The Principles of International Environmental Law Through the Lens of International Courts and Tribunals

Sobenes, Edgardo; Devaney, John

doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_18

Edgardo Sobenes⁴ &
John Devaney⁵

1151 Accesses

Abstract

Despite framing the language of discourse in international environmental law, the content and legal status of many of its core principles remains unsettled. The following principles, while frequently invoked, often defy precise understanding: Principle of Sovereignty and Responsibility; Principle of Good Neighborliness and International Cooperation; Principle of Preventive Action; Precautionary Principle; Principle of Sustainable Development; Polluter Pays Principle; and Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility. This chapter charts the treatment of these principles by International Courts and Tribunals (ICTs) in an effort to identify the development of both the content and legal status of each principle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 201.
2.
‘States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.’ See the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, in Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UN Doc. A/CONF. 48/1 (Stockholm Declaration). There are several UNGA Resolutions that pre-dates the Stockholm Declaration, which refers to the Principle of Sovereignty of the States over their Natural Resources; See for example: UNGA Res. 626 (VII) (1952); UNGA Res. 1314 (XIII) (1958); and UNGA Res. 1515 (XV) (1960).
3.
Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration echoes Principle 21 and adds that States have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies. See the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol I), 31 ILM 874 (1992) (Rio Declaration).
4.
See ICJ, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 21 June 1971, ICJ Reports 1971, p. 16.
5.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 201.
6.
In the Palmas case the Tribunal declared that all States were subject to an obligation to protect ‘within their territories the right of other states, in particular their right to integrity and inviolability in peace and war’. Island of Palmas Case, United States v Netherlands, Award, 4 April 1928, PCA, 2 RIAA 829, ICGJ 392, p. 93. In the Corfu Channel case, the ICJ affirmed that ‘every State’s obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States’. ICJ, Corfu Channel (UK v Albania), Judgments, Merits, 9 April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 4.
7.
Trail Smelter Arbitration, Award, 11 March 1941, 3 RIAA 1905, p. 1965. See also the Dissenting opinion of Judge de Castro, in the case concerning Nuclear Tests (Australia v France), Judgement, 20 December 1974, ICJ Reports 1974, p. 389.
8.
Oral 2013a, p. 409.
9.
Affaire du Lac Lanoux (France v Spain), Award, 16 November 1957, 12 RIAA 281.
10.
Ibid., p. 140.
11.
See Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration, Pakistan v India, Partial Award, 18 February 2013, PCA Case No 2011-01, para 436.
12.
See https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/80 Accessed 26 February 2021.
13.
Memorial of Nauru, Submission VI, p. 250.
14.
New Zealand Application, 21 August 1995. See also Fitzmaurice 2013, p. 362.
15.
Ibid., para 98.
16.
ICJ, 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 (New Zealand v France) Case, Preliminary Objection, Judgment, 22 September 1995, ICJ Reports 1995, p. 347.
17.
ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, pp. 241–2, para 29.
18.
ICJ, Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Judgment, 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 56, para 101 (Pulp Mills case). See also supra note 17.
19.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 211.
20.
For a detail discussion of the Principle as a rule of customary international law, see ibid., pp. 206–211.
21.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 206.
22.
ICJ, Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), Judgment, 16 December 2015, ICJ Reports 2015, p. 726, para 177.
23.
Ibid., p. 727, para 178.
24.
Ibid., para 179.
25.
Ibid., p. 729, para 187.
26.
Ibid., pp. 730–1, para 192 (emphasis added).
27.
Ibid., pp. 731–1, para 196.
28.
Ibid., p. 737, para 217. See also Chap. 17.
29.
McCaffrey 2018, p. 366.
30.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 213.
31.
