prevention are required on ac-
count of the often irreversible character of damage to the environment and of the limita-
tions inherent in the very mechanism of reparation of this type of damage”.256
Most recently, in the Pulp Mills judgment, the Court importantly pronounced that
states are “obliged to use all the means at its disposal in order to avoid activities which take
place in its territory, or in any area under its jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the
environment of another State” (emphasis added), a statement which will be analysed further
later in this chapter.257 This is consistent with the Articles on Prevention, where the ILC
imply that the obligation not to cause transboundary environmental harm includes a duty of
prevention.258 In the commentaries to the Articles it is also emphasized that as policy, pre-
vention is better than cure:
The concept of prevention has assumed great significance and topicality. The emphasis upon
the duty to prevent as opposed to the obligation to repair, remedy or compensate has several
important aspects. Prevention should be a preferred policy because compensation in case of
harm often cannot restore the situation prevailing prior to the event or accident.259
255
256
257
Pulp Mills, para. 101. A preventive rule was also recognized in the Iron Rhine case where the Permanent
Court of Arbitration noted that in international law today “a growing emphasis has been put on the duty of
prevention”257 and that the duty is a “principle of general international law”, see Iron Rhine, para. 59.
258
Article 3.
259
56
Article 3 of the Articles on Prevention requires states to “prevent significant transboundary
harm and to minimize the risk thereof”, and in the commentaries to the Articles, it is stated
that Article 3 is based on the fundamental principle sic utere tuo alienum non leadas which
is reflected in Principle 21/2 of the Stockholm and Rio Declarations.260 The expression “at
any event” shows that the duty to prevent is first priority, but if prevention is not possible,
states are obliged to “minimize the risk of transboundary harm.”261 A preventive approach
is also endorsed in a large number of multilateral treaties,262 and it seems to be widely rec-
ognized in the literature that the no-harm rule requires states to prevent and control risk of
significant transboundary harm by regulating and controlling activities within their jurisdic-
tion and control.263
In order to hold states responsible for a violation of the no-harm rule, either for
caused environmental harm or for not taking measures to prevent harm, it is necessary to
identify a legally relevant behavior by a state, or to attribute activities of private persons to
the state.264 Most environmental damage and pollution is caused by private actors, typically
through industrial and agricultural activities, and are not ipso facto attributable to the state.
Still, even where private actors conduct activities causing environmental harm, this remains
within the state’s duty to control.265 In Trail Smelter the arbitral tribunal found that the rule
it expressed also applied to private activities that are not properly controlled by the gov-
260
ILC Rep. (2001) Document A/56/10 p. 390, para 3.
261
Ibid.
262
See e.g. Article 12(2) of the London Convention, Article 2 of the MARPOL Convention, Article 25 of the
Convention on the High Seas, Article 2 (1) of the Espoo Convention, and UNFCCC Article 2 which are pro-
visions concerning a variety of environmental activities and medias, but which all aim to prevent.
263
See e.g. Kiss and Shelton (2007) p. 91,Verheyen (2005) p. 130, Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 153 and Voigt p. 9.
A different theoretical approach to the obligation to prevent and control harm is chosen by Sands and Peel
who argue that there is a separate “principle of preventive action” which is distinct from the obligation not to
cause transboundary damage because its objective is to minimize damage environmental damage regardless
of state sovereignty, and because it can oblige a state to take measures to prevent damage within its own ju-
risdiction.
264
Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Article 2.
265
Voigt (2008) p. 9.
57
ernment, noting that “State owes at all times a duty to protect other States against injurious
acts by individuals from within its jurisdiction".266 Principle 21/2 does not differentiate
between state and private conduct, but it generally obliges states to ensure that damage is
not caused from their territory. The Articles of Prevention deals with the issue inter alia by
setting forth a requirement of prior authorization for activities undertaken in its territory or
otherwise under its jurisdiction or control which involve a risk of causing significant trans-
boundary harm.267 In the commentaries it is emphasized that states are not required to get
involved in operational issues relating to the activities within the scope of the articles.268 It
is stated that “[w]here these activities are conducted by private persons or enterprises, the
obligation of the State is limited to establishing the appropriate regulatory framework and
applying it in accordance with these articles.”269
3.4 Standard of care
3.4.1 The required level of prevention

A significant question is what level of prevention is required under the obligation, i.e. what
standard of care is required in the context of the no-harm rule. Two general approaches
have emerged on this issue. The first approach is that states are generally obliged to
achieve actual prevention of harm. The other approach is that states are under an obligation
to act with due care in implementing measures of prevention. Another way to conceptualize
this issue is to ask whether the no-harm rule is one of result, or conduct.270
266
267
Article 6.
268
269
Ibid.
270
In the literature, obligations of conduct are commonly defined as obligations that require states to make an
effort towards a result, while obligations of result are obligations that require a certain result to be achieved,
see Plakokefalos (2013) p. 37 and Dupuy (1999) pp. 378-382.
58
3.4.1.1 An obligation of actual prevention
According to the first approach, states are obliged to achieve actual prevention; states are
thus generally responsible for damage caused by their behavior, regardless of negligence or
fault. It is thus one of strict liability, and a causal link between the activity and the occur-
ring damage is generally enough to trigger the no-harm rule, as long as the required thresh-
old is exceeded.271 The approach thus places considerable emphasis on what level of harm
that must be tolerated under the obligation, and on causation.272
Many industrial activities, such as production of hazardous chemicals and nuclear
power generation, pose high risk of harm to human health and to the environment, and it is
therefore a common perception that the entity or person desiring to conduct such inherently
dangerous activities should also bear the risk of accidents or other damage caused by the
activities.273 As a reaction to this, regimes of strict liability have evolved in domestic law,
and some international treaties, for example treaties governing maritime carriage of nuclear
material and oil pollution, stipulate strict liability for private operators in the event of dam-
age.274 On this basis, some scholars have argued that a standard of strict liability generally
271
Tol and Verheyen (2004) p. 1112.
272
It is common to distinguish between general causation and specific causation, see Tol and Verheyen
(2004) p. 1112 and Voigt (2008) p. 15. General causation implies a causal link between activity and general
outcome, while the specific causation requires proof that a specific activity causes a specific type of damage.
The issue of state responsibility for climate change damages demonstrates the difference between the general
and specific causation; where the first type refers to a general link between greenhouse gas emissions and
climate change damages, and the other require proof that the damage is linked to a particular actor. The latter
is of course highly problematic in climate change context since it is impossible to attribute one state’s specific
polluting activity to specific damages. For a further discussion of the application of the no-harm rule in a
climate change context, see Chapter 6.
273
Verheyen (2005) p. 170.
274
See e.g. the 1971 Convention Relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Ma-
terial and the 1969 Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. International treaties only excep-
tionally impose forms of state liability for harm without fault, see Lefeber (1996) pp. 160-166. One example
is Article II of the 1972 Space Liability Convention, which states that “[a] launching State shall be absolutely
59
exist in the context of environmental harm for certain ultrahazardous activities.275 Sands
and Peel, for example, suggest that strict liability for such activities might thus be consid-
ered a general principle of international law.276
A rather extreme view related to the absolute prevention approach was taken in the
early work of the ILC; it was suggested that activities involving risk of harm are as such
unlawful and therefore prohibited.277 A great amount of environmental damage is resulted
from an activity that is in itself lawful. A good example is the Trail Smelter arbitration;
having a smelter plant was lawful, but Canada was still held responsible for the harm that
the smelter plant caused to areas within US territory. A distinction between lawful and un-
lawful activities with regard to the no-harm rule therefore generally seems unfavorable, as
it would entail complicated questions of how activities involving risk of harm, but not be-
ing regarded as prohibited by international law as such, are to be addressed.278 The distinc-
tion is also criticized and found misconceived in the literature.279 Surely, some activities
involving risk of environmental harm, such as nuclear testing and dumping of hazardous
wastes, are prohibited by international law today. This means that states must not conduct
or authorize such activities, but adopt appropriate laws and means for administrative con-
trol, and the obligation thus appears to be one of conduct rather than result also in this con-
text.280
liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in
flight”.
275
See e.g. Verheyen (2005) p. 171. In the commentaries to the Article on Prevention, ultrahazardous activi-
ties are defined as activities “with a danger that is rarely expected to materialize but might assume, on that
rare occasion, grave (more than significant, serious or substantial) proportions”, see ILC Rep. (2001) Docu-
ment A/56/10, p. 381 para. 2.
276
277
See e.g. UN Doc. A/CN.4/428 (1990), para. 10.
278
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 151.
279
The distinction has e.g. been criticized by Alan Boyle, see Boyle (1990) p. 1. Former president of the ICJ
Rosalyn Higgins, also set aside the distinction, see Higgins (1994) pp. 163-165.
280
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 151.
60
This early approach taken by the ILC was controversial, and when the Commission
was requested to resume its work, it decided to pursue a more realistic track. The approach
taken in the 2001 Articles on Prevention is that extra precaution must be taken with regard
to ultrahazardous activities, but if the required precaution is taken, the state has discharged
its obligation.281 This means that according to the approach now taken by the ILC, conduct-
ing or allowing activities which per se involve great risk of causing harm, such as nuclear
power plants, remains lawful, and the nature of the activity is irrelevant as to whether
something falls within the scope of the obligation. The nature of the activity will however
play a role in the evaluation of whether a state has acted with the required conduct.
An absolute obligation of prevention, regardless of negligence or fault, places great
limitations on the right of states to exercise sovereign rights over their natural resources,
and pursue their own developmental and environmental policies. This makes it onerous to
argue for strict liability, at least for activities that are not ultrahazardous. Furthermore,
while an obligation of actual prevention, in effect a prohibition of all harm that exceeds a
certain threshold, may at first glance seem progressive with regard to environmental protec-
tion, a weighty objection to this is that it would make standards of conduct irrelevant to the
performance of states. The focus would thus be on the entitlement of states to receive com-
pensation for harm and on shifting the burden of proof, instead of acting diligently to pre-
vent harm and control dangerous activities.282 If the obligation solely focuses on the occur-
rence of harm, this could mean that the failure of a state to take precaution when engaged
in or authorizing activities which entails a risk of significant harm, for example a hazardous
activity located close to the border of another state, would not have any legal consequences
if transboundary harm does not occur. Accordingly, an approach that focuses on conduct
and preventive measures seems essential in order to ensure environmental protection.
281
282
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 151.
61
3.4.1.2 An obligation to act with due care in implementing measures of prevention
The other approach is that the substantive obligation of harm prevention is one to act with
due diligence in implementing measures of prevention. According to this approach, the
concept of due diligence is evoked as a test to evaluate the conduct required by states, and
the no-harm rule is thus breached if the required standard of care is not complied with. This
approach also implies that if the state meets the required standard of care, and harm still
occurs, the state is free from responsibility.
This is the approach taken by the ILC in the Articles on Prevention. According to
the commentaries to the Articles, states are not required to guarantee that significant harm
is totally prevented in cases where it is not possible to do so.283 What it requires is for the
state to “exert its best possible efforts to minimize the risk”,284 and thus the obligation is
not necessarily transgressed if significant damage is caused – it is a state’s failure to take
reasonable steps to prevent harm that trigger the obligation. This reflects the recognition of
the rule being based on a compromise between territorial integrity and territorial sovereign-
ty; an obligation of actual prevention would probably be regarded as too big of an en-
croachment in the sovereign rights of states to control and exploit their own natural re-
sources. Reducing the obligation from an actual prohibition to a duty of conduct makes it
more easily accepted by states.
Principle 21/2 does not give clear guidance with regard to whether it is an obliga-
tion of actual prevention, or a duty to act with a certain conduct. The obligation is formu-
lated in a general manner, imposing a “responsibility to ensure” that damage is not caused
to the environment, which leaves room for both interpretations. The preparatory works of
the Stockholm Declaration show that a number of delegates opposed an absolute obligation
of strict responsibility, but maintained that some form of negligence should be required.285
This indicates that the states wanted to ensure that in the context of state responsibility for
transboundary damage, a breach of a standard of conduct must be showed before states can
283
ILC Rep. (2001) Document A/56/10, pp. 391-392 para. 7.
284
Ibid.
285
Verheyen (2005) p. 153.
62
request reparation.286 The dominating view among scholars also appears to be that the sub-
stantive obligation of harm prevention is one to comply with a minimum standard of con-
duct, and not to achieve actual prevention.287
3.4.2 The approach taken by the ICJ

International jurisprudence support the approach that the no-harm rule imposes an obliga-
tion to act with due diligence. A due diligence test was for example applied in Corfu Chan-
nel. When addressing the question of whether Albania was responsible for explosions in
Albanian waters and for the damage that resulted from them, the ICJ clearly evaluated Al-
bania’s conduct.288 The Court found that Albania did not notify the existence of the mine-
field or warn the warships of the danger they were approaching, and that nothing was done
by Albania to prevent the disaster. It concluded that “[t]hese grave omissions involve the
international responsibility of Albania”289 and accordingly recognized that the question
whether there is a breach of an obligation not to inflict damage on other states, is a question
of whether a state has acted with a certain standard of care, and that it is a state’s failure to
take reasonable measures to prevent harm which trigger the obligation.
That the no-harm rule imposes an obligation to act with due diligence is also con-
firmed in more recent jurisprudence from the Court. Of particular interest is Pulp Mills,
where the Court in its judgment expressly stated that the obligation to respect the environ-
ment of other states was an obligation to act with due diligence:
The Court points out that the principle of prevention, as a customary rule, has its origins in the
due diligence that is required of a State in its territory. It is ‘every State’s obligation not to allow
knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States’ (Corfu Channel
(United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 22). A State is thus
obliged to use all the means at its disposal in order to avoid activities which take place in its ter-
286
Ibid.
287
See e.g. Handl (2007) p. 538, Okowa (2000) p. 77, Sands and Peel (2012) p. 713 and Lefeber (1996) p. 64.
288
Corfu Channel, p. 15.
289
Ibid. p. 23.
63
ritory, or in any area under its jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the environment of
another State. This Court has established that this obligation ‘is now part of the corpus of inter-
national law relating to the environment’ (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,
Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 242, para. 29).290
The Court in the judgment further examined whether authorization, construction and future
commissioning of two pulp mills constituted a breach of substantive treaty obligations un-
der the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay, and “other obligations deriving from … general,
conventional and customary international law which are necessary for the application of the
1975 Statute”.291 Argentina argued that the substantive obligations to coordinate measures
to avoid changes in the ecological balance292 and to prevent pollution and preserve the
aquatic environment293 was violated, as it claimed that toxic discharges from one of the
mills had altered the ecological balance of the river, and held that these obligations were
obligations of result.294 This argument was specifically rejected by the Court, which found
that both states had an obligation of conduct to coordinate their regulatory activities for the
purpose of preserving the ecological balance, and stated that “[a]n obligation to adopt regu-
latory or administrative measures either individually or jointly and to enforce them is an
obligation of conduct.”295 Furthermore the Court noted that this was
an obligation which entails not only the adoption of appropriate rules and measures, but also a
certain level of vigilance in their enforcement and the exercise of administrative control appli-
cable to public and private operators, such as the monitoring of activities undertaken by such
operators, to safeguard the rights of the other party.296 (Emphasis added.)
290
291
Ibid. para. 169.
292
Statute of the River Uruguay. Article 36.
293
Ibid. Article 41.
294
295
Ibid. para. 187.
296
Ibid. para. 197.
64
Accordingly, the Court in clear terms confirmed that the obligation was one to act with due
care, and explicitly rejected Argentina’s argument that this was an obligation of result.
3.5 The due diligence standard
3.5.1 General
Following the discussion in the previous sections, it seems tenable to conclude that under
the no-harm rule, states are obliged to prevent and control transboundary harm and mini-
mize the risk thereof, and that this is an obligation to act diligently rather than one of actual
prevention. The next significant question is how the due diligence standard is to be deter-
mined, i.e. what is more specifically required by states under the obligation.
Due diligence is a “framework concept”, which means that its legal meaning de-
pends on the specific risks and activities in question.297 Accordingly, conclusive answers
on how to define due diligence are not found in state practice, case law, treaties or in the
literature. Historically, the concept of due diligence had its main importance in the context
of state responsibility for private actors, where it refers to the preventive measures expected
of a state when international law is breached by private persons or entities within the exclu-
sive control of the state, and not by the state as such.298 Emergence of primary obligations
that require states to act with due diligence has been seen in several fields of international
law, but have in recent years had its main influence in the field of international environ-
mental law.299 In the context of the no-harm rule there seems to be a growing consensus on
the basic elements of the standard and on the obligation being a minimum standard that
297
Voigt (2008) p. 10.
298
Koivurova (2013) p. 1.
299
See Koivurova (2013) p. 2 and Verheyen (2005) p. 175. The Alabama Claims arbitration, the United
Kingdom v. the United States, 1872, RIAA vol. 29, at p. 125 is often cited as the international precedent for
the concept. Due diligence was there defined as the standard to be exercised by a neutral government in pro-
portion to the risk that states would be exposed to. The concept was also thoroughly discussed in United
States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, United States of America v. Iran, ICJ Rep. (1980) p. 3,
where the ICJ stated that Iran had “failed altogether to take any ‘appropriate steps’ to protect the premises,
staff and archives of the United States' mission”, see para. 63.
65
provides a test where the conduct of the state must be compared to what a “good govern-
ment” would do in a particular situation of transboundary pollution.300
As indicated above, the Articles on Prevention formulate the due diligence obliga-
tion as an obligation to “take all appropriate measures to prevent significant transboundary
harm or at any event to minimize the risk thereof.”301 Similarly formulated provisions are
implemented in a number of environmental treaties and reports and resolutions from inter-
national organizations, which indicates that the concept of due diligence is found suitable
as a standard for environmental protection.302
In the commentaries to the Articles, the ILC has summarized the main elements of
the obligation. The commentaries describe the obligation as “manifested in reasonable ef-
forts by a State to inform itself of factual and legal components that relate foreseeably to a
contemplated procedure and to take appropriate measures, in timely fashion, to address
them”.303 It is further noted that acting with due diligence requires a state to “take unilateral
measures” to prevent or minimize risk of significant transboundary harm, and that such
measures include formulating and implementing policies designed to prevent and minimize
risk of harm.304 These policies are to be expressed in legislation and administrative regula-
tions and implemented through various enforcement mechanisms.”305
3.5.2 Contributions of jurisprudence

