Page - 187 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
Image of the Page - 187 -
Text of the Page - 187 -
7 LegalResponses toClimateChange… 187
Thisprinciplewas confirmed in further decisionsof international courts and tri-
bunals(e.g.CorfuChannel,22;CaseconcerningtheGabcikovo-NagymarosProject,
para.53;CaseConcerningPulpMillson theRiverUruguay, paras.101,193 [here-
inafter:PulpMills]). Itwasalsorecognisedininternationaldeclarations(e.g.United
Nations RioDeclaration on Environment andDevelopment, principle 2; Declara-
tion of the UnitedNations Conference on theHuman Environment, principle 21;
UNGARes.2996 (XXVII)) and, although less systematically, in treaties, including
amention in thepreamble to theUNFrameworkConventiononClimateChange. In
theAdvisoryOpinionon theLegalityof theThreatorUseofNuclearWeapons, the
InternationalCourtof Justice recognised
thegeneralobligationofStates toensure that activitieswithin their jurisdictionandcontrol
respect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national control is nowpart of
thecorpusof international lawrelating to theenvironment (para29).
Theno-harmprinciplerequiresstates torefrainfromengaginginactivitieswhich
wouldcausesignificanttransboundaryharmandtopreventpersonsorentitieswithin
its jurisdiction to carry out such activities. Beyond this general understanding, the
modalities of theno-harmprinciple aredebated.Aswith anycustomarynorm, it is
difficult to establish the exact scope of this duty to prevent significant transbound-
aryharm. In its previous cases, the ICJhas clarified little the content of theduty to
prevent significant transboundaryharm.Generally, it hasbeenunderstoodasoneof
duediligence (PulpMills, para101; ILC2001:154,para.7).Thismeans thata state
is required to act in away that can be expected from a “good government” (ILC
2001: 155, para. 17) and to exert its best efforts tominimise the risk of significant
transboundaryharm(ILC2001: 154, para. 7).As such, theno-harmprinciple is an
obligation of conduct, not of result. Thus, a state is not responsible for harm that
occurs despite its reasonable efforts to prevent it or—in case that it is not possi-
ble—tominimise therisk.TheInternationalLawCommissionhasacknowledged in
itsworkon theArticleson thePreventionofTransboundaryHarmfromHazardous
Activities thatadifferentdegreeofcareisexpectedfromstateswithfewercapacities
andeconomicdifficulties (ILC2001:155,para.17).Whenapplying thiscriterion to
climate change, itmust also be kept inmind that treatiesmay contribute in differ-
entways to thedevelopmentofcustomary international law.Despite thecontinuing
workoftheILContheroleoftreatiesinidentifyingcustomaryinternationallaw(see
e.g.Wood2015:14ff), there remainfundamentaluncertaintiesonhowthemultilat-
eral environmental agreements shape,crystalliseandformthecontentofcustomary
international law.
Statepracticeandcaseswhere theno-harmrulewas invokedgenerallydealtwith
activitiesatoraroundasharedborder.Theseactivitiesincludedforinstanceemitting
toxicfumesthatcauseddamagesinthewoodsof theneighbouringstate,dredgingin
a shared river andaltering itswaters (e.g.LacLanouxArbitration)or elsepolluting
it throughmills (e.g.PulpMills)orconstructionactivitiesclose to it.This raises the
questionwhether theno-harmprinciple is applicable toclimatechange.
Climate change differs frommost aforementioned cases in at least three pivotal
points.Firstly,damagesfromclimatechangeresultnotfromasingleactivityofastate
Loss and Damage from Climate Change
Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Title
- Loss and Damage from Climate Change
- Subtitle
- Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Authors
- Reinhard Mechler
- Laurens M. Bouwer
- Thomas Schinko
- Swenja Surminski
- JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer
- Publisher
- Springer Open
- Date
- 2019
- Language
- English
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-3-319-72026-5
- Size
- 16.0 x 24.0 cm
- Pages
- 580
- Keywords
- Environment, Climate change, Environmental law, Environmental policy, Risk management
- Categories
- International
- Naturwissenschaften Umwelt und Klima