Valverde Soto 1996, p. 197.
32.
The maxim was invoked, for example, as a ‘fundamental rule’ by Hungary in its Original Application in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project case, para 32 (citing in support of the maxim the Corfu Channel case (1949), the Trail Smelter case (1941), the Stockholm Declaration (1972), the World Charter for Nature (1982), the ILC Draft Articles on International Liability (1990) and the Rio Declaration (1992)).
33.
See supra note 9.
34.
Ibid.
35.
Craik 2020, p. 247.
36.
ICJ, Corfu Channel (UK v Albania), above n 6, p. 22.
37.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 213. See also Hungary’s Original Application, 22 October 1992, paras 27, 29 and 30.
38.
See original text in North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, 20 February 1969, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 47, para 85.
39.
See Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Judgement, 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 79, para 142.
40.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, para 77.
41.
Ibid., p. 51, para 81.
42.
Ibid., p. 58, para 113.
43.
Ibid., p. 67, para 146, citing ‘North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), above n 38, p. 47, para 85.
44.
Ibid., para 144.
45.
Ibid., paras 147–149.
46.
See Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), above n 39, paras 140–141.
47.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, pp. 82–83, para 204.
48.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), above n 22, pp. 707–9, para 106. See also para 104.
49.
ITLOS, Mox Plant case (UK v Ireland), Provisional Measures, 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 110, para 82.
50.
Ibid., Separate Opinion, Judge Rudiger Wolfrum, p. 135.
51.
See ITLOS, Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Strait of Johor (Malaysia v Singapore), Provisional Measures, 8 October 2003, ITLOS Reports 2003, p. 25, para 92.
52.
See ITLOS, Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, Advisory Opinion, 2 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015, p. 43, para 140.
53.
ITLOS, Mox Plant case (UK v Ireland), above n 49, p. 96.
54.
ITLOS, Mox Plant case (UK v Ireland), Order on Suspension of Proceedings on Jurisdiction and Merits, and Request for Further Provisional Measures, 24 June 2003, ITLOS Reports 2003, paras 66–7.
55.
See ITLOS, Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Strait of Johor (Malaysia v Singapore), above n 51, p. 26, para 99.
56.
Ibid., Joint Declaration, ad-hoc Judges Hossain and Oxman, p. 34.
57.
See Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, above n 52, para 175.
58.
Ibid., pp. 59–60, para 210.
59.
IACHR, The Environment and Human Rights—Requested by the Republic of Colombia, Advisory Opinion, 15 November 2017, OC 23/17, para 242 (d) (Original text: ‘Los Estados tienen la obligación de cooperar, de buena fe, para la protección contra daños al medio ambiente […]’).
60.
Ibid., para 242 (3).
61.
As pointed out by Fitzmaurice in Chap. 17, the question of due diligence in relation to the obligation of prevention of transboundary harm is an unresolved issue. See also Duvic-Paoli 2018, pp. 333–36; Plakokefalos 2012, pp. 32–36; Takano 2018, pp. 3–5. The ICJ has indicated that this is an obligation of conduct, see Application of the Convention on the Protection and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia v Serbia), Judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, para 430.
62.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 211.
63.
Plakokefalos 2012.
64.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, pp. 55–56, para 101.
65.
Ibid., para 204.
66.
Ibid.
67.
Tignino and Bréthaut 2020, p. 641.
68.
Iron Rhine Arbitration, Belgium and Netherlands, Award, 24 May 2005, PCA Case 2003-02, paras 59.
69.
In the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros case the Court noted that ‘both Parties agree[d] on the need to take environmental concerns seriously and to take the required precautionary measures, but they fundamentally disagree[d] on the consequences this has for the joint Project’, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), above n 39, para 113. The Court did not affirm the obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment before potentially damaging activities were to be authorized, nor did it refer to the content and scope of the EIA. See Juste-Ruiz 2013, p. 391.