The concept of due diligence has been discussed in a few judicial decisions concerning
international environmental law. The most significant ICJ case in this regard is Pulp Mills.
The ICJ here gave a definition of the duty to act with due diligence which corresponds with
300
Voigt (2008) p. 11, Koivurova (2013) pp. 1-3.
301
Article 3.
302
See e.g. UNCLOS, Article 194 (1); Espoo Convention, Article 2 (1); Ozone Layer Protection Convention,
Article 2 and UNECE Water Convention Article 2 (1).
303
304
Ibid.
305
Ibid.
66
the definition given in the Articles of Prevention.306 Although the Court did not make ex-
plicit reference to the Articles, the Court seems to have utilized the work of the ILC when it
confirmed that the obligation to prevent harm creates legal obligation beyond simply avoid-
ing damage. The Court stated that the obligation is one to “use all the means at its dispos-
al”307 in order to avoid that activities which take place in its territory or under its jurisdic-
tion cause significant damage to the environment of another state, and explained that this
obligation requires both that appropriate regulations and measures are adopted, and moreo-
ver that these regulations are enforced.308 Under the obligation, states are furthermore re-
quired to ensure enforcement of these measures: to exercise administrative control applica-
ble to public and private operators and careful consideration of the technology to be
used.309
The pronouncements given by the ICJ with regard to the definition of due diligence
in the context of the no-harm rule, was later drawn upon in the Seabed Activities advisory
opinion regarding responsibilities and obligations of states sponsoring persons and entities
with respect to activities in the seabed area beyond national jurisdiction.310 This advisory
opinion, rendered by the Seabed Dispute Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law
of the Sea (ITLOS) in 2011, also made further contributions with regard to the elements of
the due diligence standard. The tribunal held that:
The content of ‘due diligence, obligations may not easily be described in precise terms. Among
the factors that make such a description difficult is the fact that ‘due diligence’ is a variable
concept. It may change over time as measures considered sufficiently diligent at a certain mo-
ment may become not diligent enough in light, for instance, of new scientific or technological
306
307
Ibid.
308
Ibid. para. 197.
309
310
Seabed Activities advisory opinion, Responsibilities and obligations of states sponsoring persons and enti-
ties with respect to activities in the area, (2011) ITLOS, Seabed Disputes Chamber (hereinafter Seabed Activ-
ities), paras. 111, 115.
67
knowledge. It may also change in relation to the risks involved in the activity. As regards activi-
ties in the Area, it seems reasonable to state that prospecting is, generally speaking, less risky
than exploration activities which, in turn, entail less risk than exploitation … The standard of
due diligence has to be more severe for the riskier activities. (Emphasis added.)311
Accordingly, in its attempt to identify the content of the due diligence standard, the tribunal
emphasized that it is a variable concept both in that it changes with time and evolves as
new operating techniques and technology develops, and moreover that it changes in ac-
cordance with the degree of risk involved in the activity in question. Furthermore, the tri-
bunal emphasized that the application of “best environmental practices” and “best technol-
ogies” were measures required under the obligation.312
International jurisprudence does not provide much guidance on the issue of at what
point the obligation to take appropriate measures to prevent significant harm arises. The
issue entails questions of foreseeability or probability of harm, and of its potential severity.
As regards foreseeability of harm, Corfu Channel is, however, an important decision.
While the old Trail Smelter case indicates that the obligation to control risk arises where
actual and serious damage has occurred and where it is likely that it will recur, the ICJ in
Corfu Channel based its reasoning on Albania’s knowledge of the activities taking place in
its territory, and thus indicated that an obligation to prevent and control harm also arises
when a state has knowledge of a risk of harm being inflicted on other states.313 In this case,
the Court had not been able to establish who laid the mines in the Albanian waters, but the
UK argued that whoever was behind the minelaying, it could not have been done without
the Albanian Government’s knowledge.314 With regard to this, the Court emphasized that
311
Seabed Activities, para. 117.
312
Ibid. para. 136.
313
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 153.
314
68
it cannot be concluded from the mere fact of the control exercised by a State over its territory
and waters that that State necessarily knew; or ought to have known, of any unlawful act perpe-
trated therein.315
However, based inter alia on the facts that the Albanian Government kept a close watch
over the waters of North Corfu Channel, the Court concluded that the “the laying of the
minefield which caused the explosions … could not have been accomplished without the
knowledge of the Albanian Government”. Thus, Albania was found to have violated an
obligation “not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of
others”.316 Accordingly, the case supports the approach that states cannot hide behind the
fact that they did not actually foresee the precise consequences of a certain situation, but
that it is decisive whether the state ought to have known the consequences, and that an ob-
jectively established risk will usually be sufficient to engage the duty to adopt appropriate
measures to prevent and control harm.317
The Articles on Prevention also take the approach that an objectively established
risk is usually enough to trigger the duty of regulation and control.318 The Articles consid-
ers “risk of causing significant transboundary harm” to include both high probability of
causing significant harm and a low probability of causing disastrous harm, which illustrate
that both gravity and likelihood of harm are relevant factors, and thus, what is objectively
considered foreseeable may change with time, and depends on the state of knowledge re-
garding the risk involved in the activity in question.319 Accordingly, states are not required
to regulate activities which it could not reasonably have been aware of.320
315
Ibid. p. 18.
316
Ibid. pp. 19, 22.
317
Voigt (2008) p. 12.
318
Article 2 and ILC Rep. (2001) Document A/56/10, p. 387 paras. 2-3.
319
ILC Rep. (2001) Document A/56/10, p. 385 paras. 14-15, and p. 387 paras. 1-3. See also Birnie, et al.
(2009) p. 153.
320
The issue of who should bear the burden of risk is addressed in 3.6.2.
69
3.6 Relationship to other environmental principles
3.6.1 Common but differentiated responsibility

A debated issue is whether the degree of care expected from a good government should be
the same for all states. Several developing country representatives have argued that it
should not be, or that it should at least to some extent be conditioned by the stage of the
economic development, and that what qualifies as reasonable efforts will depend on the
capabilities of the particular state. Allowing differentiated standards of conduct depending
on the developmental stage of the state is in line with the principle of common but differen-
tiated responsibility.321 The idea behind this notion is that all states have a common respon-
sibility, yet, higher standards of conduct should be set for developed states both because
they have generally contributed to environmental problems to a greater extent, and because
they possess a greater capacity to respond to such problems, than developing states.322 The
notion involves a departure from the traditional approach under international law where
states are given equal treatment, and has gained ground in international environmental
law.323 At the same time, the idea of differentiated standards must not be taken so far as to
leave developing countries free to pollute other developing countries.
The ILC have dealt with the matter in the commentary, where it recognizes differ-
ent degrees of economic development among states, but emphasizes that even so, “vigi-
lance, employment of infrastructure and monitoring of hazardous activities in the territory
of the State, which is a natural attribute of any Government, are expected”.324 Accordingly,
while it appears that a state’s economic level cannot be used to dispense a state from its
obligation under the articles, the determination of what constitutes due care in a specific
321
The principle is expressed in the Rio Declaration, Principle 7, and can also be observed in the Ozone Layer
Protection Convention, the UNFCCC and the Biodiversity Convention.
322
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 133.
323
Se e.g. Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration, UNCLOS Article 194 and UNFCCC Article 3 (1). In recent
literature it is however suggested that the importance of the notion has faded in negotiations on the climate
change regime, see Rajamani (2012) p. 605, Deleuil (2012) p. 271 and Plakokefalos (2013) p. 40.
324
70
instance is linked with determining whether the state in question has the means for full
compliance at its disposal.325
3.6.2 Sustainable development

The principle of sustainable development326 also plays a role with regard to the due dili-
gence as a standard for environmental protection. One element of the principle is that envi-
ronmental considerations shall be integrated in economic development, and that need for
economic and other social development is assessed when interpreting and applying obliga-
tions of environmental law.327 The due diligence obligation facilitate reconciliation of these
two often conflicting interest, environmental protection and economic development. Both
of the interests is to be taken into consideration, as the question of what measures are ap-
propriate in a given situation requires an assessment of both the risk involved and national
circumstances. The determination of what measures are required will thus involve an as-
sessment of proportionality, where the territorial sovereignty and interests of the state of
origin is balanced against the territorial integrity of an injured state. 328 This is well illustrat-
ed by Article 9 and 10 of the Articles on Prevention which outline the general obligation to
enter into consultation on preventive measures based on an equitable balance of interests,
where relevant factors include both the degree of risk of harm and the importance and the
social and economic activity for the state of origin. The duty to consult is further discussed
in section 4.2.
325
See also Koskenniemi (1991) p. 80.
326
Sustainable development is often defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs", which is the definition used in the
1987 Brundtland Report.
327
Sands and Peel (2012) p. 215. In the Iron Rhine case it was recognized that under international law appro-
priate environmental measures shall be integration in the implementation and design of activities of economic
development, see paras. 59, 243.
328
Voigt (2008) p. 12.
71
3.6.3 The precautionary principle
The essence of the precautionary principle329 is that lack of full scientific certainty shall
not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation
where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, so that the environment is given
“the benefit of the doubt” when it comes to uncertainties regarding the impact of planned
activities, the environment’s capacity to absorb pollution and sustain exploitation etc.330
The idea that uncertainty regarding the prediction of causes and effects has induced the
parties shall not be an excuse for not adopting policies on prevention, and reducing or regu-
lating activities involving risks of environmental degradation is included in a number of
environmental treaties in various ways.331
The link between the principle and the obligation to take all necessary measures to
prevent harm is obvious. In the commentaries to the Articles on Prevention it is stated that
appropriate measures of prevention must be taken even in situations where full scientific
certainty cannot be established,332 and in the Seabed Activities advisory opinion ITLOS
explicitly noted that the precautionary principle is treated as “an integral part of the general
obligation of due diligence”.333 The principle is operationalized by the requirement of envi-
ronmental impact assessment, which will be discussed more in depth in section 4.1.
A question which has been subject to much attention in the literature, is whether the
precautionary principle requires states which conduct or authorize a potentially harmful
activity to prove that it does not involve risk of harm.334 The question was addressed by the
329
Rio Declaration, Principle 15.
330
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 157.
331
See e.g. the preambles of the Ozone Layer Protection Convention and the Montreal Protocol, Article 2(5)
of the UNECE Water Convention, Article 1 of the POPS Convention and the preamble and Article 3 of the
UNFCCC.
332
333
334
See e.g. Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 158 Boyle and Harrison (2013) p. 268. This idea of shifting the burden of
proof has also brought about the mechanism used e.g. in the London Protocol and the OSPAR Convention,
72
ICJ in Pulp Mills, where Argentina contended that the 1975 Statute adopted an approach in
terms of precaution entailing that “the burden of proof will be placed on Uruguay for it to
establish that the Orion (Botnia) mill will not cause significant damage to the environ-
ment”.335 Uruguay, on the other hand, asserted that in accordance with the Court’s
longstanding case law, the burden of proof was on Argentina, as the applicant.336 The Court
made clear that it is the duty of the party claiming certain facts to establish the existence of
such facts, and pointed at how this principle has consistently been applied by itself and oth-
er international courts and tribunals.337 The Court stated that “while a precautionary ap-
proach may be relevant in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Statute,
it does not follow that it operates as a reversal of the burden of proof”.338
Although the ICJ in Pulp Mills affirmed that the precautionary principle does not
affect the burden of proof in environmental cases, in the form of a reversal of the burden,
another question is whether the standard of proof should be lowered in environmental dis-
putes: Scientific uncertainty may make it difficult to clearly establish that a certain activity
carried out or authorized by another state will cause significant harm.
The ICJ has not clearly defined the standard of proof in environmental cases, and
different standards seem to have been applied in international jurisprudence from interna-
tional courts and tribunals generally. In the Trail Smelter case, the tribunal stated that harm
should be established by “clear and convincing evidence”339 This is generally held to be a
too high standard of proof with regard to cases concerning environmental issues, consider-
ing that due to the complexity of the environment there is often lack of scientific certainty
with regard to the environmental impacts various activities may entail.340 To await preven-
which bans dumping of industrial waste unless it can be proved that this will not entail damage to the envi-
ronment.
335
336
Ibid.
337
Ibid. para. 162.
338
Ibid. para. 164.
339
Boyle and Harrison (2013) p. 268, Trail Smelter case (1941) p. 1965.
340
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 154.
73
tive measures because causality issues are not fully understood may lead to grave and irre-
versible damage to the environment. In Corfu Channel, although not an environmental
case, the ICJ seems to have found that proof based on “balance of probabilities” is suffi-
cient.341 Balance of probabilities is a standard which implies that the court shall base its
decision on the facts that seem most likely to be true, and is accordingly a lower standard
of care than the one applied in Trail Smelter.342 Furthermore, in the Southern Bluefin Tuna
case, ITLOS took a precautionary approach and lowered the standard of proof due to the
degree of uncertainty and complexity of the facts: Although it could not “conclusively as-
sess the scientific evidence presented by the parties” the tribunal stated that “measures
should be taken as a matter of urgency to preserve the rights of the parties and to avert fur-
ther deterioration of the southern bluefin tuna stock”.343
This issue of what the standard of proof should be in environmental cases was ad-
dressed by Judge Greenwood in his separate opinion in Pulp Mills. He noted that the stand-
ard of proof is varying, depending on the context and seriousness of the allegations pro-
posed.344 He held that the Pulp Mills case “fell squarely within the category of cases which
calls for a lower standard of proof” and pointed out that the nature of environmental dis-
putes is such that the application of the higher standard of proof would have the effect of
making it almost impossible for a state to discharge the burden of proof. 345 Therefore, he
noted, the balance of probabilities should be the standard of proof in this case.346
341
342
Balance of probabilities is also the general rule in Norwegian civil procedure; see Robberstad (2013) p.
263.
343
Southern Bluefin Tuna (Provisional Measures) ITLOS No 3 and 4 (1999) (hereinafter Southern Bluefin
Tuna), para. 80. It is no surprise that courts and tribunals sometimes take a more precautionary approach
when handling requests for provisional measures than in decisions on the merits, as the purpose of provisional
measures is per se to prevent irreversible prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, ensuring that the
factual situation does not change until the dispute is judged on the merits. The function of orders of provi-
sional measures are thus of essence precautionary, see Foster (2011) p. 268.
344
Separate opinion of Judge Greenwood, p. 230.
345
Ibid.
346
Ibid.
74
The majority of the Court did not comment on the issue, and the Court’s assessment
of the evidence submitted does not indicate that a lowered standard of proof was applied:
The Court carefully assessed the evidence submitted by the parties particularly in form of
technical reports, and found that “clear evidence” had not been presented by Argentina
verifying that the Orion mill is not in compliance with the 1975 Statute and that there was
“no conclusive evidence in the record to show that Uruguay has not acted with the requisite
degree of due diligence”.347
This indicates that the Court applied a higher standard of proof than the balance of
probabilities, the standard which was suggested by Judge Greenwood. 348 In fact, as pointed
out by Boyle and Harrison, the formulations used by the Court in its assessment of the evi-
dence submitted to it rather indicate that the majority applied a standard similar to the one
applied in the Trail Smelter case, that harm should be established by “clear and convincing
evidence”.349 For this reason, Boyle and Harrison characterized the terminology used in
Pulp Mills as “potentially retrogressive”, emphasizing the development of international
environmental law that has happened in between these cases, particularly the acceptance of
a precautionary approach in environmental issues in the Rio Declaration and in treaty
law.350
347
Pulp Mills, paras. 225-265.
348
Boyle and Harrison (2013) p. 268.
349
350
Boyle and Harrison (2013) p. 269.
75
4 Procedural obligations
As the previous discussions have shown, due to the concept of territorial sovereignty and to
the recognition of the need of states for economic development, many harmful activities are
not prohibited as such. Nevertheless, states are under an obligation to take appropriate
measures to prevent significant transboundary harm from resulting from such activities.
This duty to prevent and minimize transboundary environmental harm must be seen in con-
junction with a number of procedural duties that safeguard the right of states to be protect-
ed against transboundary impacts. Firstly, these are duties of notification, consultation and
negotiation, duties which are subordinate to a more general obligation of states to coopera-
tion in good faith. Secondly, to be able to prevent and control transboundary impacts, states
must acquire knowledge concerning the possible environmental impacts of activities they
conduct or authorize, which indicates that they are also obliged to assess and monitor envi-
ronmental impacts.
In the present chapter I will discuss these procedural obligations by looking at how
they have been applied in international jurisprudence. In section 4.1 I will focus on the duty
to assess and monitor environmental impacts, and in section 4.2 the duty to cooperate, in-
cluding the duties to notify, consult and negotiate will be discussed. I will furthermore, in
4.3, explore how the procedural duties of cooperation and assessment of environmental
impacts are conceptually linked to the due diligence obligation, and thus identify the rela-
tionship between the substantive and procedural obligations relating to transboundary
harm.
4.1 Environmental impact assessment
4.1.1 General
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a key mechanism in international environmental
law and a commonly used mechanism for states to gain knowledge of the environmental
consequences of actions they authorize or participate in. The Espoo Convention on Envi-
76
ronmental Impact Assessment describes it as “a national procedure for evaluating the likely
impact of a proposed activity on the environment.”351 The objective of the mechanism is to
provide information to national authorities of environmental impacts when deciding wheth-
er to authorize an activity, and the procedure is a useful tool for operationalizing the pre-
cautionary principle because through conducting prior EIAs states may inform themselves
of potential environmental impacts before they make decisions.352 The procedure plays an
important role in implementing environmental consideration into development projects and
thus in promoting sustainable development.353
Duties to conduct transboundary EIAs have been enshrined in several international
conventions,354 in non-binding instruments such as the Rio Declaration,355 and are also en-
trenched in the Articles on Prevention where it is stated that
[a]ny decision in respect of the authorization of an activity … shall, in particular, be based on an

