Abstract
In these conclusions, we shall endeavour, as is customary, to extract the most essential substance from the many rich contributions that make up the book, to articulate a logical synthesis of them and to add, where appropriate, a few data and personal comments, before attempting to briefly sketch out a few possible prospects for the future, in the modest hope of helping the reader to develop his or her own thoughts. In view of the complexity of the subject, we will proceed in a series of steps, in an open and constructive spirit, and with the necessary caution, taking care not to make comparisons that are not appropriate or to make any snap value judgement as to the way in which the main jurisdictions in question, which are very different by nature, contribute, in the context and with the instruments that are specific to them, to the protection of the common good that is our environment. The reader will not be surprised that these conclusions dwell somewhat more on the International Court of Justice. There is an objective reason for this: the Court remains after all the ‘mother’ of international courts and tribunals; and a subjective one: the author of these lines has devoted 40 years of his life to its service.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
See Chapter 1, Sect. 1.4
- 2.
Iron Rhine Arbitration (Belgium/Netherlands), Decision, 24 May 2005, PCA Case No 2003-02, 23 RIAA 35, para 58.
- 3.
Report on Gaps in International Environmental Law and Environment-Related Instruments, A/73/419, 2018, para 102.
- 4.
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 14 June 1992, 31 ILM 874, Principle 15.
- 5.
See e.g. Chap. 18, Sect. 18.5.
- 6.
- 7.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1 July 1992, 1771 UNTS 107, entered into force 21 March 1994 (UNFCCC), Article 3.
- 8.
Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 4 August 1995, 2167 UNTS 3, entered into force 11 December 2001, Article 6.
- 9.
Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the Area, July 2013, ISBA/19/C/17, Regulation 31(2); Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Sulphides in the Area, May 2010, ISBA/16/C/L.5, Regulation 33(2).
- 10.
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 29 January 2001, 2226 UNTS 208, entered into force 11 September 2003, Article 1.
- 11.
See Chap. 22.
- 12.
ITLOS, Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to Activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011, ITLOS Reports 2011, p. 59, para 180. See also Chap. 17, Sect. 17.3.1.
- 13.
See e.g. Chap. 18, Sect. 18.6.
- 14.
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgement, 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 78, para 140.
- 15.
See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.
- 16.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, opened for signature 27 June 1981, 1520 UNTS 217, entered into force 21 October 1986.
- 17.
Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), opened for signature 17 November 1988, Ser No 69, entered into force 16 November 1999.
- 18.
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to justice in Environmental matters, opened for signature 25 June 1998, 2161 UNTS 447, entered into force 30 October 2001.
- 19.
Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, opened for signature 4 March 2018, entered into force 22 April 2021.
- 20.
A/75/161, para 32 and A/HRC/43/53, Annex II.
- 21.
See also Right to a healthy environment: good practices, wedocs.unep.org. Accessed 30 April 2021.
- 22.
See e.g. Chap. 18, Sect. 18.8.
- 23.
Emphasis added.
- 24.
See for example Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, (Argentina v Uruguay), Judgement, 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 56, para 101 (Pulp Mills (Judgment)); 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. 711, para 118 and p. 737, para 217 (Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Merits)).
- 25.
See Report of the Working Group on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law (doc. A/CN.4/L.284 and Corr.1).
- 26.
See the Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, Yearbook of the ILC, 2001, Vol II, Part Two, pp. 144–170 and the Draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, Yearbook of the ILC, 2006, Vol II, Part Two, pp. 56–90.
- 27.
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgement, 25 September 1997, above n 14, para 140.
- 28.
See Chap. 17, Sect. 17.3.2.
- 29.
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgement, 25 September 1997, above n 14.
- 30.
Factory at Chorzow, Judgement, 26 July 1927, PCIJ Ser. A, No 17, p. 47.
- 31.
Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v France), Judgement, 20 December 1974, ICJ Reports 1974, p. 271, para 56.
- 32.
Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v France), Interim Protection, Order, 22 June 1973, ICJ Reports 1973, p. 99, pp. 106 and 142.
- 33.
Ibid., pp. 105 and 141.
- 34.
Legality of the Threat of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, pp. 241–242.
- 35.
Ibid., 241
- 36.
Ibid., pp. 241–242.
- 37.
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgement, 25 September 1997, above n 14, p. 76, para 133.
- 38.
Ibid., p. 77, para 140.
- 39.
See footnotes 27 and 29 above.
- 40.
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgement, 25 September 1997, above n 14, pp. 77–78, para 140.
- 41.
Ibid.
- 42.
See for example Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order, 15 October 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 353; Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v United Arab Emirates), Provisional Measures, Order, 23 July 2018, ICJ Reports 2018, p. 406.
