Sources of International Environmental Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jutta Brunnée
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Stable Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Making

This chapter begins by outlining an alternate, ‘interactional’, understanding of the concept of ‘sources of law’, which it takes to refer to processes that are shaped by requirements of legality and through which legal norms are made and remade. This approach does not entail that the law-making methods listed in Article 38 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute have ceased to matter in international environmental law (IEL)—far from it. The interactional law framework takes seriously what international actors do. The chapter, therefore, explores the law-making processes listed in Article 38 in turn, and then moves on to consider newer processes. The interactional framework and its practice-based understanding of legality illuminate the existence of resilient and relatively stable law-making processes as well as the emergence of new law-making processes.

scholarly journals Third State Intervention before the International Court of Justice in International Environmental Law Cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Franziska Liebelt
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
The Antarctic

<p>Third state intervention before international institutions originated in international arbitration around 1875 and has been included in the statute of the International Court since the foundation of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and is therefore no new phenomenon. Today, most systems of international dispute settlement provide for the possibility of third state intervention. Nevertheless intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been used by states sparsely and seems underdeveloped. The statute of the ICJ provides for two ways of intervention in its arts 62 and 63. There have been few applications under these provisions. Looking at the court’s orders in these few cases, the court seems to have adopted a restrictive approach towards allowing applications to intervene. This paper looks at the institution of intervention in the area of international environmental law disputes. There have been two relevant disputes of this kind before the ICJ: the Nuclear Tests litigation and the recent litigation of Whaling in the Antarctic. Both of these cases dealt with the question of state obligations towards the protection of the environment. The applications to intervene in Nuclear Tests failed for reasons that will be explained in more detail below. New Zealand’s application to intervene in Whaling in the Antarctic was authorized by the ICJ on the 6 February 2013 under art 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. The case is exceptional in that it is only the second time the ICJ allowed intervention under art 63. Both cases demonstrate that there are environmental issues that concern more than only the nations that are parties to the dispute. They indicate that intervention plays a particularly strong role in environmental issues because these issues by their nature often affect more than just two states. This paper analyses how the shared environmental concern of the international community might lead to an extension of intervention before the ICJ. It further more looks at the issues that arose before the court in connection with the intervention in Whaling in the Antarctic and how these issues were dealt with.</p>

Sources of International Environmental Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Redgwell
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Innovative Methods ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Environmental Norms

This chapter considers the applicability to environmental problems of the traditional sources of international law, using as the starting point the formal sources enumerated in Article 38 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute. It notes that leading treatises on international environmental law (IEL) and the account of the formal sources of IEL will likely start along the traditional positivist lines of Article 38. This chapter adheres to this practice to an extent—by discussing treaties, customary international law, and general principles. However, the discussion also moves on to, amongst other things, innovative methods of law creation, the dynamic evolution of environmental treaty texts, and the specific role played by soft law in the development and application of international environmental norms. The chapter concludes that, nonetheless, as a branch of general international law, the sources of international environmental law are the same.

Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area

2020 ◽  
Vol 187 ◽  
pp. 1-543
Keyword(s):  
Costa Rica ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
Main Claim ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
San Juan River