assessment of the possible transboundary harm caused by that activity, including any environ-
mental impact assessment.356
These provisions do, however, provide little guidance as to what the content of an EIA
should be. The commentaries to the ILC Articles of Prevention note that the “the assess-
ment of risk of an activity can only be meaningfully prepared if it relates the risk to the
possible harm to which the risk could lead”, but leaves it to domestic laws to specify what
ought to be the content of the assessment.357
351
The Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Article 1 (vi).
352
The close relationship between EIA and the precautionary principle has inter alia been emphasized by
Judge Weeramantry in Nuclear Tests II, pp. 342-245.
353
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 165.
354
See e.g. UNCLOS, Article 206 and Biodiversity Convention, Article 14.
355
Principle 17.
356
Article 7.
357
77
A mechanism closely related to EIA, is monitoring. Monitoring may be defined as a
duty “to observe, measure, evaluate and analyze, by recognized scientific methods, the
risks or effects of pollution”.358 Unlike EIA which is carried out prior to a project, monitor-
ing is to be undertaken after a project has started, and plays an important part in controlling
the prior EIA predictions and providing national authorities with information that enable
them to determine whether further measures are necessary in order to prevent harm from
occurring.359 The importance of monitoring is also emphasized in the commentaries to the
Articles on Prevention as “the duty of prevention based on the concept of due diligence is
not a one-time effort but requires continuous effort … it continues in respect of monitoring
the implementation of the activity as long as the activity continues”.360
The following section will provide an analysis of international jurisprudence where
the duties to monitor and conduct transboundary EIAs have been invoked, for the purpose
of clarifying further the role and contents of these duties.
4.1.2 Contributions of jurisprudence
4.1.2.1 Nuclear Tests II
In the second Nuclear Tests case, New Zealand discussed the concept of environmental
impact assessment and “its evolution into a legal requirement” in depth in its pleadings.361
New Zealand claimed that France had a clear obligation to undertake an EIA and share its
result with the countries in the region before conducting further testing, and that this duty
had not been fulfilled.362 This assertion was based both on treaty law and on customary
international law.363 New Zealand tied the duty to conduct an EIA directly to the obliga-
tions of environmental protection, by arguing that
358
UNCLOS, Article 204 (1).
359
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 165.
360
361
362
Ibid. p. 25-29.
363
Ibid.
78
there is no need to look for a specific, legal obligation to conduct an EIA. That duty flows from
the legal duty to protect the environment: it is logically inseparable. You cannot have a legal
duty to protect the environment without there being a legal duty to ensure, in advance, that an
activity in contemplation does not contain a risk to the environment. The two necessarily go
hand-inhand.364 (Emphasis added.)
France seemed to accept that EIA obligations existed, but questioned the scope of the obli-
gations arguing that the obligation to conduct EIAs had to be interpreted as granting states
a “margin of appreciation” with regard to how harm was to be prevented.365 France also
denied having violated any such obligations and contended that the effects of the tests were
carefully monitored. With regard to this New Zealand noted that
it is not sufficient that monitoring takes place after the event. The requirement of Environmen-
tal Impact Assessment is one of conduct prior to each test or series of tests. The whole purpose
of such assessments is to determine in advance of experiments that they do not entail an unac-
ceptable degree of risk to the environment.366 (Emphasis in the original.)
Further, New Zealand claimed that France could not know that it was meeting its obligation
to take appropriate measures to prevent pollution without having first carried out an EIA.367
These lines of reasoning illustrate the link between the duty to conduct EIAs and the due
diligence concept; if transboundary damage occurs and a prior EIA has not been conducted,
it will be hard for a state to argue that it acted with due diligence in preventing or control-
ling foreseeable harm. And similarly, transboundary EIA must be seen in connection with
the duties to inform and notify; in most cases where environmental risk is present, there can
364
Ibid. p. 22.
365
Ibid. p. 57. See also Craik (2008) p. 112.
366
New Zealand’s Application instituting proceedings, para. 82.
367
79
be no purposeful consultation or notification without a prior assessment of the risk in-
volved.368
New Zealand’s approach with regard to the duty to conduct EIAs was partly sup-
ported in the dissenting opinion of Judge Weeramantry, who indicated that an obligation to
conduct EIAs existed separate from treaty law. He found that such an obligation was “gath-
ering strength and international acceptance, and has reached the level of general recogni-
tion at which the Court should take notice of it”.369 Judge Weeramantry also made an inter-
esting comment on the responsibility of the Court with regard to principles of environmen-
tal law in general and what role EIAs plays in cases concerning the possibility of environ-
mental harm:
This Court, situated as it is at the apex of international tribunals, necessarily enjoys a position of
special trust and responsibility in relation to the principles of environmental law, especially
those relating to what is described in environmental law as the Global Commons. When a mat-
ter is brought before it which raises serious environmental issues of global importance, and a
prima facie case is made out of the possibility of environmental damage, the Court is entitled to
take into account the Environmental Impact Assessment principle in determining its preliminary
approach. Of course the situation may well be proved to be otherwise and fears currently ex-
pressed may prove to be groundless. But that stage is reached only after the Environmental Im-
pact Assessment and not before.370
Judge Palmer, in his dissenting opinion, emphasized that states have a legal duty before
initiating an activity, to establish that the activity does not involve any unacceptable risk to
the environment and that an EIA is “simply a means of establishing a process to comply
with that international legal duty”.371 With regard to the legal status of this duty he was
more cautious than Weeramantry, stating that in his view “customary international law may
368
See also Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 169.
369
Dissenting opinion of Judge Weeramantry, p. 342.
370
Ibid. p. 345.
371
Dissenting opinion of Judge Palmer, p. 411.
80
have developed a norm of requiring environmental impact assessment when activities may
have a significant effect on the environment”.372
Summing up, this case evidences an emerging recognition of a customary obliga-
tion to conduct transboundary EIA among the parties and the dissenting judges. However,
the significance of this case with regard to the concept of EIA primarily lies in the argu-
ments developed by New Zealand, that prior EIA is necessary for consultations and notifi-
cations to be meaningful, and that even if there is not a separate general duty to conduct
EIAs, it is difficult to argue that the duty to act with due diligence has been fulfilled if a
prior risk assessment has not been conducted.
4.1.2.2 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros
In Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros it was asserted by Hungary that an EIA had not been carried out
before the construction of the project on the Danube River.373 The treaty concerning the
construction and operation of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros system had provisions on envi-
ronmental protection, but none that expressly required undertaking of EIAs. Still, the ques-
tion whether adequate EIAs had been conducted was discussed by the parties, and none of
the parties denied that they had a legal obligation to conduct EIAs.374 The Court did not
take the opportunity to expressly affirm that there existed an obligation to carry out EIAs
before potentially damaging activities was authorized, or to specify the content of such a
procedure. It did however discuss the need to assess environmental risks in more general
terms:
The awareness of the vulnerability of the environment and the recognition that environmental
risks have to be assessed on a continuous basis have become much stronger in the years since
the Treaty's conclusion … The Court recognizes that both Parties agree on the need to take en-
372
Ibid. p. 412.
373
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, Oral Proceedings, para. 7.
374
81
vironmental concerns seriously and to take the required precautionary measures, but they fun-
damentally disagree on the consequences this has for the joint Project.375
Although not fully spelled out, the Court indicated that the parties were under an obligation
to assess environmental impact, as it also noted that in order to evaluate environmental
risks “current standards must be taken into consideration”,376 and repeatedly stressed the
importance of new environmental norms:
Throughout the ages, mankind has, for economic and other reasons, constantly interfered with
nature. In the past, this was often done without consideration of the effects upon the environ-
ment. Owing to new scientific insights and to a growing awareness of the risks for mankind for
present and future generations - of pursuit of such interventions at an unconsidered and unabat-
ed pace, new norms and standards have been developed, set forth in a great number of instru-
ments during the last two decades.377 (Emphasis added.)
It emphasized that “[s]uch new norms have to be taken into consideration, and such new
standards given proper weight, not only when States contemplate new activities but also
when continuing with activities begun in the past”378 which implies that assessment of risk
must be conducted not only prior to the outset of the project, but continuously throughout
the life of the project. The Court thus also indicated an important link between prior EIA
and subsequent monitoring.
Regarding the content and scope of an EIA procedure, there is however not much to
infer from the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case. The Court simply stated that “the Parties to-
gether should look afresh at the effects on the environment of the operation of the
Gabčíkovo power plant” and left it to the parties to, through negotiations, find satisfactory
solutions regarding the environmental implications of the plant.379 It refrained from dictat-
375
Ibid. paras. 112-113.
376
377
Ibid.
378
Ibid.
379
Ibid.
82
ing the content of applicable environmental norms, but required the parties to take envi-
ronmental principles into account, stating that the parties themselves had to “find an agreed
solution that takes account of the objectives of the Treaty, which must be pursued in a joint
and integrated way, as well as the norms of international environmental law”. This indi-
cates that the importance of the EIA mechanism lies in ensuring that environmental impacts
and principles are meaningfully included in the negotiations, and not in deciding the out-
come of the case.
Also in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, Judge Weeramantry gave a separate opinion worth
commenting on, following the same track that he set out to in the second Nuclear Tests
case. He recognized that EIA had assumed an important part of the case, and stated that
EIA “means not merely an assessment prior to the commencement of the project, but a con-
tinuing assessment and evaluation as long as the project is in operation” and that it was a
dynamic principle, not confined to a pre-project evaluation of possible environmental con-
sequences.380 He argued that continuous monitoring is necessary because, with such a
complex matter as the environment is, a prior EIA can never anticipate every possible envi-
ronmental danger, and that “the greater the size and scope of the project, the greater is the
need for a continuous monitoring of its effects”.381 He found that this followed from the
treaty concerning the construction and operation of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros system,382
but also clearly expressed the view that the obligation was a general one, stating that it is “a
specific application of the larger general principle of caution”383 and noting that
[e]nvironmental law in its current state of development would read into treaties which may rea-
sonably be considered to have a significant impact upon the environment, a duty of environ-
mental impact assessment and this means also, whether the treaty expressly so provides or not,
380
381
Ibid.
382
The 1977 Treaty concerning the construction and operation of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros System of
Locks, Articles 15, 19.
383
83
a duty of monitoring the environmental impacts of any substantial project during the operation
of the scheme.384 (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, while the majority of the Court did not utilize its potential to endorse a duty
to conduct EIAs, Judge Weeramantry took the opportunity. He tied the obligation to con-
duct EIAs tightly to the duty to prevent significant environmental harm. He also expanded
the obligation by arguing that under a duty of prevention of harm, an obligation to conduct
a prior assessment at an early stage of a project is not sufficient; the complexity of the envi-
ronment makes it impossible to determine all impacts prior to the outset of a project must
thus involve an obligation to continuously monitor the project.
4.1.2.3 Pulp Mills
In Pulp Mills, the majority of the Court finally expressly acknowledged that a prior EIA is
a requirement of general international law, and thus an obligation not dependent on basis in
treaty law.385 The 1975 Statute did not explicitly require an environmental impact assess-
ment, but such an assessment was required by Uruguayan law, and the parties also agreed
that an EIA was needed.386 The Court affirmed that EIA is a necessary part of the obliga-
tion to act with due diligence when engaged in or authorizing any hazardous activities in its
territory with the risk of causing transboundary harm, stating that
the obligation to protect and preserve, under Article 41 (a) of the Statute, has to be interpreted in
accordance with a practice, which in recent years has gained so much acceptance among States
that it may now be considered a requirement under general international law to undertake an
environmental impact assessment where there is a risk that the proposed industrial activity may
have a significant adverse impact in a transboundary context, in particular, on a shared re-
source. Moreover, due diligence, and the duty of vigilance and prevention which it implies,
would not be considered to have been exercised, if a party planning works liable to affect the
384
Ibid. p. 111.
385
386
Ibid. para. 203.
84
régime of the river or the quality of its waters did not undertake an environmental impact as-
sessment on the potential effects of such works.387 (Emphasis added.)
The Court also emphasized, like it had been argued in pleadings and dissenting opinions in
earlier cases, that an EIA has to be carried out prior to a project’s implementation, and that
where a project has started and it is necessary, continuous monitoring of the project’s effect
on the environment is required.388
As the parties agreed that an EIA was necessary and EIAs had indeed been carried
out prior to Uruguay’s authorization of the construction of the mills, the significant issue in
this case was not whether an obligation to conduct an EIA existed, but what this obligation
entailed. Argentina asserted that the assessments carried out were inadequate; it held that
Uruguay had failed to ensure that a full EIA had been conducted, and that the decisions
made by Uruguay were based on unsatisfactory EIAs.389 With regard to this, Uruguay re-
ferred to the Articles on Prevention and state practice, and argued that the only require-
ments international law imposed was that “there must be assessments of the project’s po-
tential harmful transboundary effects on people, property and the environment of other
States … without there being any need to assess remote or purely speculative risks.”390 The
Court found that neither the 1975 Statute nor general international law specified the scope
and content of an environmental impact assessment”.391 It was for
each State to determine in its domestic legislation or in the authorization process for the project,
the specific content of the environmental impact assessment required in each case, having re-
gard to the nature and magnitude of the proposed development and its likely adverse impact on
the environment as well as to the need to exercise due diligence in conducting such an assess-
ment.392
387
Ibid. para 204.
388
Ibid. para. 205.
389
390
Ibid. para. 203.
391
Ibid. para. 205.
392
Ibid.
85
This paragraph shows both that the obligation to conduct an EIA does not need to be im-
plemented in domestic law; it may instead be part of the “authorization process for the pro-
ject”, and moreover, that the state has wide discretion to determine the specific content of
the EIA. Accordingly, while confirming the normative status of the obligation, the Court
did not utilize the opportunity it had to clarify and elaborate on the content of the obligation
to conduct an EIA.
An interesting question which has been discussed in the literature is whether the ICJ
and other international courts may review the adequacy of an EIA.393 Pulp Mills provided
the ICJ with an opportunity to clarify this issue, as Argentina argued that the EIAs were
inadequate, claiming that Uruguay had not considered alternative sites for the mill.394 Alt-
hough the Court rejected that the scope and content of EIA was specified under general
international law, it appears that the Court to some extent did evaluate the scope of the
EIAs conducted; the Court noted that neither UNEP Goals and Principles nor the Espoo
Convention expressly required that alternative sites were assessed, but went on to state that
it was not convinced that an assessment of possible sites had not been carried out.395 This
may indicate that the Court did evaluate the assessment, and found it adequate.
Argentina also claimed that the EIA was inadequate as the populations likely to be
affected by the construction of the mill had not been sufficiently consulted. Although the
Court found that consultations had been held by Uruguay, the Court stated that it was “of
the view that no legal obligation to consult the affected populations arises for the Parties
from the instruments invoked by Argentina”.396 In the literature, this statement has been
characterized as surprising, considering that public consultations are commonly accentuat-
ed in modern treaty law and that the Court here actually went beyond what Uruguay had
argued.397 This indicates that the ILC Articles on Prevention, which express an obligation
393
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 173.
394
395
Ibid. para. 210.
396
Ibid. para. 216.
397
Boyle (2011) p. 230, Payne (2010) p. 322.
86
to “provide the public likely to be affected … with relevant information relating to that
activity, the risk involved and the harm which might result and ascertain their views”,398 is
lex ferenda rather than lex lata at this point.
The ICJ’s findings with regard to the EIA obligation in Pulp Mills have been drawn
upon both by ITLOS and by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). In the recent Indus
Waters Kishenganga399 arbitration, the PCA stated that it is beyond doubt that contempo-
rary customary international law requires states to “take environmental protection into con-
sideration when planning and developing projects that may cause injury to a bordering
State”, and referred to the ICJ’s confirmation of EIA as a requirement under general inter-
national law where there is a risk that the proposed industrial activity may have a signifi-
cant adverse impact in a transboundary context.400 In the advisory opinion on Seabed Activ-
ities, ITLOS also referred to the dicta from Pulp Mills, but unlike the ICJ, the tribunal
found that in the context of seabed activities in the area, the International Seabed Authori-
ty’s Regulations and Recommendations added “precision and specificity to the obligation”,
indicating that the content of an EIA was not completely left to domestic law to define.401
4.1.3 Summary
The increasing number of environmental instruments that establish general obligations to
assess and monitor risks, and the reviewed case law where the duty to conduct EIAs is con-
sidered, reflects how the concept has evolved gradually into a well-established concept of
international environmental law.
Although the Court in Pulp Mills recognized a customary obligation to conduct an
EIA whenever a proposed activity involves risk of significant transboundary harm, and that
this is a necessary part of the due diligence obligation, it largely remains unanswered what
the scope and content of such an obligation is. This somewhat conservative line and appar-
398
Article 13.
399
Indus Waters Kishenganga arbitration, Pakistan v. India, Permanent Court of Arbitration, Partial Award of
18 February 2013 (hereinafter Indus Waters Kishenganga).
400
Indus Waters Kishenganga, paras. 449-450.
401
87
ent reluctance of the Court towards elaborating the obligation must, once again, be seen in
connection with the constant conflict between the sovereign right of states to dispose over
their natural resources, and the duty to prevent significant environmental harm. A conse-
quence of not having any international minimum requirements or guidelines concerning the
content of the EIA obligation is that the state planning the activity is free to rely solely on
its own legislation, which may be a disadvantage for a potentially affected state having
objections to the activity. Accordingly, the current requirement to conduct prior EIAs argu-
ably lacks real substantive content. Further development of the concept, particularly by
providing a minimum standard, would be welcomed. The Seabed Activities advisory opin-
ion indicates a step in the right direction in this regard, and further contributions may be
expected by the pending disputes between Nicaragua and Costa Rica discussed below in
5.3.
4.2 Cooperation, prior notification, consultation and negotiation
4.2.1 General
Obligations of cooperation in good faith, and of prior notification, consultation and nego-
tiation are enshrined in soft law instruments, and in a great number of international conven-
tions concerning environmental protection.402 Such procedural obligations also pervade the
ILC Articles on Prevention. Article 4 require states to “cooperate in good faith” in prevent-
ing significant transboundary harm or at any event in minimizing the risk thereof. The Arti-
cles further impose obligations to notify and inform when an EIA indicate a risk of causing
transboundary environmental harm, requiring the state of origin to “provide the State likely
to be affected with timely notification of the risk and the assessment and shall transmit to it
the available technical and all other relevant information on which the assessment is
based”.403
402
See e.g. UNCLOS Articles 123 and 194, Articles 2-5 of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air
Pollution, and Articles 7 and 8 of the Watercourses Convention, and Articles 18, 19 and 27 of the Rio Decla-
ration.
403
Article 8 (1).
88
Furthermore, states are under Article 9 (1) required to “enter into consultations”
with a view to achieving acceptable solutions regarding measures to be adopted in order to
prevent significant transboundary harm or to minimize the risk of harm.404 Such solutions
should be based on an equitable balance of the interests of states.405A list of factors to be
involved in the balance of interest is provided in Article 10, and includes risk of significant
transboundary harm, importance of the activity, economic viability of the activity in rela-
tion to the costs of prevention and the standards of prevention which the state likely to be
affected applies to the same or comparable activities, and the standards applied in compa-
rable regional or international practice. No particular priority is assigned to any of these
factors, and the list is presumably not exhaustive, which indicates that as long as the parties
comply with the overriding obligation to enter into consultations in good faith, states are
free to take into account whatever factors they find relevant. The Articles also emphasize
that affected states do not necessarily have the right to veto harmful projects if the parties
fail to reach an agreement trough consultations.406
In the following section I will look at international jurisprudence where the duties to
cooperate, notify and consult have been invoked or applied, for the purpose of clarifying
further the role and contents of these duties.
4.2.2 Jurisprudence
The old Corfu Channel judgment is interesting because the Court here attached the obliga-
tion to notify other states when they are exposed to risks of significant harm, to the obliga-
tion to act with due diligence. The ICJ found that Albania was obliged to notify and inform,
and had violated these obligation by not informing the UK of the danger that the minefield
constituted and the breach of these duties seems to have been crucial to the invocation of
state responsibility.407 The Court based the duty to warn in “elementary considerations of
humanity” and the obligation of states not to knowingly allow their territory to be used for
404
Article 9 (1).
405
Article 9 (2).
406
Article 9 (3).
407
89
acts contrary to the rights of other states.408 The decision can thus be held to support a gen-
eral obligation on states to warn others of known environmental hazards.409
The Lac Lanoux arbitration is a fundamental case with regard to procedural obliga-
tions of cooperation and notification. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the dispute concerned the
diversion of a watercourse shared between France and Spain. The arbitral tribunal conclud-
ed that France had an obligation to consult and negotiate in good faith before adopting the
project and based these obligations on treaty law and on customary law.410 It found that
France had to inform Spain of its plans and give proper weight to Spain’s interests. It was
indicated, however, that this duty to consult did not involve a requirement of receiving
Spain’s consent, as this would grant Spain a veto, which in turn would be an intolerable
interference with the sovereignty of France.411 Following this reasoning, it seems that states
are not required to abstain from conducting or authorizing activities just because negotia-
tions are unsuccessful. A clear answer to this question may however not be derived from
this decision; the tribunal concluded that France had complied with the obligation to nego-
tiate in good faith, and did not find evidence that the planned activities would inflict dam-
age on Spain’s interests.412
In Pulp Mills, the Court attempted to clarify the scope and content of the duty to
cooperate. Although the dispute arose out of claims of failure to cooperate under treaty
provisions, the Court interpreted the applicable provisions in light of customary interna-
tional law.413 The importance of cooperation and joint governance of the river was high-
lighted by the Court several times in the judgment. For example, it noted that it was by “co-
operating that the States concerned can jointly manage the risks of damage to the environ-
ment that might be created by the plans initiated by one or other of them, so as to prevent
408
Ibid.
409
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 182.
410
Lac Lanoux, pp. 306-310.
411
Ibid. See also McIntyre (2007) p. 337.
412
Lac Lanoux, p. 308.
413
90
the damage in question”.414 Furthermore, the Court held that the state planning an activity
had to inform CARU “as soon as it is in possession of a plan which is sufficiently devel-
oped to enable CARU to make the preliminary assessment” of whether the proposed works
might cause significant damage to the other party.415 The Court held that as part of the ob-
ligation to prevent transboundary harm, the parties had to negotiate in good faith.416 More-
over, the obligation to negotiate did not “imply an obligation to reach an agreement”,417 but
the states were under an obligation “so to conduct themselves that the negotiations are
meaningful”.418 It found that
[i]n the view of the Court, there would be no point to the co-operation mechanism provided for
… if the party initiating the planned activity were to authorize or implement it without waiting
for that mechanism to be brought to a conclusion. Indeed, if that were the case, the negotiations
between the parties would no longer have any purpose.419
This had also been emphasized in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, where the ICJ required the par-
ties to cooperate in good faith and initiate a process of monitoring for the purpose of envi-
ronmental protection.420
Two ITLOS decisions are also interesting in this context, as they emphasize coop-
eration as an important feature with regard to prevention of harm. The first is the MOX
Plant case which concerned a dispute between the United Kingdom and Ireland regarding
radioactive emissions from a nuclear power plant situated in Sellafield.421 Ireland requested
414
Ibid. para. 77.
415
According to Article 7 (1) of the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay the parties were required to notify
CARU about planned works likely to affect navigation, the regime of the river or the quality of its waters,
416
Ibid. para. 102.
417
Ibid. para. 150.
418
Ibid. para. 146.
419
Ibid. para. 147.
420
421
MOX Plant case (Provisional Measures) ITLOS No 10 (2001) (hereinafter MOX Plant).
91
provisional measures pending a final decision from the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
The tribunal stated that
the duty to cooperate is a fundamental principle in the prevention of pollution of the marine en-
vironment under … the Convention and general international law and that rights arise therefrom
which the Tribunal may consider appropriate to preserve under article 290 of [UNCLOS].422
This statement was repeated two years later in the Land Reclamation case which concerned
a request for provisional measures submitted by Malaysia in a dispute regarding land rec-
lamation activities conducted by Singapore, which according to Malaysia violated its rights
in the Straits of Johor.423 In both cases, the parties were ordered to improve their coopera-
tion, and enter into consultation in order to exchange information and monitor risks and
effects424 despite the fact that the tribunal did not find that irreversible harm was likely.425
4.2.3 Summary
The approach taken in the ILC Articles on Prevention, that states are required to notify and
meaningfully consult with each other when there is a risk of significant transboundary im-
pacts, seems to be supported by international jurisprudence. This jurisprudence indicates,
like Articles 9 and 10 of the Articles on Prevention, that states likely to be affected are not
granted absolute veto over other states’ activities – the state of origin is entitled to conduct
proposed activities despite objections from states that may be affected. Potentially affected
states cannot demand that the activity is conducted in a specific way, or insist that particu-
lar precautionary measures are taken in terms of protecting their interests. Still, when a
422
MOX Plant, para. 82
423
Land Reclamation case (Provisional Measures) ITLOS No 12 (2003) (hereinafter Land Reclamation)
424
Land Reclamation, para. 106, MOX Plant, para. 89. See also Southern Bluefin Tuna, para.78, where it was
emphasized that the “parties should intensify their efforts to cooperate with other participants in the fishery
for southern bluefin tuna with a view to ensuring conservation and promoting the objective of optimum utili-
zation of the stock”.
425
Land Reclamation, para. 96, MOX Plant, para. 81.
92
state objects to a planned activity involving a shared resource, these objections must be
taken into account, and the state of origin must attempt to resolve the conflict with good
faith.
The discussion in the previous subsection indicated that the duty to cooperate in good
faith including the duty to notify and consult have been treated as a well-entrenched part of
general international law in case law with regard to shared water resources, which Lac
Lanoux, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros and Pulp Mills are examples of. An interesting question is
whether these requirements are as well-entrenched in other fields of international environ-
mental law in cases not concerning equitable utilization of bilaterally shared resources, for
example in a more global context. It may be argued that since for example Lac Lanoux
concerned international water resources law, it is not clear that the decision provides au-
thority for the procedural duties being customary norms beyond the field of water resources
law.426 Stephen McCaffrey, former ILC special rapporteur on watercourses, seems to be of
the opinion that procedural rules in the context of water resources law has a lex specialis
character, considering the rich and long history of international cooperation in this area of
international law.427 I will not pursue this issue further, as a thorough analysis on this point
would prove too extensive for the size and scope of this study, but in Chapter 5 I will raise
the question whether the fact that most of the case law regarding the no-harm rule relate to
international water disputes may suggest that the contours and content of the rule is less
clear when it comes to disputes which are more global than bilateral in character.428
4.3 The relationship between substantive and procedural obligations
4.3.1 Procedural duties of prevention and due diligence