- 43.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Provisional Measures, Order, 13 July 2006, ICJ Reports 2006, p. 132, paras 74–75 (Pulp Mills (Provisional Measures)) .
- 44.
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v Denmark), Provisional Measures, Order, 29 July 1991, ICJ Reports 1991, p. 19, para 33.
- 45.
Pulp Mills (Provisional Measures) , above n 43, p. 133, para 78.
- 46.
Ibid., paras 80–81.
- 47.
Pulp Mills (Judgment), above n 24, pp. 40 ff, paras 48 ff.
- 48.
Ibid., p. 71, paras 162–163.
- 49.
Ibid., para 164.
- 50.
Ibid.
- 51.
Ibid., para 168.
- 52.
Ibid., para 167.
- 53.
Ibid., pp. 108 ff., especially paras 3ff.
- 54.
Ibid., Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simma, ICJ Reports 2010, pp. 111–112, paras 7–9.
- 55.
See for example Couvreur 2018, p. 15.
- 56.
Lachs 1981, p. 114.
- 57.
Lachs 1992, p. 265.
- 58.
See Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), Decision to obtain an expert opinion, Order, 31 May 2016, ICJ Reports 2016, p. 235 and Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), Appointment of experts, Order, 12 October 2020.
- 59.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order, 8 March 2011, ICJ Reports 2011, pp. 21–22, paras 63–64.
- 60.
Ibid., p. 24, para 74.
- 61.
Ibid., p. 27, para 86.
- 62.
Ibid., p. 26, para 82.
- 63.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, Order, 22 November 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 370, para 59 (Certain Activities (Provisional Measures 2013)).
- 64.
Letters dated 11 March 2013.
- 65.
Certain Activities (Provisional Measures 2013) , above n 63, p. 407, para 34.
- 66.
Ibid., p. 408, para 37.
- 67.
Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Merits), above n 24, pp. 740–741, para 229.
- 68.
Ibid., pp. 705 ff., paras 100 ff.
- 69.
Ibid., p. 721, para 156.
- 70.
Pulp Mills (Judgment), above n 24, p. 83, para 205.
- 71.
Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Merits), above n 24, pp. 721–722, para 157.
- 72.
Ibid., p. 737, para 217; pp. 737–738, para 220 and p. 738, para 223.
- 73.
See earlier in these General Conclusions.
- 74.
Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Merits), above n 24, pp. 676 ff., paras 30 and 32 ff.
- 75.
Ibid., p. 726, para 175.
- 76.
Ibid., para 176.
- 77.
Ibid., p. 729, para 186.
- 78.
Cf. ‘vigilance’ in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgement, 25 September 1997, above n 14, para 140 and Pulp Mills (Judgment), above n 24, e.g. paras 188 and 197.
- 79.
Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Merits), above n 24, p. 706, para 104 and Pulp Mills (Judgment), above n 24, pp. 55–56, para 101.
- 80.
Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Merits), above n 24, p. 706, para 104.
- 81.
Ibid.
- 82.
Ibid., p. 720, para 153.
- 83.
See earlier in these General Conclusions.
- 84.
- 85.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), Compensation, Judgement, 2 February 2018, ICJ Reports 2018, p. 28, para 42.
- 86.
Ibid., p. 37, para 78.
- 87.
Ibid., pp. 37–38, paras 79–82.
- 88.
Ibid., pp. 38–39, para 86.
- 89.
Ibid., p. 39, para 87.
- 90.
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, 31 March 2014, ICJ Reports 2014, pp. 292–293, paras 223–227.
- 91.
Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Abraham, p. 328 and Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3.2.
- 92.
UNCLOS, Article 290(1).
- 93.
Ibid., Article 290(5).
- 94.
ITLOS, Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, Advisory Opinion, 2 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015, p. 4.
- 95.
UNCLOS, Article 191. See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.2.
- 96.
ITLOS, Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand and Australia v Japan), Provisional Measures, Order, 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 280.
- 97.
Ibid., p. 295, para 71 and p. 296, para 77.
- 98.
Ibid., para 80.
- 99.
Ibid., para 79.
- 100.
Ibid., para 80.
- 101.
ITLOS, The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order, 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 95.
- 102.
ITLOS, Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v Singapore), Provisional Measures, 8 October 2003, ITLOS Reports 2003, pp. 10 ff.
- 103.
Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to Activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion, above n 12, pp. 10 ff.
- 104.
Ibid., p. 47, para 135.
- 105.
See e.g. ibid., para 131 (duty of due diligence) or The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, above n 101, paras 82 ff. (duty to cooperate). See also Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.1.
- 106.
Ibid., Sect. 3.3.3.