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Requirements for the indication of provisional measures — Prima facie jurisdiction — Jurisdiction under American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, 1948 (Pact of Bogotá) — Plausibility of rights claimed — Whether rights claimed by Costa Rica plausible — Irreparable damage — Whether rights claimed by Costa Rica at imminent risk of irreparable prejudiceInternational Court of Justice — Procedure — Control of proceedings — Joinder of proceedings — Counter-claims — Admissibility of counter-claims — Whether counter-claims of Nicaragua having direct connection with main claim of Costa Rica — Conditions for establishing whether a counter-claim connected in fact and in law with main claimInternational Court of Justice — Evidence — Weight to be given — Expert evidence — Burden and standard of proof — CompensationTerritory — Sovereignty — Disputed territory — Costa Rica’s claim that Nicaragua carried out activities in territory under sovereignty of Costa Rica — Extent of disputed territory — Treaty of Limits, 1858 — Cleveland Award, 1888 — Alexander Awards, 1897 — Whether “first channel met” was the caño dredged by Nicaragua starting in 2010 — Whether disputed territory falling under sovereignty of NicaraguaEnvironment — Procedural obligations — Substantive obligations — Nicaragua’s alleged breaches of international environmental law — Whether Nicaragua having to provide Costa Rica with environmental impact assessment relating to activities in disputed territory — Whether Nicaragua breaching its obligations to notify and consult with Costa Rica — Whether Nicaragua breaching its obligation not to cause transboundary harm — Costa Rica’s alleged breaches of international environmental law — Whether Costa Rica breaching its obligation to provide Nicaragua with environmental impact assessment relating to construction of Road 1856 along San Juan River — Whether Costa Rica breaching its obligations to notify and consult with Nicaragua — Whether Costa Rica breaching its obligations under Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 — Whether Costa Rica breaching its obligation not to cause 2transboundary harm — Whether Costa Rica breaching Nicaragua’s territorial integrityRivers — Right of navigation — Whether Nicaragua breaching Costa Rica’s right of navigation on San Juan River under Treaty of Limits, 1858 — PollutionState responsibility — Breach of provisional measures — Whether evidence showing that Nicaragua breached provisional measures — Assessing compliance with provisional measures at merits stage — Costs — Whether Costa Rica to be awarded costs as a result of Nicaragua’s breach of provisional measures — Breach of territorial integrity — Presence of Nicaragua’s military camp in disputed territory — Declaration that territorial integrity had been breached — Reparation — Compensation to be determined by Parties through negotiation within a year — Whether Court to be requested to determine amount of compensation by either Party after one year had elapsedDamages — Environmental damage — Consequences of responsibility for environmental damage — Request by Costa Rica to determine amount of compensation — Obligation to make full reparation — Hierarchy of means of reparation — Punitive or exemplary damages — Three-step approach to awarding compensation — Establishment of unlawful act — Causal link between unlawful act and injury suffered — Quantification — Compensation for environmental damage — Compensation for expenses incurred by Costa Rica — Methodology to quantify amount due — Parties disagreeing on appropriate methodology — Expenses by Costa Rica as a result of unlawful activities in disputed territory — Expenses by Costa Rica as a result of Nicaragua’s breach of provisional measures — Expenses by Costa Rica for construction and monitoring of a dyke — Costa Rica’s claim for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest — Whether pre-judgment interest necessary to ensure full reparation — Date by which compensation to be paid by Nicaragua

scholarly journals Third State Intervention before the International Court of Justice in International Environmental Law Cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Franziska Liebelt
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
The Antarctic

<p>Third state intervention before international institutions originated in international arbitration around 1875 and has been included in the statute of the International Court since the foundation of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and is therefore no new phenomenon. Today, most systems of international dispute settlement provide for the possibility of third state intervention. Nevertheless intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been used by states sparsely and seems underdeveloped. The statute of the ICJ provides for two ways of intervention in its arts 62 and 63. There have been few applications under these provisions. Looking at the court’s orders in these few cases, the court seems to have adopted a restrictive approach towards allowing applications to intervene. This paper looks at the institution of intervention in the area of international environmental law disputes. There have been two relevant disputes of this kind before the ICJ: the Nuclear Tests litigation and the recent litigation of Whaling in the Antarctic. Both of these cases dealt with the question of state obligations towards the protection of the environment. The applications to intervene in Nuclear Tests failed for reasons that will be explained in more detail below. New Zealand’s application to intervene in Whaling in the Antarctic was authorized by the ICJ on the 6 February 2013 under art 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. The case is exceptional in that it is only the second time the ICJ allowed intervention under art 63. Both cases demonstrate that there are environmental issues that concern more than only the nations that are parties to the dispute. They indicate that intervention plays a particularly strong role in environmental issues because these issues by their nature often affect more than just two states. This paper analyses how the shared environmental concern of the international community might lead to an extension of intervention before the ICJ. It further more looks at the issues that arose before the court in connection with the intervention in Whaling in the Antarctic and how these issues were dealt with.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document