As the discussions in this chapter have shown, the procedural obligations to conduct EIAs,
provide prior notification, consult and negotiate largely reflect developments in customary
law, and they appear to be well-entrenched as separate obligations of international envi-
426
McIntyre (2007) p. 341.
427
Ibid.
428
See section 5.1.3.
93
ronmental law. The significant question with regard to this study is, however, how these
procedural duties of prevention are conceptually linked to the substantive obligations of
prevention and due diligence. Different approaches are taken in the literature. Some schol-
ars treat the procedural duties as an integrated part of the due diligence obligation, others
see them as means for compliance with the obligation to prevent.429 The significant issue is
in any case whether they are so tightly linked that a failure to comply with procedural obli-
gation also entails a breach of substantive obligations.
The Articles on Prevention do not provide clear answers to this question. The Arti-
cles separate the substantial due diligence obligation, which as seen above is grounded in
Article 3, from the duties of procedure entrenched in Articles 9 and 10 which require con-
sultation between the parties based on an equitable balance of a state’s interest. The Arti-
cles do, however, indicate a strong link between procedural and substantial obligations of
prevention of harm. In the commentaries it is noted that Article 3 is complementary to Ar-
ticles 9 and 10 and that “together they constitute a harmonious ensemble”,430 which shows
that the due diligence obligation is accompanied by a framework for consultations in good
faith.
The relationship between procedure and substance was commented on and partly
clarified in Pulp Mills, where Argentina asserted that the substantive and procedural viola-
tions were inseparably linked together and that therefore, a violation of one meant a viola-
tion of the other.431 This argument was rejected by the Court, which argued that although
procedural duties to cooperate, notify and consult, and substantive obligation of due dili-
gence and prevention “complement each other perfectly”, 432 they should be assessed dis-
tinctively:
429
See e.g. Knox (2002) p. 295 and Kummer (1999) p. 23.
430
431
432
Ibid. para. 77.
94
[T]here is indeed a functional link, in regard to prevention, between the two categories of obli-
gations … but that link does not prevent the States parties from being required to answer for
those obligations separately, according to their specific content, and to assume, if necessary, the
responsibility resulting from the breach of them, according to the circumstances.433
Accordingly, although the Court did recognize the “functional link” that when states com-
ply with their procedural duties, violations of substantive obligations are unlikely to occur,
it found that the fact that Uruguay had breached its duty to notify Argentina, did not auto-
matically entail a substantive violation.434 The Court emphasized that the link between the
two categories of obligations can be broken “when a party which has not complied with its
procedural obligations subsequently abandons the implementation of its planned activity”
and thus indicated that if a breach of a substantive obligation for this reason never take
place, the state cannot be found to be in violation of something it did not do.435
This approach was firmly criticized in the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Al-
Khasawneh and Simma:
A final observation: in matters related to the use of shared natural resources and the possibility
of transboundary harm, the most notable feature that one observes is the extreme elasticity and
generality of the substantive principles involved. Permanent sovereignty over natural resources,
equitable and rational utilization of these resources, the duty not to cause significant or appre-
ciable harm, the principle of sustainable development, etc., all reflect this generality. The prob-
lem is further compounded by the fact that these principles are frequently, where there is a dis-
pute, in a state of tension with each other. Clearly in such situations, respect for procedural ob-
ligations assumes considerable importance and comes to the forefront as being an essential in-
dicator of whether, in a concrete case, substantive obligations were or were not breached.
Thus, the conclusion whereby non-compliance with the pertinent procedural obligations has
eventually had no effect on compliance with the substantive obligations is a proposition that
cannot be easily accepted … According to the Court, as long as compliance with substantive
433
Ibid. para. 79.
434
Ibid. para. 78.
435
Rutledge (2011) p. 1094.
95
obligations has been assured (or at least lack of it not proved), the breach of procedural obliga-
tions would not matter very much and hence a declaration to that effect constitutes appropriate
satisfaction; this is not the proper way to pay due regard to the interrelation of procedure and
436
substance. (Emphasis added.)
It is easy to agree with this criticism. Uruguay’s violation of procedural obligation, in the
absence of violations of substantive law, did not entail any real consequences as Uruguay
did not have to pay damages.437 Accordingly, while compliance with procedural obligations
remains wise as it increases the probability of compliance with substantial obligations, the
separation of substance and procedure approach taken by the majority in Pulp Mills, argua-
bly makes it less important for states to comply with procedural obligations of cooperation.
4.3.2 Why procedure?