- 107.
The creation of a specialized court to that end would most likely be rather problematic, and in any event take time.
- 108.
See in particular Chap. 6, Sect. 6.8.1.
- 109.
Ibid., Sect. 6.9.
- 110.
See Chap. 10, Sect. 10.2.
- 111.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, opened for signature 27 June 1981, 1520 UNTS 217, entered into force 21 October 1986, Arts. 3 and 24.
- 112.
ACHPR, Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) (the Ogoniland case) v Nigeria, Decision, 27 May 2002, Comm. No 155/96, para 52.
- 113.
ACHPR, Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v Kenya, Decision, 4 February 2010, Comm. 276/2003.
- 114.
ACtHPR, African Commission on Human and People’s Rights v Republic of Kenya, Judgment, 26 May 2017, App No 006/2012.
- 115.
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Treaty, 28 May 1975, 1010 UNTS 17, provisionally entered into force 28 May 1975, Chapter VI, Arts. 29–30.
- 116.
Treaty for the establishment of the East African Community (EAC), 30 November 1999, 2144 UNTS 255, entered into force 7 July 2000, Article 111.
- 117.
ECOWAS Court of Justice, Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Nigeria, Ruling, December 2010, ECW/CCJ/APP/08/09.
- 118.
Ibid., para 56.
- 119.
See Chap. 10, Sect. 10.4.2.
- 120.
ECOWAS Court of Justice, Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Nigeria, above n 117.
- 121.
EACJ, Africa Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW) v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Appeal Judgment No 3, 15 March 2012, pp. 10–11.
- 122.
Ibid., Appeal Judgment No 4, 29 July 2014, p. 27.
- 123.
Ibid., p. 32.
- 124.
Court of Justice, Blaise and Others, Judgement, 1 October 2019, Case No C-616/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:800, paras 41–42.
- 125.
Court of Justice, Plaumann v Commission, Judgement, 15 July 1963, ECLI:EU:C:1963:17. See Chap. 8, Sect. 8.3.2.
- 126.
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, 6 September 2006, OJEU 2006 L264, p. 13.
- 127.
Ibid., Article 2(1)(g).
- 128.
Ibid., Article 12.
- 129.
See Chap. 8, Sect. 8.5 and Findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee with regard to communication ACC/C/2008/32 concerning compliance by the European Union, Part I, 14 April 2011 and Part II, 17 March 2017.
- 130.
See e.g. Cerqueira 2020, p. 5.
- 131.
See e.g. AG/RES.1819 (XXXI-O/01).
- 132.
See e.g. AG/RES.2429 (XXXVIII-O/08).
- 133.
Social Charter of the Americas, 4 June 2012 (doc AG/doc.5242/12 rev. 2), Preamble.
- 134.
Ibid., Article 10.
- 135.
Ibid., Article 20.
- 136.
AG/RES.2888 (XLVI-O/16).
- 137.
- 138.
See e.g. Cerqueira 2020, p. 16.
- 139.
IACtHR, Claude Reyes v Chile, Order, 19 September 2006, Series C, No 151.
- 140.
IACtHR, Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Surinam, Judgement, 25 November 2015, Ser. C, No 309.
- 141.
IACtHR, The Environment and Human Rights – Requested by the Republic of Colombia, Advisory Opinion OC 23/17, 15 November 2017, IACtHR Ser. A, No 23, paras 199–230. See also The Saramaka People v Surinam, Judgement, 28 November 2007, IACtHR Ser. C, No 172, para 129.
- 142.
IACHR, The Environment and Human Rights – Requested by the Republic of Colombia, above n 141, para 59.
- 143.
Ibid., para 62.
- 144.
See Chap. 9, Sect. 9.3.1.
- 145.
IACHR, Indigenous Communities Members of the Lhaka Honhat Association v Argentina, Judgement, 6 February 2020, Ser. C, No 400, paras 202 ff.
- 146.
The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v Russia), Award, 14 August 2015, PCA Case No 2014-02, paras 197–198 and The Duzgit Integrity Arbitration (Malta v São Tomé and Príncipe), Award, 5 September 2016, PCA Case No 2014-07, paras 207–210.
- 147.
Compare, e.g. Pulp Mills (Judgment), above n 24, pp. 46–47, para 66 (reference to customary law only for the purposes of an interpretation in accordance with Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).
- 148.
See Chap. 4, Sect. 4.3.
- 149.
- 150.
See Chap. 12, Sect. 12.2.3.2.
- 151.
Ibid.
- 152.
Ibid., and ref. to ICC (2019) Resolving Climate Change Related Disputes through Arbitration and ADR. https://iccwbo.org/publication/icc-arbitration-and-adr-commission-report-on-resolving-climate-change-related-disputes-through-arbitration-and-adr/. Accessed 30 April 2021.