70.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), above n 22, p. 706, para 104.
71.
Ibid.
72.
ITLOS, Responsibilities and obligations of States with respect to activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011, ITLOS Reports 2011, pp. 76–77.
73.
Ibid., p. 77. See also Chap. 17 by Fitzmaurice.
74.
Koivurova 2010.
75.
Kulesza 2016; see also ILA Study Group on Due Diligence 2016, p. 2.
76.
Responsibilities and obligations of States with respect to activities in the Area, above n 72, p. 43, para 117.
77.
Ibid., p. 41, para 110.
78.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, p. 79, para 197.
79.
Ibid.
80.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), above n 22, p. 722, para 161. See also Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, p. 83, para 205.
81.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, para 205. Some Regional Conventions contain a comprehensive regulation of EIA, e.g. the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Espoo, 25 February 1991, and the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Kiev, 21 May 2003.
82.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, p. 83, para 205.
83.
Ibid.
84.
Ibid., pp. 82–83, para 204. The Seabed Dispute Chamber of ITLOS took a step forward and, in contrast to the judgment of the ICJ in the Pulp Mills case, provided some guidelines on the scope and content of the obligation of EIA for deep seabed mining operations and its implementation. In the specific context of activities in the Area, the Chamber was able to clarify the content of the duty to conduct EIA under the specific Rules and Regulations concerning the activities in the Area. These Rules and Regulations, however, contain criteria that are applicable in a very limited context with specific actors, and thus may not readily be extended to other instances in which the duty also arises. According to Pineschi there are at least three specific issues that can be found in the Chamber’s Opinion; (1) the scope of the obligation of prior EIA ratione materiae; (2) the scope of the obligation of prior EIA ratione personae; and (3) the functional relationship of the EIA obligation with the duty of cooperation with potentially affected States. The analysis of each of these specific issues falls beyond the scope of this chapter, for more see Pineschi 2013, pp. 427–35.
85.
McCaffrey 2018, p. 355.
86.
Ibid., p. 356.
87.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), above n 22, p. 706, para 104.
88.
The Court acknowledged that the Parties concurred on ‘the existence in general international law of an obligation to notify, and consult with, the potentially affected State in respect of activities which carry a risk of significant transboundary harm’, see ibid. pp. 707–708, para 106.
89.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), above n 22, p. 719, para 148. See also paras 63–4.
90.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, p. 83, para 205.
91.
Above n 89.
92.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, p. 83, para 205.
93.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), above n 22, pp. 721–2, para 157.
94.
Ibid. This decision underlies that Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is applicable to situations of declared emergency under domestic law.
95.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), above n 22, p. 722, para 159.
96.
Ibid.
97.
Ibid., p. 719, para 149.
98.
Ibid., p. 722, para 160.
99.
Ibid., pp. 722–723, para 161.
100.
Ibid., p. 720, para 153.
101.
Above n 99.
102.
Ibid., pp. 720–1, para 155.
103.
Ibid. In regard to the wetland, the Court indicated that ‘[t]he presence of Ramsar protected sites heightens the risk of significant damage because it denotes that the receiving environment is particularly sensitive’.
104.
Ibid., p. 723, para 162. See also McCaffrey 2018, p. 358.
105.
Ibid.
106.
McCaffrey 2018, p. 359.
107.
See the operative clause of the Judgment, paras 6–7. See also para 217.
108.
Duvic-Paoli 2018, p. 335.
109.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 230.
110.
Ibid.
111.
See also (e.g.) 1992 Baltic Convention, Article 3 (2); 1994 Danube Convention, Article 2(4-5); 1995 Fish Stock Agreement, Articles 5 and 6; 1996 Protocol to the 1972 London Convention, Article 3; 1999 Rhine Convention, Article 4.
112.