The extensive addition of procedural elements to the obligation to prevent and control harm
may be explained by the fact that a general substantive obligation of prevention is hard to
formulate. Transboundary harm is contextual, and therefore it is not possible to reduce the
rule into one single specific standard. Furthermore, the fact that both states acquire their
right from their inviolable sovereignty in disputes regarding transboundary harm, entails a
need for equitable considerations in such disputes.438 Turning to procedure may thus func-
tion as means of ensuring a good decision-making process based on a consistent set of fac-
tors, and that the state of origin shows consideration towards the affected states regardless
of context.439
A downside to the no-harm rule being applied with extensive focus on procedure is
that procedural duties do not necessarily constitute substantive restrictions to activities with
a potential to cause significant harm. Consequently, finding a solution to cases involving
risk of transboundary environmental harm may depend on the ability of the parties to find
436
Dissenting opinion of Judges Simma and Al-Khasawneh, paras. 26-27.
437
Pulp Mills, para 265.
438
This is emphasized for e.g. Craik (2008) p. 74 and Koskenniemi (1991) pp. 74-76.
439
Craik (2008) p. 74.
96
solutions through negotiation.440 The problem is illustrated by the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros
where Hungary and Slovakia was left to find a solution through negotiation, and such a
solution has still not been found.441
An interesting question is how the Court will apply the no-harm rule in future cases.
It seems plausible that the Court also in future cases will focus on procedural duties of co-
operation and risk, like it did in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros and Pulp Mills. Some scholars ar-
gue that it is possible that the Court may, in cases where the conditions are right, take a
more firm substantive approach and find that the transboundary effects in a concrete case
are of a substantial level that exceeds the threshold of harm. Thus, the Court may conclude
that some activities are significantly harmful as such and therefore in violation of the no-
harm rule regardless of whether the State of origin has acted diligently.442 Such an ap-
proach would amount to a considerable encroachment on the sovereign rights of states to
decide over and exploit their own natural resources, but would indeed send a strong signal
to all states engaged in activities causing transboundary pollution, that certain activities
could as such violate the no-harm rule and give basis for claims for damages from affected
states.443
440
Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 179.
441
Ibid.
442
Such an approach is suggested by Günter Handl, see Handl (2007) pp. 538-540. Robert Esposito has ar-
gued that with the facts and allegations that were provided to the Court in the Aerial Herbicide Spraying case,
which has been settled and removed from the list, it was conceivable, although unlikely, that the Court took
such an approach.
443
Esposito (2010) pp. 38-39.
97
5 Conclusions and observations
The purpose of this chapter is to gather the threads of the analysis. In 5.1 I will make some
concluding remarks regarding the content and legal status of the no-harm rule in current
international law, including an appraisal of its adequacy in an environmental perspective.
In 5.2 I will highlight some observations regarding the role of the ICJ in developing the law
concerning transboundary harm, and in 5.3 address the prospects for future contributions
by the ICJ by looking at relevant cases currently pending before the Court.
5.1 The no-harm rule lex lata
5.1.1 Legal status

In the previous chapters of this study, I have addressed the no-harm rule as a general rule of
international law. As indicated in 2.4.6, the issue of legal status is, however, not uncontro-
versial, and deserves brief conclusive comments.
As seen in Chapter 2, certain pronouncements by the ICJ may be seen as confirma-
tions of the obligation as a norm of customary international law. A great number of interna-
tional law scholars also recognize the no-harm rule as a customary norm. Sands and Peel,
for example, argue that following the advisory opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weap-
ons, “there can be no question but that Principle 21 reflects a rule of customary internation-
al law, placing international legal constraints on the rights of states in respects of activities
carried out within their territory or under their jurisdiction”.444
Indeed, the Stockholm and Rio Declarations and the fact that the obligation is re-
peated in a number of multilateral treaties, evidence a broad consensus among states for the
existence of such an obligation under international law. However, as pointed out by more
sceptical scholars, the great amount of transboundary harm that occurs every day indicates
that the requirement of consistent state practice is not fulfilled.445 For this reason, a better
444
Sands and Peel (2012) pp. 195-196. See also e.g. Birnie, et al. (2009) p. 137 and Fitzmaurice (2007) p.
1013.
445
See e.g. Bodansky (1995) pp. 110-111 and Schachter (1991) pp. 462-463.
98
view may be to regard the no-harm rule as a general principle of international law446 rather
than one of customary law. While both these categories depend on the existence of opinio
juris,447 consistent state practice is generally not required for a general principle of law to
be established.448 Therefore, as pointed out by Simma and Alston,
the concept of a ‘recognized’ general principle seems to conform more closely than the concept
of custom to the situation where a norm invested with strong inherent authority is widely ac-
cepted even though widely violated.449
A possible downside to regarding the no-harm rule as a general principle of international

law, as opposed to a customary rule is, however, illustrated by the common perception that
a legal principle does not contain precise legal duties, but rather states a reason that argues
in one direction, and can therefore not be breached per se.450
Regardless of whether one takes the view that the no-harm rule reflects either cus-
tomary international law or a general principle of international law, saying that the rule is
one of general international law will, as pointed out by Sands and Peel, only partly be of
assistance in support of a claim before an international court or tribunal.451 Just as im-
portant is to provide answers to the many questions that arises with regard to the legal con-
tent of the obligation.
5.1.2 Legal content

The discussions in the previous chapters of this study indicate that the ICJ has played a role
in developing the old principle of international law – that states are obliged not to inflict
446
Statute of the ICJ, Article 38 (1) litra c.
447
That opinio juris is required with regard to both of these sources of law follows from the formulations
“accepted as law” and “recognized by civilized nations” in the statute of the ICJ, Article 38 (1) litra b and c,
respectively.
448
Voigt (2009) p. 149.
449
Simma and Alston (1991) p. 102.
450
See e.g. Dworkin (1977) pp. 24-26 and Verheyen (2005) pp. 67, 153.
451
99
damage on or violate the rights of other states – into an obligation not to cause harm to the
environment of other states, or to areas beyond national jurisdiction. Particularly two im-
portant dimensions have been added to the rule as it has taken form as a rule of internation-
al environmental law. Firstly, the Court has confirmed in clear terms that the rule also ap-
plies to areas beyond national jurisdiction.452 Consequently, it applies not only to strictly
transboundary damage to neighboring states, like the old sic utere principle. It also applies
to the damage inflicted on the “global commons” and seemingly not only to damage in-
flicted on states in the global commons, but on the environment of the global commons per
se. Although the ICJ has not explicitly stated that even the intrinsic value of the environ-
ment, such as natural ecosystems and biodiversity, is covered by the rule, the Court have on
several occasions emphasized that it attaches great significance to respect for the environ-
ment, both explicitly and implicitly by recognizing that protection of the natural environ-
ment amounts to an essential interest.453
The other significant dimension which has also been added to the rule with help
from the Court, is prevention. While it is clear that if damage occurs due to a state’s failure
to act with the required standard of care, this incurs responsibility under international
law,454 the Court has thus also confirmed that the obligation is not merely one of responsi-
bility ex post facto, but to prevent and control the risk of significant transboundary harm,
implying that the rule creates legal obligations before the occurrence of any harm. 455 The
ICJ has applied the obligation as one of due diligence, and one of conduct rather than re-
sult, and in Pulp Mills the Court importantly strengthened the due diligence obligation by
affirming in clear terms that states are required to “use all the means at its disposal” in or-
der to avoid transboundary harm.456 The no-harm rule accordingly requires more than for
452
This was first recognized in the advisory opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, and later confirmed
in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros and Pulp Mills.
453
See e.g. Nuclear Weapons, para. 29 and Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, para. 53.
454
See e.g. Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Article 1.
455
For views of states on this, see UN Doc. A/CN.4/509, pp. 129-137 (International liability for injurious
consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, Comments made by states).
456
Pulp Mills, para. 101, 187.
100
states to simply refrain from causing transboundary harm; it requires positive measures to
be taken. The Court has moreover indicated that while a violation of the procedural duties
to notify, consult and negotiate do not necessarily entail a violation of the due diligence
obligation, compliance with these duties arguably reduces the likeliness substantive viola-
tions.457 It has also explicitly stated that prior environmental impact assessment is obligato-
ry where there is a risk that the proposed industrial activity may have a significant adverse
impact in a transboundary context.458 A significant question is how high the risk of harm
must be for the obligation to prevent to be triggered. Here lies a potential for the ICJ to
contribute with some clarifications, but so far, little guidance has been provided by the
Court on this issue.
5.1.3 Appraisal
The jurisprudence discussed in relation to the due diligence obligation in 3.5.2 demon-
strates how the concept of due diligence is a variable and ill defined concept. Certainly, the
flexibility and adaptability to different circumstances are one of the main advantages of the
due diligence standard. A downside to the general nature of the concept is however that it
provides only limited instruction on which technology and legislation is required in specific
instances, and the due diligence obligation do not seem to impose particularly strict re-
quirements.
Moreover, while the procedural duties of prevention play an important role in en-
suring that the interests of a potentially affected state are taken into consideration when a
state is planning an activity involving risk of transboundary harm, these duties generally
tend to favor the state planning the activity over the potentially affected state. For example,
while a state planning an activity involving risk of significant transboundary harm is
obliged to conduct an EIA, it is ultimately up to the same state to decide whether to pro-
ceed with the activity or not, regardless of the outcome of the EIA. Furthermore, despite
457
Ibid. para. 78.
458
Ibid. para. 204.
101
the duties of consultation and negotiation, the state that is planning an activity has the last
say as to whether to proceed with an activity or not.
A majority of the cases regarding environmental issues discussed above regards the
protection of international watercourses.459 Characteristic for this type of disputes is that
they regard shared natural resources, and the causation is often relatively straight-forward.
This may indicate that the contours and content of the no-harm rule is clearer in this field of
international environmental law than in the context of more global challenges such as cli-
mate change and biodiversity.
One reason why the no-harm rule may be less adequate in terms of managing global
environmental issues is the lack of reciprocity in international environmental law. Reci-
procity is a concept which generally pervades international law. The essence of the concept
is that states often abstain from pursuing a course of action which might be advantageous to
them in a short-term perspective, because this could disturb the reciprocal tolerance and
thus entail disadvantages in the longer term.460 However, this inducement to act reasonably
and moderately due to the expectation that this will also encourage other states to act along
the same lines, which is typically applicable to obligations and rights of states, does not
apply equally well in the context of environmental protection.461 This is because legal in-
terest in preservation of the environment is often common rather than reciprocal, and envi-
ronmental injury may often be injury to the community as such rather than to a particular
party.462 Accordingly, this traditional process seems inadequate when it comes to dealing
with environmental harm crossing national borders in a global scale. In Chapter 6 I will
present some of the issues that arise with regard to application of the rule in a climate
change context.
459
This is the case for e.g. Lac Lanoux, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros and Pulp Mills.
460
For example, states protect the immunity of foreign diplomats because if they do not, this could put the
safety of their own diplomats at risk, see Shaw (1997) p. 7.
461
Owada (2006) p. 8.
462
Ibid.
102
5.2 The role of the ICJ
In Chapter 1 I indicated that in addition to settling the disputes presented to it, the ICJ, to-
gether with other international courts and tribunals, plays a role in developing the law. The
above analysed jurisprudence shows that some of the Court’s decisions concerning issues
of environmental law have contributed with crystallization, clarification and confirmation
of the status of parts of the law concerning transboundary harm, and that a willingness in
the Court to contribute to the development of this area of law may be traced. A good exam-
ple is Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, where the Court stressed that treaty obligations must be im-
plemented in the light of the recent development of international environmental law, and
looked to the wider corpus of international environmental law when deciding on the case
before it.463
The Court’s contribution to the law in this field has however been quite gradual.
The gradual development is, of course, partly due to the fact that few disputes actually
come before the Court, both for jurisdictional reasons and because states tend to solve their
disagreements by other means. Also when the disputes are successfully submitted to the
Court, there are jurisdictional obstacles; for example in the Pulp Mills case, environmental
effects such as noise and odors stemming from the pulp mills were not considered by the
Court because it concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over these types of pollution.464
In addition to this, the Court does not seem to have been particularly progressive in
cases concerning environmental issues. For example, in the first Nuclear Tests case, where
serious environmental questions were raised in the proceedings, the Court avoided an as-
sessment of the arguments proposed by Australia and New Zealand. Not even when giving
account of the facts that gave rise to the dispute, did the Court make any substantive de-
scription of environmental dangers associated with nuclear testing; the environmental di-
mensions of the case seems to have been largely ignored. A change of perception may be
traced in the second Nuclear Tests case, in line with the generally increased environmental
463
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, paras. 112, 140. See e.g. section 2.4.5.
464
The Court’s jurisdiction derived from the 1975 Statue for the River Uruguay, and only pollution of the
aquatic environment of the river fell within the scope of the treaty, see Pulp Mills, para. 52.
103
awareness in the two decades following the first Nuclear Tests case to at least recognizing
the importance of environmental protection.465 Nevertheless, the Court avoided a deeper
engagement in the environmental claims presented to it.
In the subsequent advisory opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons and the
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros and Pulp Mills cases, the Court has shown an inclination towards
addressing environmental issues in a more comprehensive manner. Still, the approach taken
by the Court to environmental issues may be characterized as rather moderate. For exam-
ple, although the Court on several occasions has made references to environmental con-
cepts such as the precautionary principle and sustainable development, it appears unclear to
what extent these concepts actually influenced the outcome of the decisions. For example,
in Pulp Mills the Court explicitly dismissed that the precautionary principle would operate
as a reversal of the burden of proof, and neither did it appear to lower the standard of
proof.466 The Court stated that the precautionary approach “may be relevant in the interpre-
tation and application of the provisions” of the treaty in question, but there is no clear evi-
dence that the Court actually took a precautionary approach in its application and interpre-
tation of the relevant provisions. Furthermore, while the Court in Pulp Mills confirmed that
EIA is required under customary international law when a proposed industrial activity in-
volves a risk of causing significant damage to a shared natural resource, the Court refused
to take the opportunity to clarify the specific scope and content of the EIA required.
On the other side, the Court’s judgment in Pulp Mills shows that the Court is will-
ing to utilize the comprehensive work of the ILC entrenched in the Articles on Prevention,
in cases concerning risk of transboundary harm.467 Although not explicitly referring to it, it
clearly used elements from the Articles in its decision, for example when defining the con-
tent of the due diligence obligation.468 The fact that the Court looks to the Articles for in-
465
466
See section 3.6.3.
467
See section 3.5.2.
468
104
struction and even uses the formulations as authoritative statements of customary law, also
advances the importance of the Articles that do not express customary law.469
Although the main focus of this thesis has been on the jurisprudence on the ICJ
concerning transboundary environmental harm, I have also mentioned some decisions from
other adjudicating bodies, such as the PCA and ITLOS. Some of these cases show that
when the ICJ has made general statements with regard to scope and content of obligations
of international environmental law, its findings have been drawn upon by other internation-
al courts and tribunals. A good example is the Seabed Activities advisory opinion, where
the ITLOS made use of the Pulp Mills decision in the interpretation of UNCLOS provi-
sions.470 This shows that there has been a “cross-fertilization” between international courts
and tribunals with regard to issues of transboundary environmental harm, which is positive
both for the development of international environmental law generally, and in terms of
avoiding fragmentation in this field of law.471
Summing up, the contribution of the ICJ may be characterized as relatively modest.
It appears to have played a secondary role in shaping the development of this field of inter-
national law, compared to the large and increasing number of multilateral and regional trea-
ties that have been adopted, particularly since the Stockholm Conference. Surely, further
development of the international law concerning environmental protection is desirable and
necessary in order to manage the great environmental challenges facing the world commu-
nity. Still, one may argue that fast and progressive contributions to the development of in-
ternational law is not, and should not be, the most important function of the Court.
Viñuales, for example, argue that
the main role of the ICJ with regard to the development of international law is arguably
not that of a ground-breaking body but rather that of a stock-taking institution or, to put it
469
See e.g. Rutledge (2011) p. 1100.
470
Seabed Activities, paras. 111, 135, 147. See 3.5.2.
471
See also Harrison (2013) p. 513.
105
in somewhat more colorful terms, that of being the gate-keeper and guardian of general
international law.472
Some dissenting opinions demonstrate that ICJ judges themselves have different views
regarding what role of the Court should take in developing international environmental law.
As seen above, Judge Weeramantry has in his dissenting opinions often taken quite pro-
gressive stands, and has explicitly criticized the Court for being too cautious in environ-
mental cases. In his dissenting opinion in the second Nuclear Tests case for example, he
stated:
I regret that the Court has not availed itself of the opportunity to enquire more fully into this mat-
ter and of making a contribution to some of the seminal principles of the evolving corpus of in-
ternational environmental law. The Court has too long been silent on these issues and, in the
473
words of ancient wisdom, one may well ask ‘If not now, when?’
Frustration over the Court’s “conservativeness” may also be traced in the dissenting opin-
ion of Judges Simma and Al-Khasawneh in Pulp Mills.474
5.3 Prospects for future contributions