- 153.
Also noteworthy in this connection has been the role of non-compliance mechanisms and of treaty bodies established to monitor their application (see e.g. Chap. 19). Nor can the role of national courts in this area be overlooked: while they have always, inevitably and out of necessity, been at the forefront in litigations regarding environmental matters, with the increasing penetration of international law into domestic legal orders, these courts have progressively become more actively involved in the interpretation and development of IEL, sometimes spectacularly, for example when seized of complex issues concerning climate change, its effects and related liabilities (see, e.g. the Urgenda decisions of the Dutch Courts and more generally Chap. 20).
- 154.
This term, which has been widely used and abused, does not in any case seem to be the most felicitous to qualify a situation such as the one envisaged here, since etymologically it presupposes the existence of an original whole from which pieces or ‘fragments’ (lat. fragmentum) would later have been detached.
- 155.
In addition, the conditions to which the indication of such measures is subject (jurisdiction prima facie, plausibility of the rights invoked, link between the measures requested and these rights, real and imminent risk of an irreparable prejudice to the said rights before the final decision is issued) are also globally comparable, beyond the many necessary nuances. It is interesting to note, in this regard, that, while conceptually distinct, the ‘plausibility of the rights invoked’ and the ‘possibility of success on the merits’ may turn out to be rather similar tests in practice. Thus, the ICJ has had to examine the rights claimed ‘in context’ and sometimes make a somewhat detailed analysis of particular facts at the outset in order to assess the applicability of these rights to the case in question; on the other hand, the Court has generally been more reluctant to engage in such an ‘intrusion’ into the facts when it has been called upon, in establishing its jurisdiction ratione materiae (be it prima facie or not), to determine whether the claims ‘fall within the provisions’ of the convention relied upon to found its jurisdiction and the rights asserted on the merits. Certain closely connected questions may indeed, in practice, prove to be relevant to the search for plausibility of the rights asserted and to the verification of ratione materiae jurisdiction, two steps, in themselves, of a radically different nature (Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order, 19 April 2017, ICJ Reports 2017, p. 118, paras 30–31 and pp. 131–132, paras 74–75; Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 8 November 2019, ICJ Reports 2019, pp. 584 ff., paras 56 ff., especially paras 58 and 63).
- 156.
The ICJ could clearly not do so. It is immaterial whether the parties have agreed otherwise, since neither the Court nor the parties can derogate from the Statute, which is not ‘at their disposal’, being an integral part of the UN Charter and in any event hierarchically superior to any subsequent bilateral or multilateral agreement. Both the CPJI (see Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, Order, 19 August 1929, PCIJ Ser. A, No 22, p. 12) and the ICJ (Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), Judgment, 16 April 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 70, para 46) have recalled this obvious fact. In order to indicate provisional measures to ‘prevent serious harm to the marine environment’ under Article 290(1) of UNCLOS, the Court should therefore be able to establish a link with the rights in dispute between the parties. There is room for some judicial creativity here, given that the recognition of the existence of certain erga omnes obligations in relation to the environment (and specifically marine environment) is growing.
- 157.
See e.g. Chap. 15.
- 158.
See e.g. Chap. 14. Where the parties do not object to an application for permission to intervene under Article 62 of the ICJ Statute, the Court will in principle grant such a permission, its decision even taking the form of a simple Order (see Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Application to Intervene, Order, 21 October 1999, ICJ Reports 1999, p. 1029; Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy), Application for Permission to intervene, Order, 4 July 2011, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 494).
- 159.
References
Cerqueira D (2020) El derecho a un medio ambiente sano en el marco normativo y jurisprudencia del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos. Fundacion para el Debido Proceso. http://dplf.org/sites/default/files/el_derecho_a_un_medio_ambiente_sano.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2021
Couvreur Ph (2018) Evidence before the International Court of Justice. International and Comparative Law Research Centre, Moscow
Lachs M (1981) La preuve et la Cour internationale de Justice. In: Perelman Ch, Foriers P (eds) La preuve en droit. Bruylant, Brussels
Lachs M (1992) Evidence in the Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Role of the Court. In: Bello EG, Brownlie I (eds) Essays in Honour of Judge Taslim Olawale Elias. Nijhoff, Dordrecht
Riofrio Piché M (2014) Les considérations environnementales dans l’arbitrage d’investissement sous l’égide du CIRDI. Université de Montréal. https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1866/12431/Riofrio_Melanie_2014_memoire.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y. Accessed 30 April 2021
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Couvreur, P. (2022). General Conclusions. 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_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_23
Published:
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)