McCaffrey 2018, p. 467. See also Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, pp. 55–6, para 101; and Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, above n 17, p. 242, para 29.
113.
Responsibilities and obligations of States with respect to activities in the Area, above n 72, p. 47, para 135.
114.
Howley 2009, p. 12.
115.
Request for Provisional Measures, New Zealand, p. 6, 8 (3), Australia, p. 74–8 (3). See Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand and Australia v Japan), Provisional Measures, Order, 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999.
116.
Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand and Australia v Japan), Provisional Measures, Order, 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, para 80, p. 296.
117.
Ibid., Separate Opinion Judge Laing, para 16. In the Mox Plant case, the Tribunal referred to the precautionary principle by stating that ‘prudence and caution require that Ireland and the United Kingdom cooperate in exchanging information concerning risks or effects of the operation of the MOX plant and in devising ways to deal with them, as appropriate’. ITLOS, Mox Plant case (UK v Ireland), above n 49, p. 110, para 84. The same implicit recognition is reflected in the Order for Provisional Measures of the Tribunal in the Land Reclamation case, where the Tribunal stated that ‘[…]given the possible implications of land reclamation on the marine environment, prudence and caution require that Malaysia and Singapore establish mechanisms for exchanging information and assessing the risks or effects of land reclamation works and devising ways to deal with them in the areas concerned’. Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Strait of Johor (Malaysia v Singapore), above n 51, p. 26, para 99.
118.
Responsibilities and obligations of States with respect to activities in the Area, above n 72, p. 44, para 122.
119.
Ibid., p. 47, para 135.
120.
Ibid., p. 46, para 129.
121.
Ibid., p. 54, para 162.
122.
Oral 2013b, p. 419.
123.
Ibid.
124.
See WTO, European Communities—Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, Panel Report, 29 September 2006, WT/DS291/R, para 7.89.
125.
Ibid.
126.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 240.
127.
New Zealand Request, para 105. See above n 16.
128.
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, 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 (New Zealand v France) Case, 22 September 1995, ICJ Reports 1995, p. 342.
129.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, p. 71, para 164. In a precedent paragraph the Court reminded the well-established principle of onus probandi incumbit actori and underlined that ‘it is the duty of the party which asserts certain facts to establish the existence of such facts […]. This principle which has been consistently upheld by the Court applies to the assertions of fact both by the Applicant and the Respondent’. Ibid., p. 71, para 162.
130.
This Article states ‘[n]otwithstanding anything contained in this Convention…’. In general the use of the term ‘notwithstanding’ indicates an exception to a treaty, which could lead to the reversal of the burden of proof, as has been noted by the WTO Appellate body. See European Communities—Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, Appellate Body Report, 20 April 2004, WT/DS246/AB/R, para 90.
131.
Memorial of Australia, pp. 173–176, paras 4.87–4.91.
132.
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, 31 March 2014, ICJ Reports 2014, Separate Opinion of Judge Trindade, paras 66–67.
133.
Ibid., p. 254, para 68. See also Foster 2016, p. 22.
134.
Foster 2011, pp. 206–208.
135.
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand intervening), above n 132, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Owada, para 43.
136.
See Foster 2016, p. 23, ft 55, referring to paras 137, 141, 144, 185, 193, 194, 206, 222, 226.
137.
Ibid., p. 23.
138.
Juste-Ruiz 2013, p. 399.
139.
Sands et al. 2018, pp. 217–218.
140.
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), above n 39, Separate Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, pp. 91–92; Valverde Soto 1996, p. 80; Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
141.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 218.
142.
Birnie et al. 2009; Sands et al. 2018, pp. 218–219.
143.
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), above n 39, pp. 77–8, para 140.