After handing down its judgment in the Pulp Mills case in 2010, there were still three cases
concerning issues of transboundary environmental harm on the Court’s list; the Aerial
Herbicide Spraying case, and two disputes between Nicaragua and Costa Rica concerning
certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area and construction of a road in
472
Viñuales (2008) p. 258. The point is repeated by Malgosia Fitzmaurice in Fitzmaurice (2013) p. 374.
473
Nuclear Tests II, Dissenting opinion of Judge Weeramatry, p. 362.
474
See section 4.3.1. They also criticized the majority of the Court for the way they dealt with scientific evi-
dence in the case, see the dissenting opinion of Judges Simma and Al-Khasawneh, pp. 109-112.
106
Costa Rica along the San Juan river,475 and the prospects for further development were thus
favorable.476
5.3.1 Aerial Herbicide Spraying

The Aerial Herbicide Spraying case was widely expected to contribute with further devel-
opment of the no-harm rule. The case was submitted to the ICJ in 2008, when Ecuador
filed an application instituting proceedings concerning Colombia’s aerial spraying of toxic
herbicides on locations near, at and across its border with Ecuador. In its application, Ecua-
dor held that “[t]he spraying has already caused serious damage to people, to crops, to ani-
mals, and to the natural environment on the Ecuadorian side of the frontier, and poses a
grave risk of further damage over time.”477 Ecuador asserted that Colombia’s fumigations
were being conducted in a particularly vulnerable area and in a manner that dramatically
increased the risks involved to people and to the natural environment, emphasizing that the
affected region is home to communities of indigenous peoples deeply dependent on their
natural environment, and that Ecuador has the world’s highest biological diversity per area
unit.478 Ecuador claimed that Colombia had violated Ecuador’s rights both under customary
and conventional international law, and held that “[t]he harm that has occurred, and is fur-
475
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construc-
tion of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica). The Court joined the pro-
ceedings of the two cases by order of 17 April 2013.
476
Another case concerning issues of international environmental law which was submitted to the Court in
2010 is the Whaling in the Antarctic case (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening). The dispute con-
cerned the lawfulness of Japan’s allegedly scientific whaling program. The Court delivered its judgment on
31 March 2014, stating that the whaling program was not scientific research as defined under the Internation-
al Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and that Japan must revoke existing authorizations and refrain
from granting any further permits in pursuance of the program, see para. 247. Although an interesting case
which arguably may have made contributions to international environmental law, the case will not be ana-
lysed in this study, as it does not concern issues of transboundary harm.
477
Aerial Herbicide Spraying, Application instituting proceedings, para. 2.
478
Ibid. para. 25.
107
ther threatened, includes some with irreversible consequences, indicating that Colombia
has failed to meet its obligations of prevention and precaution”.479
Considering these allegations, this case obviously provided a good opportunity for
the Court to initiate further developments of the law concerning transboundary environ-
mental harm. Over the five years that this case has pended, the potential for the Court to
clarify and further develop the content of international environmental norms was addressed
by several international law commentators, who emphasized that the case involved great
potential for utilizing and further developing the contributions that was made in Pulp Mills,
particularly with regard to the relationship between substantive and procedural obliga-
tions.480
Unfortunately, the Court will not get the opportunity to utilize the potential of this
case after all, as it was removed from the Court’s list on 13 September 2013, after a settle-
ment agreement was reached by the parties.481 The agreement allegedly obliges Colombia
to pay 15 million dollars in compensation, which is to be invested in the areas of Ecuadori-
an territory affected by the spraying.482 The agreement also provides for an exclusive zone,
within 10 kilometers of the Ecuadorian border, where Colombia will not conduct aerial
spraying operations,483 creates a Joint Commission whose function will be to ensure that
spraying outside this zone do not cause herbicides to drift into Ecuador, and establishes a
dispute settlement mechanism.484 Accordingly, while the agreement will not put an end to
the spraying, Colombia will compensate Ecuador for already occurred harm to crops and
people, and will restrict future spraying operations to assure that spray does not cross into
Ecuadorian territory.
479
Ibid. para. 37.
480
See e.g. Viñuales (2008) pp. 255-257, Esposito (2010) pp. 26-48 and Rutledge (2011) pp. 1103-1108.
481
Aerial Herbicide Spraying, Order of 13 September 2013, p. 2.
482
An unconfirmed photocopy of the settlement agreement is available at the webpage
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/10/ecuador-colombia-settlement-wont-end-spraying/ (Last visited 12 Novem-
ber 2013).
483
Aerial Herbicide Spraying, Order of 13 September 2013, p. 2.
484
Ibid.
108
5.3.2 Two pending cases between Nicaragua and Costa Rica
Some contributions may, however, be expected from the two pending cases between Costa
Rica and Nicaragua. Both disputes involve projects with alleged harmful transboundary
environmental impact, the first concerns a canal and dredging project carried out in Nicara-
gua and the second a road construction project in Costa Rica.
In the first case, Costa Rica claims inter alia that Nicaragua’s dredging project will
seriously affect the water flow to the Colorado River of Costa Rica and cause damage to its
territory, included wetlands and national wildlife in the region.485 The Court gave an order
of provisional measures in March 2011 upon request from Costa Rica, deciding that Costa
Rica could send civilians to the disputed area in order to avoid irreparable environmental
harm, as well as ordering the parties to consult in terms of finding solutions to ensure pro-
tection of the environment in the area.486 This was reaffirmed in a subsequent order on in-
dication of provisional measures in November 2013, where the Court also found that the
situation in the disputed area revealed a real risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights
claimed by Costa Rica and that consequently, Nicaragua should refrain from any dredging
or other activities in the area.487
In the second case Nicaragua claims that the construction of a road along the border
river San Juan has caused damage to the environment in its territory, including damaged
ecosystems and dumping of sediments in the river, and that Costa Rica has given no prior
notification, nor has it entered into consultation or carried out any environmental impact
assessment.488 While Costa Rica has not denied that an EIA has not been conducted, it has
argued that the construction of the new road was not the subject of EIA because it was car-
ried out in the context of an emergency decree that “exempted” the project from these re-
quirements.489
485
Certain Activities, Application instituting proceedings, paras. 3-5.
486
Certain Activities, Provisional Measures, ICJ Rep. (2011) p. 6, para. 86.
487
Certain Activities, Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, para. 59.
488
Construction of a Road, Application instituting proceedings, paras. 49-52.
489
Ibid. 23.
109
In October 2013 Nicaragua requested the Court to order the provisional measures
that Costa Rica immediately and unconditionally is to provide Nicaragua with the an EIA;
that Costa Rica must take a number of emergency measures in order to reduce or eliminate
instances of erosion, landslides and sediment delivery into the San Juan River as a result of
the construction of the road, and that Costa Rica is ordered not to renew any construction
activities with respect to the road while the case is pending.490
The ICJ gave its order in December 2013. It noted that the claimed right to be free
from transboundary harm is the principal right underpinning the request, emphasizing that
this is a right derived from the right of a state to sovereignty and territorial integrity. 491 It
repeated the much referred statement from Legality of Nuclear Weapons492 and the state-
ment from Pulp Mills493 that there is a requirement under general international law to un-
dertake an environmental impact assessment where there is a risk that the proposed indus-
trial activity may have a significant adverse impact in a transboundary context, and on this
basis stated that it found the rights for which Nicaragua sought protection plausible.494 The
Court found, however, that it could not order Costa Rica to provide Nicaragua with an EIA,
because the exact same claim was included in Nicaragua’s application instituting proceed-
ings, and this would amount to a prejudgment of the decision on the merits.495 The Court
further found that Nicaragua had not shown that there was any real and imminent risk of
irreparable prejudice to the rights it had invoked, and therefore it could not indicate any
provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute of the ICJ.496
In both of these disputes, the parties emphasize their respect for environmental pro-
tection, but they seem to repress that there is a requirement of cooperation in the context of
transboundary environmental harm; Nicaragua and Costa Rica seem to have failed to com-
490
Construction of a Road, Provisional Measures, Order of 13 December 2012, para. 7.
491
Ibid. para. 19.
492
493
Pulp Mills, para 204.
494
Construction of a Road, Provisional Measures, Order of 13 December 2012, para. 19.
495
Ibid. para. 21.
496
Ibid. para. 35.
110
ply with procedural duties to consult, notify and carry out EIAs. One may expect the Court
to address whether procedural and substantive obligations are violated in the judgments on
the merits. However, as the orders regarding provisional measures referred above indicate,
proving occurrence and risk of environmental harm may be complicated as so often in en-
vironmental disputes.
111
6 Future challenges
The aim of this final chapter is to identify and comment on some future challenges for the
law concerning transboundary environmental harm. In 5.1.3 I indicated that while the no-
harm rule seems well-suited in strictly bilateral disputes, for example disputes concerning
shared natural resources, it may be less well-suited in the context of more global challenges
such as climate change and biodiversity. In 6.1, I will address some of the challenges that
arise with regard to the application of the no-harm rule to one particular global environ-
mental challenge, climate change, and discuss what role the ICJ may play in this context. In
6.2 I will briefly address the issues of legal standing and erga omnes in the context of glob-
al environmental protection.
6.1 Application of the no-harm rule in a climate change context

Climate change is widely considered as one of the most serious environmental challenges
of our time. The last reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change con-
clude that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that the human influence on
the climate system is clear.497 A number of serious effects of climate change have been
outlined by the panel, including health and ecological damage, loss of land and property
threats to human security and potential human casualties.498 What role international envi-
ronmental law should play with regard to current and future climate change damage, and
the role of international courts and tribunals in this context are issues subject to much dis-
cussion.499 In this section I will give an overview of the main challenges that application of
the no-harm rule in a climate change context entail.
A question which has been raised in the literature is whether legal obligations under
the no-harm rule may be applied alongside the climate regime, or whether the UN Conven-
497
See the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, The Physical Science Basis from 2013 (WGI AR5), and Impacts,
Adaption and Vulnerability from 2014 (WGII AR5).
498
Ibid.
499
See e.g. the discussions of state responsibility for climate change damages in Strauss (2009), Voigt (2008)
and Verheyen (2005).
112
tion on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol have displaced rules of general internation-
al law in the context of climate change, in accordance with the doctrine of lex specialis.500
The essence of the doctrine is that if a specialized legal system of international law is in-
tended to create a self-contained regime, then rules of general international law might not
apply.501 Accordingly, one must look at the intent of the parties of the legal system in de-
termining whether general rules of international law were meant to be excluded. In the lit-
erature, the dominating view on the issue seems to be that neither the scope of the climate
change treaties, the negotiation history, nor the intent of the parties indicate that the regime
is lex specialis vis à vis general rules of international law, and thus that the no-harm rule
remains applicable in a climate change context.502
One challenge associated with applying the no-harm rule in this context is the vague
character of the no-harm rule, which entails a number of substantial uncertainties. As the
discussion of the substantive content of the no-harm rule in Chapter 3 demonstrated, the
due diligence obligation involves an equitable balance of the duties and interests of the
state of origin and the affected state, and as a consequence, it is almost impossible to define
an objective standard of care.503 Therefore, even when it is established beyond doubt that
global warming poses a significant risk of environmental harm, this risk must be balanced
against the importance and desirability of the emitting activities. Since there is no clear
answer to how the different factors are to be weighted in the balancing test, it is difficult to
predict the outcome of the due diligence evaluation. In this connection, an obvious chal-
lenge is also that the affected state has the burden of demonstrating another state’s failure
to act with due diligence, which will in most cases be a difficult task. A particular chal-
lenge in climate change context is furthermore the multiplicity of victims and polluters: this
500
Kysar (2013) p. 37.
501
Ibid. p. 38.
502
Ibid., Voigt (2008) p. 4, Verheyen (2005) p. 143.
503
Voigt (2008) p. 21.
113
entails issues without clear answers in international law, such as apportion of damage be-
tween the polluting states.504
Additionally, it is clear that an application to the ICJ concerning climate change
damage would also face jurisdictional challenges.505 One thing is that both states must con-
sent to the Court’s jurisdiction, a constraint which is present in all contentious cases. More
significantly in a climate change context is that a lawsuit concerning the effects of global
warming would entail challenging issues with regard to legal standing.506
It has been suggested in the literature that climate change litigation may, together
with the attempt of finding political and legal solutions through international negotiations,
play an important role in counteracting global warming, and that in this regard the ICJ
could make important contributions with its unique visibility and status.507 Interestingly,
there is actually a possibility that the issue of application of the no-harm rule in a climate
change context will be addressed by the Court in the relatively near future. In September
2011, the President of the island state of Palau asked the UN General Assembly to seek an
advisory opinion from the ICJ on the responsibilities of States under international law to
ensure that activities carried out under their jurisdiction or control that emit greenhouse
gases, do not damage other states.508 The current wording of the proposed question com-
municated to the UN by the Permanent Mission of Palau is as follows:
What are the obligations under international law of a State for ensuring that activities under its
jurisdiction or control that emit greenhouse gases do not cause, or substantially contribute to,
509
serious damage to another State or States? (Emphasis added.)
504
Ibid.
505
Ibid. p. 20.
506
See the brief discussion of legal standing in 6.2.
507
Strauss (2009) p. 356.
508
Press Conference on the Request for International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Climate Change,
3 February 2012, http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2012/120203_ICJ.doc.htm (last visited 5 January
2014).
509
Abate and Kronk (2013) p. 401.
114
If this question is posed to the ICJ, the Court will have to specify the content of interna-
tional law norms relating to transboundary harm, taking into consideration both conven-
tional and customary law. It seems likely that the no-harm rule will be invoked by Palau,
and this will provide the Court with an opportunity to address the rule’s applicability to
emissions of greenhouse gasses, and what obligations the rule imposes on a state in this
context. The formulation of the question further implies that the Court will only be asked to
address primary obligations under international law, which means that the Court would not
have to engage in politically controversial questions of secondary rules, such as attribution
of causation for harm etc.510
If Palau manages to secure the General Assembly’s support to ask the Court for an
Advisory Opinion, the Court will have a unique chance to clarify the state of international
law in this area. Although advisory opinions are non-binding, the previous discussions of
this thesis have demonstrated that this type of decision may still have great persuasive
weight in subsequent cases and undoubtedly play a role in the clarification and develop-
ment of the law.511
One may ask whether the ICJ is a suitable forum for addressing issues of climate
change, and whether a judgment or advisory opinion on the matter would be a step in the
right direction in terms of tackling these global challenges. Evidently, no judicial decision
can replace the need to find legal and political solutions for comprehensive management of
greenhouse gas emissions through negotiations at an international level. Certainly, an advi-
sory opinion on the matter will be an important reminder of the serious consequences of
climate change, especially for Island States like Palau, due to the recent failure to advance
the diplomatic climate change negotiations. If successful, it may strengthen Palau’s chances
for receiving compensation for climate change damage. However, should the Court choose
a restrictive approach on the matter, a ruling from the Court may be in danger of reducing
the pressure on states to change their behavior by “letting them off the hook” legally; thus
510
Kysar (2013) p. 8.
511
Abate and Kronk (2013) p. 402.
115
there is a risk that an advisory opinion would complicate efforts to reach political solutions
through negotiation.512
6.2 Legal standing and erga omnes

