Promoting National Site Contamination Law: The Challenge of Harmonisation

  • Elizabeth Brandon


Based on the review of international law and national laws relating to site contamination in earlier chapters, this chapter considers the need to promote specific legislation on the issue at the domestic level. The conclusion is drawn that existing ‘site contamination law’ does not adequately cover all aspects of site contamination management. In addition, recent changes in the approach to remediation in some countries (e.g., voluntary and ‘privatised’ cleanups, and contaminants remaining on-site) necessitate a comprehensive national framework. The case for harmonisation is considered in detail, in particular whether it is both appropriate and feasible to promote a harmonised approach to site contamination. Various types of harmonisation are identified, with reference to specific initiatives for legal harmonisation on other environmental issues.


Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment Multinational Company International Treaty Soil Protection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ancel M (1976) From the unification of law to its harmonization. Tulane Law Rev 51:108Google Scholar
  2. Backer LC (ed) (2007) Harmonizing law in an era of globalization: convergence, divergence, and resistance. Carolina Academic Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedner A (2008) Amalgamating environmental law in Indonesia. In: Arnscheidt J, van Rooij B, Otto JM (eds) Lawmaking for development: explorations into the theory and practice of international legislative projects. Leiden University Press, Leiden, pp 171–198Google Scholar
  4. Berveling S (2005) Legal issues regarding the sustainable management of contaminated soils with examples from Australia. Paper presented to the international workshop on strategies, science and law for the conservation of the world soil resources, Selfoss, Iceland, 14–18 September 2005Google Scholar
  5. Boer B, Hannam I (2011) A background paper for World Conservation Congress – IUCN Commission on Environmental Law – workshop on a soil convention. Paper presented to the 3rd worldwide conference on environmental law NGOs and Lawyers, Limoges, France, 29 September–1 October 2011Google Scholar
  6. Busch PO, Jörgens H (2005) The international sources of policy convergence: explaining the spread of environmental policy innovations. J Eur Public Policy 12(5):860–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Busch PO, Jörgens H, Tews K (2005) The global diffusion of regulatory instruments: the making of a new international environmental regime. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 598:146–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cairney T, Hobson DM (eds) (1998) Contaminated land: problems and solutions, 2nd edn. Routledge/Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Connaughton JL (2002) The United States federal government and its uptake of the ISO 14000 series of environmental management standards. Office of the Federal Environmental ExecutiveGoogle Scholar
  10. David R (1968) The methods of unification. Am J Comp Law 16:13–27Google Scholar
  11. deLisle J (1999) Lex Americana? United States legal assistance, American legal models, and legal change in the post-Communist world and beyond. Univ Pa J Int Econ Law 20:179–308Google Scholar
  12. Eccleston CH (2008) NEPA and environmental planning: tools, techniques and approaches for practitioners. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elkins Z, Simmons B (2005) On waves, clusters and diffusions: a conceptual framework. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 598:33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Environment Agency (2007) CSI 015: progress in management of contaminated sites, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  15. European Parliament (2006) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil, COM (2006) 232 final, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. European Parliament (Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety) (2007) Report on the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. A6-0411/2007 (24 October 2007), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. Fazio S (2007) The harmonization of international commercial law. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferguson CC (1999) Assessing risks from contaminated sites: policy and practice in 16 European countries. Land Contam Reclam 7(2):33–54Google Scholar
  19. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2000) Assessing soil contamination: a reference manualGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerwitz P (2003) The US-China rule of law initiative. William & Mary Bill Rights J 11:603–621Google Scholar
  21. Gkoutzinis A (2005) How far is Basel from Geneva? International regulatory convergence and the elimination of barriers to international financial integration. Working paper series, Social Science Research NetworkGoogle Scholar
  22. GlaxoSmithKline (2002) The impact of medicines: sustainability in environment, health and safety report, in The impact of medicines: corporate social responsibility report 2002. Middlesex, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  23. Guzman AT (2002) Introduction: international regulatory harmonization. Chic J Int Law 3(2):271Google Scholar
  24. Guzman AT (2003) The case for international antitrust. Boalt working papers in public law no. 10. Berkeley, University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  25. Hannam I, Boer B (2004) Drafting legislation for sustainable soils: a guide. IUCN Environmental policy and law paper no. 52. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of NatureGoogle Scholar
  26. Harvard Kennedy School, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation (2006). Adopting ISO-9000 standards in government offices. Available at