144.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 219.
145.
Ibid.
146.
Ibid.
147.
Ibid.
148.
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), above n 39, paras 45, 58.
149.
North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany/Netherlands), above n 38, p. 47, para 85.
150.
Award between the United States and the United Kingdom relating to the rights of jurisdiction of the United States in the Bering’s sea and the preservation of fur seals, Award, 15 August 1893, 18 RIAA 263.
151.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, above n 17, pp. 241–2, para 29.
152.
Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Nigeria, ECW/CCJ/APP/08/09, Ruling, ECOWAS, December 2010, para 111.
153.
Africa Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW) v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, First Instance Division No 9, 2014, para 85.
154.
See Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, Advisory Opinion, 2 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015, p. 55, paras 190–1.
155.
WTO, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Appellate Body Report, 12 October 1998, WTO/DS58/AB/R, (US—Shrimp (Appellate Body Report)), para 129, n. 107.
156.
Ibid., para 134.
157.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, pp. 74–5, para 177.
158.
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), above n 39, Separate Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, pp. 91–92.
159.
Iron Rhine Arbitration, Belgium v Netherlands, above n 68, pp. 27–28, para 59.
160.
Ibid., para 243.
161.
ECtHR, Fredin v Sweden (No. 1), Judgment, 18 February 1991, App No 12033/86.
162.
ECtHR, Posti and Rahko v Finland, Judgment, 24 September 2002, App No 27824/95.
163.
ECtHR, Hamer v Belgium, Judgment, 27 November 2007, App No 21861/03, para 79.
164.
ACHR, The Social and Economic Rights Action Center for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Judgment, 27 October 2001, App No 155/96; ACHR, Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v Kenya, Judgment, 4 February 2010, App No 276/2003, para 235; ACtHR, African Commission on Human and People’s Rights v Republic of Kenya, Judgment, 26 May 2017, App No 006/2012, para 7.
165.
The Social and Economic Rights Action Center for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria, above n 164, para 53.
166.
Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua, Judgment, 31 August 2001, IACtHR Ser. C No 79; Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v Paraguay, Judgment,17 June 2005, IACtHR Ser. C No 125; Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community of the Enxet People, Judgment, 29 March 2006, IACtHR Ser. C, No 146, paras 125–134; Saramaka People v Suriname, Judgment, 28 November 2007, IACtHR Ser. C, No 172; The Human Rights Situation of the Indigenous People in the Americas, Inter-Am. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.108, Doc 62 (2000).
167.
IACHR, The Environment and Human Rights (State Obligations in relation to the Environment in the Context of the Protection and Guarantee of the Rights to Life and to Personal Integrity; Interpretation and Scope of articles 4(1) and 5(1) In Relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC 23/17, 15 November 2017, Requested by the Republic of Colombia, para 61.
168.
Trevisan 2009, p. 40.
169.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Order, Provisional Measures, 13 July 2006, ICJ Reports 2006, p. 133, para 80.
170.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, p. 14, para 187.
171.
Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Nigeria, ECW/CCJ/APP/08/09, Ruling, ECOWAS, December 2010, para 109.
172.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, p. 74, para 175.
173.
Ibid., pp. 74–5, para 177.
174.
Maljean-Dubois and Richard 2017, p. 316.
175.
Gillroy 2006, p. 29.
176.
Taylor 1999, p. 110.
177.
Bosselmann 2008, p. 69.
178.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 220.
179.
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), above n 39, Separate Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, p. 92.
180.
Iron Rhine Arbitration, Belgium v Netherlands, above n 68, pp. 27–28, para 59.
181.
US—Shrimp (Appellate Body Report), above n 155, para 129, n 107 and the accompanying text.
182.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), above n 18, Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, p. 137, para 139.