To enforce a primary rule of international environmental law, like the no-harm rule, a state
must have standing, and be able to demonstrate that it is an “injured state” in accordance
with Article 42 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility. The majority of the cases as-
sessed in this study were bilateral in character, concerning damage to the offended state’s
own territory. In these cases, including for example Trail Smelter, Lac Lanoux, Gabčíkovo-
Nagymaros and Pulp Mills, the offended state did not have trouble claiming that it was an
“injured state”, and its legal standing was therefore not a problem.513 The issue whether a
state has standing to bring a claim to the ICJ to prevent harm to an area beyond national
jurisdiction, if it has not itself suffered substantial harm, is however more complicated. It
entails questions of whether obligations of international environmental law are obligations
erga omnes, i.e. obligation owed to all states.
The essence of erga omnes norms is that all states have legal interest in their ob-
servance; a breach of such a norm enables all states to take action, regardless of whether
damage has been inflicted on them.514 Accordingly, responsibility for breaches of erga om-
nes norms exceeds the reciprocal, bilateral legal relations between pairs of states.515 The
notion has its origins in the Barcelona Traction case, where the ICJ in an obiter dictum
noted that
512
See the comments made by Daniel Bodansky in this news article on climate change and international law
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/uncategorized/ask-the-experts/14420/ (last visited 5 January 2014).
513
514
Ruud and Ulfstein (2011) p. 68.
515
In the words of Christopher J. Tams, “an obligation acquires erga omnes status precisely because it has to
be performed in relation to all other States (or ‘integrally’), and thereby transcends the reciprocal (or ‘bilat-
eral/bilateralisable’) relations between pairs of States”, see Tams (2005) p. 129.
116
an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the interna-
tional community as a whole, and those arising vis-à-vis another State in the field of diplomatic
protection. By their very nature the former are the concern of all States. In view of the im-
portance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection;
they are obligations erga omnes.516 (Emphasis added.)
In the Barcelona Traction judgment, the ICJ held that such obligations derive for example
“from the outlawing of acts of aggression, and of genocide, as also from the principles and
rules concerning the basic rights of the human person, including protection from slavery
and racial discrimination”.517 The Court did not mention obligations relating to environ-
mental protection as possible erga omnes norms, but the concept has later been referred to
in the context of environmental protection in proceedings before the Court. For example,
the claim presented to the ICJ in the first Nuclear Tests case, where New Zealand and Aus-
tralia sought to stop France’s nuclear testing in the South Pacific, entailed a question of
whether New Zealand and Australia could base their claim in a violation of legal obliga-
tions owed erga omnes to all states, and thus raised the question whether a state has stand-
ing to bring an environmental claim to prevent damage to areas beyond national jurisdic-
tion, even if no material damage is suffered by the state itself.518
The Court has never expressly affirmed that the obligations concerning prevention
of environmental harm from occurring in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction
516
Barcelona Traction, Belgium v. Spain, ICJ Rep. (1970) p. 3 (hereinafter Barcelona Traction), p. 32.
517
Barcelona Traction, p. 32. These examples of erga omnes obligations are also prime examples of norms of
jus cogens obligations. The relationship between the two notions is often a source of confusion and some
brief remarks on the difference are thus appropriate. According to Article 3 of the Vienna Convention, norms
of jus cogens are peremptory norms of general international law recognized by the international community
as a whole as norms so fundamental and morally necessitated that they invalidate or override international
laws to the contrary. Jus cogens norms thus have to do with the normative status of norms, rather than with
legal interest in compliance. Furthermore, while jus cogens norms necessarily have an erga omnes scope, not
all erga omnes norms have status as jus cogens; the fact that all states have an interest in compliance with a
norm, does not necessarily mean that this norm is peremptory, see Tams (2005) p. 142.
518
117
are obligations erga omnes towards all member of the international community, and the
issue remains controversial. But it is worth mentioning that in the commentary to the provi-
sion that entrenches the notion of erga omnes in the Draft Articles on State Responsibil-
ity519 the ILC referred to the environment as an example of a collective interest which may
fall within the scope of the provision.520 Furthermore, in the 2005 Cracow resolution on
obligations and rights erga omnes in international law, the Institute de Droit International
in the preamble referred to “obligations relating to the environment of common spaces” as
an example of an obligation reflecting fundamental values of the international community
alongside prohibitions of inter alia genocide and acts of aggression.521 Several scholars
have also expressed support for the extension of the notion of erga omnes to environmental
harm in areas beyond national control.522
Most discussions of erga omnes in an environmental context focus on environmen-
tal damage to the global commons, but an interesting question is also whether erga omnes
norms would open for complaints from third states. Put differently; does the notion imply
that state A has legal interest in bringing actions towards state B for environmental damage
caused to state C, even if state A has not itself suffered any damage? The perception of the
environment as a common good implies that the notion should apply also to the environ-
ment within the jurisdiction of other states.
As it would go beyond the scope of this thesis to address the issues of legal standing
and erga omnes any further, I will leave the discussion here, with the observation that the
notion of erga omnes seems relevant and well suited to play a role in managing global en-
vironmental issues, and it would be interesting to see the concept further developed and
clarified in an environmental context. Unfortunately, the prospects for development
through jurisprudence and state practice are not particularly positive, considering the many
519
See Article 48 (1) litra b which states that “[a]ny State other than an injured State is entitled to invoke the
responsibility of another State … if the obligation breached is owed to the international community as a
whole”.
520
ILC Report (2001) Document A/56/10 p. 322, para. 10.
521
Resolution on “Obligations and rights erga omnes in international law”.
522
See e.g. Scovazzi (2001) pp. 62-63 and Brownlie (1973) p. 183.
118
examples of reluctance among states towards enforcing obligations of environmental pro-
tection. This is perhaps best illustrated by the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power
plant in 1986, where no state sought to enforce compliance by the Soviet Union with the
legal obligations arising out of the consequences of the accident. Surely, it seems unlikely
that the same states will be particularly active in enforcing obligations owed to the global
commons, obligations whose violation will only lead to indirect or insignificant harm to the
state. 523 A solution to this may be to let non-state entities, for example international organ-
ization, play a more central role in the enforcment of such obligations.524
523
524
Ibid.
119
Bibliography
Abate and Kronk (2013) Abate, Randall S. and Elizabeth A. Kronk Climate Change
and Indigenous Peoples. Northampton (2013)
Birnie, et al. (2009) Birnie, Patricia, et al., International Law and the Environ-
ment, 3rd edition. Oxford 2009
Bodansky (1995) Bodansky, Daniel Customary (and Not So Customary) In-

ternational Environmental Law, Indiana Journal of Global
Legal Studies, vol. 3 (1995), pp. 105-119 (HeinOnline)
Boyle (2011) Boyle, Alan Developments in the International Law of Envi-

ronmental Impact Assessments and their Relation to the Es-
poo Convention, Review of European Community & Inter-
national Environmental Law, vol. 20 (2011) pp. 227-231
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-
9388.2011.00726.x/abstract> (last visited 2 April 2014)
Boyle (2009) Boyle, Alan International Adjudication: Judicial Settlement

and Arbitration, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public Inter-
national Law, 2009
<http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231
690/law-9780199231690-
e1949?rskey=gMZyYJ&result=2&prd=OPIL> (last visited
14 January 2014)
Boyle (1990) Boyle, Alan State Responsibility and International Liability

for Injuries Consequences of Acts Not Prohibited by Interna-
tional Law: A Necessary Distinction? International and
120
Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 39 (1990) pp. 1-26
Boyle and Harrison (2013) Boyle, Alan and James Harrison Judicial Settlement of In-
ternational Environmental Disputes: Current Problems,
Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol. 4 (2013),
pp. 245–276
<http://jids.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/2/245.short?rss=1>
(last visited 2 April 2014)
Brownlie (1990) Brownlie, Ian Priniciples of Public International Law, 4th

edition, Oxford 1990
Brownlie (1973) Brownlie, Ian A Survey of International Customary Rules of

Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Journal, vol.
13 (1973) pp. 179-189
<http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nrj/13/2/02_brownlie_survey.pdf
> (last visited 2 April 2014)
Buergenthal (2009) Buergenthal, Thomas Lawmaking by the ICJ and Other In-
ternational Courts, Proceedings of the Annual Meetings,
American Society of International Law, vol. 103 (2009) pp.
403-406
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5305/procannmeetasil.103.1.
0403> (last visited 2 April 2014)
Bugge (2011) Bugge, Hans Christian Lærebok i miljøforvaltningsrett, 3rd

edition, Oslo 2011
Cassese (2005) Cassese, Antonio International Law, 2nd edition, Oxford

2005
121
Craik (2008) Craik, Neil The International Law of Environmental Impact
Assessment, Cambridge 2008
Deleuil (2012) Deleuil, Thomas The Common but Differentiated Responsi-

bilitues Principle: Changes in Continuity after the Durban
Conference of the Parties, Review of European Community
& International Environmental Law, vol 3 (2012) pp. 271-
281
Dupuy (1999) Dupuy, Pierre-Marie Reviewing the difficulties of codifica-

tion: on Ago's classification of obligations of means and
obligations of result in relation to state responsibility, Euro-
pean Journal of International Law, vol. 10 (1999) pp. 371-
385
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=803724
> (last visited 2 April 2014)
Dworkin (1977) Dworkin, Ronald Taking rights seriously, Oxford 1977
Esposito (2010) Esposito, Robert The ICJ and the Future of Transboundary
Harm Disputes: A Preliminary Analysis of the Case Con-
cerning Spraying (Ecuador v. Colombia), Pace International
Law Review Online Companion, vol. 2 (2010) pp. 1-53
<http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilronline/15/> (last visited
2 April 2014)
Fitzmaurice (2013) Fitzmaurice, Malgosia The International Court of Justice
122
and International Environmental Law, The Development of
International Law by the International Court of Justice, Ox-
ford (2013) pp. 353-373
Fitzmaurice (2007) Fitzmaurice, Malgosia International Responsibility and Lia-

bility, The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental
Law, Oxford University Press (2007) pp.1010-1035
Foster (2011) Foster, Caroline Science and the Precautionary Principle in

International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge 2011
Guillaume (2011) Guillaume, Gilbert The Use of Precedent by International

Judges and Arbitrators, Journal of International Dispute
Settlement, vol. 2 (2011) pp. 5-23
<http://jids.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/1/5.abstract> (last
visited 2 April 2014)
Handl (2007) Handl, Günther Transboundary Impacts, The Oxford Hand-

book of International Environmental Law, Oxford Universi-
ty Press (2007) pp. 532-548
Harrison (2013) Harrison, James Reflection on the Role of International

Courts and Tribunals in the Settlement of Environmental
Disputes and the Development of International Environmen-
tal Law, Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 25 (2013) pp.
501-514
<http://jel.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/3/501.abstract>
(last visited 2 April 2014)
Higgins (1994) Higgins, Rosalyn Problems and Process: International Law
123
and How We Use It, Oxford 1994
Kiss and Shelton (2007) Kiss, Alexander and Dinah Shelton Guide to International
Environmental Law, Leiden 2007
Knox (2002) Knox, John The Myth and Reality of Transboundary Envi-
ronmental Impact Assessment, American Journal of Interna-
tional Law, vol. 96 (2002) pp. 291-319 (HeinOnline)
Koivurova (2013) Koivurova, Timo Due Diligence, Max Planck Encyclopedia

of Public International Law, 2013
<http://www.arcticcentre.org/loader.aspx?id=78182718-
d0c9-4833-97b3-b69299e2f127> (last visited 5 January
2014)
Koskenniemi (1991) Koskenniemi, Martii Peaceful Settlement of Environmental

Disputes, Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. 60
(1991), pp. 72-92 (HeinOnline)
Kummer (1999) Kummer, Katharina International Management of Hazard-

ous Wastes: The Basel Convention and Related Legal Rules,
Oxford 1999
Kysar (2013) Kysar, Douglas A. Climate Change and the International

Court of Justice, Working paper series, Yale Center for En-
vironmental Law and Policy (2013), Public Law Research
Paper No. 315
3> (last visited 14 January 2014)
124
Lefeber (1996) Lefeber, René Transboundary Environmental Interference
and the Origin of State Liability, The Hague 1996
McIntyre (2007) McIntyre, Owen Environmental Protection of International

Watercourses Under International Law, Aldershot 2007
McIntyre (1998) McIntyre, Owen International Protection of International

Rivers, Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 10 (1998) pp.
79-91
<http://jel.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/79.abstract> (last
visited 2 April 2014)
Nanda and Pring (2003) Nanda, Ved P. and George Pring International Environmen-
tal law & Policy for the 21st Century, New York 2003
Nyland (2009) Nyland, Nicolai Er stater folkerettslig forpliktet til å beskytte

miljøet? Oslo 2009
Okowa (2000) Okowa, Phoebe N. State Responsibility for Transboundary

Air Pollution in International Law, Oxford 2000
Owada (2006) Owada, Hisashi International Environmental Law and the

International Court of Justice Inaugural Lecture at the Fel-
lowship Programme on International and Comparative Envi-
ronmental Law (2006)
<http://ias.jak.ppke.hu/hir/ias/200634sz/owada.pdf>
(last visited 4 December 2013)
Palanissamy (2013) Palanissamy, Ayyappan Haze Free Air in Singapore and

Malaysia – The Spirit of the Law in South East Asia, Interna-
125
tional Journal of Education and Research, vol. 1 (2013) pp.
1-8
<http://www.ijern.com/journal/August-2013/09.pdf>
(last visited 31 March 2014)
Payne (2010) Payne, Cymie R. Environmental Impact Assessment as a

Duty under International Law: The International Court of
Justice Judgment on Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, Eu-
ropean Journal of Risk Regulation, vol 3. (2010) pp. 317-
324
4> (last visited 2 April 2014)
Perrez (1996) Perrez, Franz Xaver The relationship between «Permanent

Sovereignty» and the obligation not to cause transboundary
environmental damage, Environmental Law (1996) pp.
1187-1212 (HeinOnline)
Plakokefalos (2013) Plakokefalos, Ilias Prevention Obligations in International

Envrionmental Law, ACIL Research Paper 2013-12
1> (last visited 11 February 2014)
Rajamani (2012) Lavanya, Rajamani The changing fortunes of differential

treatment in the evolution of international environmental
law, International Affairs, vol. 88 82012) pp. 605-623
Robberstad (2013) Robberstad, Anne Sivilprosess, 2nd edition, Bergen 2013
126
Ruud and Ulfstein (2011) Ruud, Morten and Geir Ulfstein Innføring i folkerett, 4th
edition, Oslo 2011
Rutledge (2011) Rutledge, Jessica L. Wait a Second – Is That Rain or Herbi-

cide? The ICJ’s Potential Analysis in Aerial Herbicide
Spraying and an Epic Choice Between the Environment and
Human Rights, Wake Forest Law Review, vol. 46 (2011) pp.
1079-1112 (HeinOnline)
Sands and Peel (2012) Sands, Philippe and Jacqueline Peel Principles of Interna-
tional Environmental Law, 3rd edition, Cambridge 2012
Sands (1998) Sands, Philippe Pleadings and the Pursuit of International

Law: Nuclear Tests II (New Zealand v. France), in Legal
Visions of the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Judge
Christopher Weeramatry, The Hague (1998) pp. 601-629
Schachter (1991) Schachter, Oscar The Emergence of International Environ-

mental Law, Journal of International Affairs, vol. 44 (1991)
pp. 457-493
Scovazzi (2001) Scovazzi, Tullio State Responsibility for Environmental

Harm, Yearbook of International Environmental Law, vol.
12 (2001) pp. 43-67
Shaw (1997) Shaw, Malcolm N. International Law, 4th edition, Cambridge

1997
Simma and Alston (1991) Simma, Bruno and Philip Alston The Sources of Human
127
Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens and General Principles,
Australian Yearbook of International Law, vol. 12 (1991)
pp. 82-108
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/198
9/5.pdf> (Last visited 2 April 2014)
Stephens (2009) Stephens, Tim International Courts and Environmental Pro-

tection, Cambridge 2009
Strauss (2009) Strauss, Andrew Climate Change Litigation: Opening the