  27. Held M, Kümmerer K, Odendahl K (1998) Preserving soils for life: the Tutzing project “Time ecology”. In: Proposal for a convention on sustainable use of soils. Ökom Verlag, MunichGoogle Scholar
  28. Hollins M, Percy S (1998) Environmental liability for contaminated land – towards a European consensus. Land Use Policy 15(2):119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. International Organization for Standardization (2012) About ISO. Available at
  30. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (2004). Standardization and related activities – general vocabulary, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  31. Jörgens H (2003) Governance by diffusion – implementing global norms through cross-national imitation and learning. FFU report no. 07–2003, Environmental Policy and Research Centre, Freie Universität BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Kamba WJ (1974) Comparative law: a theoretical framework. Int Comp Law Q 23(3):485–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knill C (2005) Introduction: cross-national policy convergence – concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. J Eur Public Policy 12(5):764–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawrence D, Lee RG (2003) Permitting uncertainty: owners, occupiers and responsibility for remediation. Mod Law Revi 66:261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Layard A (2006) The Europeanisation of contaminated land. In: Betlem G, Brans E (eds) Environmental liability in the EU: the 2004 directive compared with US and member state law. Cameron May, London, pp 129–147Google Scholar
  36. McAusland C (2005) Harmonizing tailpipe policy in symmetric countries: improve the environment, improve welfare? J Environ Econ Manage 50:229–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (2007) Report of the pilot study meeting: prevention and remediation in selected industrial sectors – sediments, Ljubljana, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  38. Pistor K (2002) The standardization of law and its effect on developing economies. Am J Comp Law 50(1):97–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pitt HL, Groskaufmanis KA (1990) Minimizing corporate civil and criminal liability: a second look at corporate codes of conduct. Georget Law J 78:1559–1654Google Scholar
  40. Polach JG (1959) Harmonization of laws in Western Europe. Am J Comp Law 8:148–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raustiala K (2002) The architecture of international cooperation: transgovernmental networks and the future of international law. Working paper no. 02–005. Princeton University Program in Law and Public AffairsGoogle Scholar
  42. Rio Tinto (2008) Environment standard E5: hazardous materials and contamination control, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Stevens C (1993) Harmonization, trade and the environment. Int Environ Aff 5(1):42–49Google Scholar
  45. Stone D (2001) Learning lessons, policy transfer and the international diffusion of policy ideas. Working paper no. 69/01. Centre for the Study of the Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  46. Twining W (2004) Diffusion of law: a global perspective. J Leg Plur 49:1–45Google Scholar
  47. Uniform Law Commission (2012) Environmental Covenants Act – enactment status map. Available at
  48. United Nations Environment Programme Governing Council (1987) Goals and principles of environmental impact assessment. UN Doc. UNEP/GC.14/25 (1987)Google Scholar
  49. United Nations Environment Programme, Center for International Environmental Law (2007) Elements of good practice in legal frameworks for the implementation of the Stockholm Convention on POPs in Latin AmericaGoogle Scholar
  50. United Nations Environment Programme/French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) (2005) Identification and management of contaminated sites: a methodological guide, 2nd edn, ADEME Editions, ParisGoogle Scholar
  51. United Nations Environment Programme, International Council on Metals and the Environment (2002) International cyanide management code for the manufacture, transport and use of cyanide in the production of goldGoogle Scholar
  52. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (2010) UNIDO contaminated site investigation and management toolkit. Available at
  53. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (2012) Online materials and e-learning for contaminated sites. Available at
  54. Wirth DA (2007) The EU’s new impact on US environmental regulation. Boston College Law School research paper no. 144, Boston College, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  55. Woodman S (2003) Bilateral aid to improve human rights. China Perspectives, 51. Available at
  56. World Bank (1998) Pollution prevention and abatement handbook. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. World Bank (2000) Operational policy 4.02/Bank procedure 4.02: environmental action plans, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  58. World Bank (2007) Bank procedure 4.01: environmental assessment Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Legal Materials

  1. Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (1991) Opened for signature 25 February 1991, 1989 UNTS 309 (entry into force 10 September 1997)Google Scholar
  2. Executive Order No 13148 on Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management, issued by President William J Clinton on 26 April 2000, Federal Register vol 61 no 81, 24595Google Scholar
  3. National Environmental Policy Act 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347 (United States)Google Scholar
  4. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals [2006] OJ L 396 (‘REACH’) (entry into force 1 June 2007)Google Scholar
  5. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, A/CONF.151/26 (vol I), United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992Google Scholar
  6. Toxic Substances Control Act 1976, 15 USC 2601–2692 (United States)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TanundaAustralia

Personalised recommendations