183.
Ibid., p. 190, fn 135.
184.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), above n 22, Separate Opinion of Judge Bhandari, p. 793, para 13.
185.
Maguire 2012, p. 110.
186.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 240.
187.
Supra note 184, para 19. See also International Law Commission Draft Principles on the Allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, with commentaries (2006), p. 145–147, Session 58, UN doc. A/61/10; Rio Declaration, above n 3, Principles 13 and 16.
188.
See Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura and Others v Comune di Casoria, 16 July 2009, Case C-254/08, ECR I-0000.
189.
Boyle 1991, pp. 363, 369.
190.
Ibid., OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Guiding Principles concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies, 26 May 1972, C (72)128.
191.
Official Journal of the European Communities (OJ C) 12, 20.12.1973, pp. 1–2, Title 2, sub 5, OJ C 46, 17.02.1983, pp. 1–16; OJ C 138, 17.05.1993, pp. 5–93.
192.
Single European Act, OJ L 169, 27.6.1987.
193.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 243.
194.
Declaration of the Human Environment, Report of the UN Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972), UN doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev1; Boyle 1991, pp. 363, 369; Crawford 2008, p. 359; Sands et al. 2003, p. 281.
195.
Cassese 2005, pp. 492–493.
196.
Commission Decision 1999/272, 1999 OJ L109.
197.
The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte H.A. Standley and Others and D.G.D. Metson and Others, 29 April 1999, Case C-293/97, ECR I-2603, paras 51–53.
198.
Raffinerie Mediterranee (ERG) SpA and Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Others, 9 March 2010, Case C-378/08, ECR I-0000, paras 56–58.
199.
Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura and Others v Comune di Casoria, 16 July 2009, Case C-254/08, ECR I-0000, paras 52–58.
200.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 244.
201.
United States—Taxes on Petroleum and Certain Imported Substances, GATT Dispute Settlement Panel, 17 June 1987, L/6175—34S/136.
202.
Case Concerning the Auditing of Accounts between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the French Republic Pursuant to the Additional Protocol of 25 September 1991 to the Convention on the Protection of the Rhine against Pollution by Chlorides of 3 December 1976, Arbitral Award, 12 March 2014, PCA Case No 2000-02, p. 41, para 103.
203.
See Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry to Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, above n 17, pp. 502–04 (emphasis added).
204.
Viñuales 2008, p. 247.
205.
See fn. 189 (internal citations omitted), citing Declaration of the Human Environment, Report of the UN Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972), UN doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev1; Boyle 1991, pp. 363, 369; Crawford 2008, p. 359.
206.
See above n 189.
207.
Ibid.
208.
Sands et al. 2018, p. 244.
209.
See Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, 31 May 1949, 80 UNTS 72; Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, 21 December 1975, 996 UNTS 245; The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, 27 January 1967, 610 UNTS 205.
210.
See Stockholm Declaration, above n 2, Principle 23; Rio Declaration, above n 3, Principle 11, 6; Convention for Cooperation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region (Abidjan), March 28, 1981, Article 4(1), 20 ILM 746; UN General Assembly, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 20 January 1994, A/RES/48/189; Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 397, Article 207.
211.
US—Shrimp (Appellate Body Report), above n 155.
212.
Ibid., para 165.
213.
US—Shrimp (Appellate Body Report), above n 155, para 7.2.
214.
Netherlands Supreme Court, State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy) v Stichting Urgenda, Judgment, 20 December 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 para 5.1.
215.
Galvão Ferreira 2016, pp. 330–33.
216.
Shapovalova 2021, p. 11.
217.
Bogarting Court of Appeal, Natur og Ungdom, Föreningen Greenpeace Norden, v the Government of Norway, 23 January 2020, at 24 and 27. English translation available at https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2020/desember-2020/hr-2020-2472-p.pdf Accessed 10 April 2020.