Door to the International Court of Justice in Adjudicating
Climate Change: State, National, and International Ap-
proaches, Cambridge (2009) pp. 334-356
Tams (2013) Tams, Christian J. The ICJ as a ‘Law-Formative Agency’:

Summay and Synthesis, in The Development of International
Law by the International Court of Justice, Oxford 2013
Tams (2005) Tams, Christian J. Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in

International Law, Cambridge 2005
Tol and Verheyen (2004) Tol, Richard and Roda Verheyen State Responsibility and
compensation for climate change damages – a legal and
economic assessment, Energy Policy, vol. 32 (2004) p.
1109-1130
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1
75.5520&rep=rep1&type=pdf> (last visited 4 April 2014)
Ulfstein (2010) Ulfstein, Geir International framework for environmental

decisionmaking in Research Handbook on International En-
128
vironmental Law, Cheltenham (2010) pp. 26-47
1> (last visited 4 April)
Verheyen (2005) Verheyen, Roda Climate Change Damage and International

Law, Boston 2005
Viñuales (2008) Viñuales, Jorge The Contribution of the International Court

of Justice to the Development of International Environmen-
tal Law: A Contemporary Assessment, Fordham Internation-
al Law Review, vol. 32 (2008) pp. 232-258 (HeinOnline)
Voigt (2009) Voigt, Christina Sustainable Development As a Principle of

International Law: Resolving Conflicts Between Climate
Measures and WTO Law, Leiden 2009
Voigt (2008) Voigt, Christina State Responsibility for Climate Change

Damages, Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. 77
(2008) pp. 1-22 (HeinOnline)
Xue (2003) Xue, Hanqin Transboundary Damage in International Law,

Cambridge 2003
129
Treaty law
UN Charter Charter of the United Nations, San Francisco,

26 June 1945
Statute of the ICJ Statute of the International Court of Justice,

26 June 1945
Convention on the High Seas Convention on the High Seas, Geneva, 29

April 1958
Outer Space Treaty Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities

of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer
Space, Including the Moon and Other Celes-
tial Bodies, 27 January 1967
Vienna Convention Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,

22 May 1969
Convention on Oil Pollution Damage Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollu-
tion Damage, Brussels, 29 November 1969
Ramsar Convention Convention on Wetlands of International

Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat,
Ramsar, 2 February 1971
Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Material Convention Relating to Civil Liability in the

Convention Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Mate-
rial, Brussels, 17 December 1971
130
London Convention Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pol-
lution by Dumping of Wastes and other Ma-
terials, London, 29 December 1972
Space Liability Convention Convention on the International Liability for

Damage Caused by Space Objects, London,
Moscow and Washington DC, 29 March
1972
Paris Convention Convention for the Prevention of Marine

Pollution from Land-Based Sources, Paris, 4
June 1974
Barcelona Convention Convention for the Protection of the Mediter-

ranean Sea against Pollution, Barcelona, 10
June 1976
Long-range Air Pollution Convention Convention on Long-range Transboundary

Air Pollution, Geneva, 13 November 1979
MARPOL Convention International Convention for the Prevention

of Pollution from Ships as modified by the
Protocol 1978 relating thereto, 2 November
1973
Ozone Layer Protection Convention Convention for the Protection of the Ozone
Layer, Vienna, 22 March 1985
UNLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the
131
Sea Convention, Montego Bay, 10 December
1982
Montreal Protocol Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete

the Ozone Layer, 16 September 1987
Espoo Convention Convention on Environmental Impact As-

sessment in a Transboundary Context, 25
February 1991
Madrid Protocol Protocol on Environmental Protection to the

Antarctic Treaty, Madrid, 4 October 1991
Industrial Accidents Convention Convention on the Transboundary Effects of

Industrial Accidents, Helsinki, 17 March
1992
UNECE Water Convention Convention on the Protection and Use of

Transboundary Watercourses and Interna-
tional Lakes, Helsinki, 17 March 1992
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change, New York, 9 May 1992
Biodiversity Convention Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de

Janeiro, 5 June 1992
OSPAR Convention Convention for the Protection of the Marine

Environment of the North-East Atlantic, Par-
is, 22 September 1992
132
London Protocol Protocol to the 1972 Convention on the Pre-
vention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter, London, 7 Novem-
ber 1996
Watercourses Convention Convention on the Law of the Non-

navigational Uses of International Water-
courses, New York, 21 May 1997
Kyoto Protocol Protocol to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto, 11
December 1997
POPs Convention Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic

Pollutants, Stockholm, 22 May 2001
Domestic law
Norwegian Neighboring Properties Act Lov om rettshøve mellom grannar (granne-

lova) Lov av 16. juni nr. 15
133
Case law
The International Court of Justice
Corfu Channel Judgment, 9 April 1949. ICJ Rep. (1949) p. 4

(The United Kingdom v. Albania) <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/1/1645.pdf>
Barcelona Traction Judgment, 5 February 1970. ICJ Rep. (1970) p. 3

(Belgium v. Spain) <http://www.icjcij.org/docket/files/50/5387.pdf>
Nuclear Tests I Judgment, 20 December 1974. ICJ Rep. (1974) p.

(New Zealand v. France) 457
<http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/59/6159.pdf>
US Staff in Tehran Judgment, 24 May 1980 ICJ Rep. (1980) p. 3

(United States of America v. Iran) <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/64/6291.pdf>
Nuclear Tests I Judgment, 20 December 1974 ICJ Rep. (1974) p.

(Australia v. France) 253
Provisional Measures. Order, 22 June 1973. ICJ

Rep. (1973) p. 99 at p. 132
Provisional Measures, Oral Proceedings, 22 June

1973, vol. 1
134
Questions of Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Oral

Proceedings, vol. 1
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru Judgment, 26 June 1992. ICJ Rep. (1992) p. 240
(Nauru v. Australia) http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/80/6795.pdf
Application instituting proceedings, filed 19 May

1989
Nuclear Tests II Order, 22 September 1995. ICJ Rep. (1995) p. 288

(New Zealand v. France) <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/97/7555.pdf>
Oral Proceedings, Public sitting 12 September 1995

CR/95/20
Application instituting proceedings, filed 21 Au-

gust 1995
Australia’s Application for permission to intervene,

filed 23 August 1995
135
Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.
Legality of Nuclear Weapons Advisory opinion, 8 July 1996. ICJ Rep.(1996) p.
(advisory opinion) 226
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project Judgment, 25 September 1997. ICJ Rep. (1997) p.

(Hungary v. Slovakia) 7 <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7375.pdf>
Written Proceedings, Memorial of Hungary, 2 May

1994, vol. 1
Oral Proceedings, Public sitting 3 March 1997, CR

1997/2
Kasikili/Sedudu Island Judgment, 13 December 1999. ICJ Rep. (1999) p.

(Botswana v. Namibia) 1045.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay Judgment, 20 April 2010. ICJ Rep. (2010) p. 14
(Argentina v. Uruguay) <http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/files/135/15877.pdf>
Provisional Measures. Order, 13 July 2006. ICJ
136
Rep. (2006) p. 113
<http://www.icj-
Whaling in the Antarctic Judgment, 31 March 2014

(Australia v. Japan) <http://www.icj-
Certain Activities Provisional Measures. Order, 22 November 2013

(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) <http://www.icj-
Provisional Measures. Order, 8 March 2011. ICJ

Rep. (2011) p. 6
<http://www.icj-
Application instituting proceedings, filed 18 No-

vember 2010
<http://www.icj-
Construction of a Road Provisional Measures. Order, 13 December 2012

(Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) <http://www.icj-
Application instituting proceedings, filed 22 De-
137
cember 2011
<http://www.icj-
Aerial Herbicide Spraying Removal from list. Order, 13 December 2013

(Ecuador v. Colombia) <http://www.icj-
Application instituting proceedings, filed 31 March

2008
<http://www.icj-
138
Arbitral Awards
Alabama Claims The Alabama case, Report of International Arbi-

(The United Kingdom v. the United tration Award, vol. 29, pp. 125-132, 8 May 1872
States) <http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXIX/125-
134.pdf>
Island of Palmas Report of International Arbitration Awards, vol.

(Netherlands v. the United Kingdom) 2 pp. 829-871, 4 April 1928
<http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_II/829-
871.pdf>
Trail Smelter Report of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 3

(The United States v. Canada) pp. 1905-1982, 16 April 1938 and 11 March
1941.
<http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_III/1905-
1982.pdf>
Lac Lanoux Report of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 12

(Spain v. France) pp. 281-317, 16 November 1957.
<http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XII/281-
317_Lanoux.pdf>
English translation (incomplete): Yearbook of

International Law Commission (1974), vol. 2
part 2 p. 194
<http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Y
139
bkvolumes(e)/ILC_1974_v2_p2_e.pdf>
Iron Rhine Permanent Court of Arbitration, Award of 24

(Belgium v. The Netherlands) May 2005
<http://www.pca-
cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1155>
MOX Plant Arbitration Permanent Court of Arbitration, Order no. 3 (Ju-

(Ireland v. the United Kingdom) risdiction and Provisional Measures) 24 June
2003
<http://www.pca
Indus Waters Kishenganga Permanent Court of Arbitration, Partial Award of

(Pakistan v. India) 18 February 2013
<http://www.pca-
140
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Southern Bluefin Tuna Request for provisional measures. Order, 27 Au-

(New Zealand v. Japan / Australia v. gust 1999, ITLOS Nos. 3 and 4 (1999)
Japan) <http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=62>
MOX Plant Request for provisional measures. Order, 3 De-

(Ireland v. the UK) cember 2001, ITLOS No. 10 (2001)
<http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=102>
Land Reclamation Request for provisional measures. Order, 8 October

(Malaysia v. Singapore) 2003, ITLOS No. 12 (2003)
<http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=104>
Seabed Activities Responsibilities and obligations of states sponsor-

(advisory opinion) ing persons and entities with respect to activities in
the area. Advisory opinion, 1 February 2011. IT-
LOS No. 17 (2011)
<http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=109&L=0>
141
Declarations, resolutions, reports etc.
Articles on Prevention ILC Draft Articles on Prevention of Trans-

boundaryHarm from Hazardous Activities,
adopted by the Commission at its fifty-third ses-
sion, 2001
<http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/
draft%20articles/9_7_2001.pdf>
Articles on State Responsibility ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States

for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by
the Commission at its fifty-third session, 2001
Brundtland Report Report of the World Commission on Environ-

ment and Development: Our Common Future,
1987
<http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-
Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf>
Cracow Resolution on erga omnes Resolution on obligations and rights erga omnes
in international law, Institute de Droit interna-
tional, 2005
<http://www.idi-
iil.org/idiE/resolutionsE/2005_kra_01_en.pdf>
ILC Report (2001) GAOR A/56/10 Report of the International Law Commission on
the Work of its Fifty-third Session
<http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/56/a561
142
0.pdf
ILC Report (2004) GAOR A/59/10 Report of the International Law Commission on
the Work of its Fifty-sixth Session
<http://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2004/2004report.h
tm>
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report:
The Physical Science Basis 2013 (WGI AR5)

<www.climatechange2013.org>
Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability 2014

(WGII AR5) <http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/>
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Eco-

systems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Is-
land Press, Washington, DC.
<http://www.millenniumassessment.org/proxy/D
ocument.356.aspx>
Principles on the Allocation of Loss ILC Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in
the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of
Hazardous Activities, adopted by the Commis-
sion at its fifty-eighth session, 2006
PSNR Resolution Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources
143
General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII)
adopted in New York, 14 December 1962
<http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ga_1803/ga_1803.htm
l>
Rio Declaration Declaration on Environment and Development

adopted 12 August 1992 by The United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development
Stockholm Declaration Declaration on Human Environment adopted 16
June 1972 by the United Nations Conference on
the Human Environment
Statute of the ILC Statute of the International Law Commission,

adopted by the General Assembly in resolution
174 (II) of 21 November 1947
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/st
atute/statute_e.pdf
UNEP Goals and Principles Goals and Principles of Environmental Impact

Assessment, adopted by the United Nations En-
vironmental Programme, 17 June 1987
<http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/publications/
reports/RSRS/pdfs/rsrs122.pdf>
UN Doc. A/CN.4/428 Yearbook of the International Law Commission,

1990, Vol. II, Part 1, Documents of the fourty-
second session,
<http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_
cn4_428.pdf>
144
UN Doc. A/CN.4/509 Yearbook of the International Law Commission,
2000, Vol. II, Part 1, Documents of the fifty-
second session
<http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Y
bkvolumes(e)/ILC_2000_v2_p1.e.pdf>
Web pages
Forest News, A blog by the Center for International Forestry Research: Indonesia burning:
Information about the 2013 Southeast Asia haze crisis
http://blog.cifor.org/fire/#.Uzm0IHY4Xcs (last visited 1 April 2014)
International Court of Justice: Press Release in the Constitution of a Chamber of the Court
for the Environmental Matters, July 19, 1993
<http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/7/10307.pdf> (last visited 5 January 2014)
International Court of Justice: Press Conference on the Request for International Court of
Justice Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, 3 February 2012
<http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2012/120203_ICJ.doc.htm> (last visited 5 Janu-
ary 2014)
International Press Service: Settlement agreement between Ecuador and Colombia

<http://cdn.ipsnoticias.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Acuerdo-glifosato-Ecuador-
Colombia.pdf> (last visited 5 January 2014)
PBS: Ask the experts: Climate change and international law

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/uncategorized/ask-the-experts/14420/> (last visit-
ed 5 January 2014)
145

Pluricourts Research Paper No. 14-17: Marte Jervan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pluricourts Research Paper No. 14-17: Marte Jervan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pluricourts Research Paper No. 14-17: Marte Jervan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PluriCourts Research Paper No.

The Prohibition of Transboundary

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2486421

1.1 Problem for discussion ................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Background and actuality ............................................................................................ 2

1.3 Definitions and delimitations....................................................................................... 4

1.4 Methodology and sources of law ................................................................................. 6

2 OVERVIEW OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE NO-HARM RULE .................. 16

2.1 Conceptual origins: state sovereignty ........................................................................ 16

2.2 Early case law ............................................................................................................ 21

2.3 Soft law and multilateral treaties ............................................................................... 25

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2486421

2.5 The ILC Articles on Prevention................................................................................. 46

3.1 Environmental harm further defined ......................................................................... 49

3.2 The threshold of harm................................................................................................ 51

3.3 Prevention and control of harm ................................................................................. 55

3.4 Standard of care ......................................................................................................... 58

3.5 The due diligence standard ........................................................................................ 65

3.6 Relationship to other environmental principles ......................................................... 70

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2486421

4.1 Environmental impact assessment ............................................................................. 76

4.2 Cooperation, prior notification, consultation and negotiation ................................... 88

4.3 The relationship between substantive and procedural obligations ............................ 93

5 CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ........................................................... 98

5.1 The no-harm rule lex lata........................................................................................... 98

5.2 The role of the ICJ ................................................................................................... 103

5.3 Prospects for future contributions............................................................................ 106

6 FUTURE CHALLENGES .................................................................................... 112

6.1 Application of the no-harm rule in a climate change context.................................. 112

6.2 Legal standing and erga omnes ............................................................................... 116

TREATY LAW ................................................................................................................ 130

DOMESTIC LAW ........................................................................................................... 133

CASE LAW ...................................................................................................................... 134

DECLARATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, REPORTS ETC. ............................................. 142

WEB PAGES .................................................................................................................... 145

1.1 Problem for discussion

1.2 Background and actuality

1.3.1 Defining transboundary harm

1.4 Methodology and sources of law

1.4.1 Traditional sources of international law in an environmental context

1.4.2 The development of international environmental law by the ICJ

2.1 Conceptual origins: state sovereignty

2.1.1 Territorial sovereignty and the PSNR principle

2.2 Early case law

2.2.1 Trail Smelter

2.2.2 Corfu Channel

2.2.3 Lac Lanoux

2.2.4 Combined importance of early case law

2.3 Soft law and multilateral treaties

2.4 Case law post-Stockholm

2.4.1 Nuclear Tests I

2.4.2 Nuclear Tests II

2.4.5 Pulp Mills

3.1 Environmental harm further defined

Furthermore, as mentioned in Chapter 2, in Legality of Nuclear Weapons the ICJ referred

3.2 The threshold of harm

3.2.1 Establishing the threshold criterion

3.2.2 What is “significant” harm?