References

Birnie P et al (eds) (2009) International Law and the Environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Bosselmann K (2008) The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming Law and Governance. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Hampshire
Google Scholar
Boyle A (1991) Making the Polluter Pay: Alternatives to State Responsibility in the Allocation of Transboundary Environmental Costs. In: Francioni F, Scovazzi T (eds) International Responsibility for Environmental Harm. Graham and Trotman, London, pp 363–379
Google Scholar
Cassese A (2005) International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Craik N (2020) The Duty to Cooperate in the Customary Law of Environmental Impact Assessment. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 69: 239–259
Google Scholar
Crawford J (2008) Brownlie’s Principles of International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Duvic-Paoli L-A (2018) The Prevention Principle in International Environmental Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice M (2013) The Development of International Law by the ICJ. In: Tams C, Sloan J (eds) The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 353–374
Google Scholar
Foster C (2011) Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals; Expert, Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Foster CE (2016) Methodologies and Motivations: Was Japan’s Whaling Programme for Purposes of Scientific Research? In: Fitzmaurice M, Tamada D (eds) Whaling on the Antarctic: The Significance and Implications of the ICJ Judgment. Brill Nijhoff, Netherlands, pp 9–37
Google Scholar
Galvão Ferreira P (2016) Common But Differentiated Responsibilities’ in the National Courts: Lessons from Urgenda v. The Netherlands. Transnational Environmental Law (52): 329–351
Google Scholar
Gillroy J M (2006) Adjudication Norms Dispute Settlement Regimes and International Tribunals: The Status of ‘Environmental Sustainability’ in International Jurisprudence. Stanford Journal of International Law 42:1–52
Google Scholar
Howley J (2009) The Gabčikovo-Nagymaros case: the influence of the International Court of Justice on the law of sustainable development. Queensland Law Student Review 2:1–19
Google Scholar
International Law Association (ILA) (2016) Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, Second Report
Google Scholar
Juste-Ruiz J (2013) The International Court of Justice and International Environmental Law. In: Boschiero N et al (eds) International Courts and the Development of International Law - Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 383–401
Google Scholar
Koe A (1998) Damming the Danube: The International Court of Justice and the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Sydney Law Review 612. http://www6.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLRev/1998/27.html Accessed 26 April 2021
Koivurova T (2010) Due Diligence. Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law
Google Scholar
Kulesza J (2016) Due Diligence in International Law. Nijhoff/Brill, Leiden
Google Scholar
Maguire R (2012) Incorporating International Environmental Legal Principles into Future Climate Change Instruments. Carbon & Climate Law Review 6:101–113
Google Scholar
Maljean-Dubois S, Richard V (2017) The International Court of Justice’s Judgement of 20 April 2010 in the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) case. In: Almeida P, Sorel J-M (eds) Latin America and the International Court of Justice. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 309–320
Google Scholar
McCaffrey SC (2018) Environmental Law and Freshwater Ecosystems. In: Sobenes E, Samson B (eds) Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice. Springer, Cham
Google Scholar
Oral N (2013a) The International Court of Justice and International Environmental Law. In: Boschiero N et al (eds) International Courts and the Development of International Law - Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 403–423
Google Scholar
Oral N (2013b) Implementing Part XII of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and the Role of International Courts. In: Boschiero N et al (eds) International Courts and the Development of International Law, Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Google Scholar
Pineschi L (2013) The Duty of Environmental Impact Assessment in the First ITLOS Chamber’s Advisory Opinion: Toward the Supremacy of the General Rule to Protect and Preserve the Marine Environment as a Common Value? In: Boschiero N et al (eds) International Courts and the Development of International Law - Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 425–439
Google Scholar
Plakokefalos I (2012) Prevention Obligation in International Environmental Law. Yearbook of International Environmental Law 23(1):3–43
Google Scholar
Sands Ph et al (eds) (2003) Principles of International Environmental Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Sands Ph et al (eds) (2018) Principles of International Environmental Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Shapovalova D (2021) In Defense of the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities. In: Mayer B, Zahar A (eds) Debating Climate Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Takano A (2018) Due Diligence Obligation and Transboundary Environmental Harm. Cybersecurity 833 Applications. Laws 7(36):1–13
Google Scholar
Taylor P (1999) The Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project: A Message from the Hague on Sustainable Development. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law 3:109–126
Google Scholar
Tignino M, Bréthaut C (2020) The Role of International case law in implementing the obligation no to cause significant harm. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 20: 631–648
Google Scholar
Trevisan L (2009) The International Court of Justice’s Treatment of ‘Sustainable Development’ and Implications for Argentina v. Uruguay. Sustainable Development Law & Policy 10:40–85
Google Scholar
Valverde Soto M (1996) General Principles of International Environmental Law. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 3:193–209
Google Scholar
Viñuales J E (2008) The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Development of International Environmental Law: A Contemporary Assessment. Fordham International Law Journal 232: 232–258
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

ESILA, The Hague, The Netherlands
Edgardo Sobenes
The Hague, The Netherlands
John Devaney

Authors

Edgardo Sobenes
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
John Devaney
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edgardo Sobenes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

ESILA, The Hague, The Netherlands
Edgardo Sobenes
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Sarah Mead
Université Paris Nanterre, Angers, France
Benjamin Samson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sobenes, E., Devaney, J. (2022). The Principles of International Environmental Law Through the Lens of International Courts and Tribunals. In: Sobenes, E., Mead, S., Samson, B. (eds) The Environment Through the Lens of International Courts and Tribunals. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_18

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_18
Published: 02 June 2022
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-506-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-507-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics