Kathmandu School of Law Review

P-ISSN : 2091-2110, E-ISSN : 2773-8159, DOI : 10.46985, Publisher : Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal
Annual flagship journal of Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal

Volume 5, Issue 2, November 2017
Feature Article

Emergence of Principle of Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non-Laedes in Environmental Law and Its Endorsement by International and National Courts: An Assessment

PDF
  • T. R. Subramanya
    ,
  • Shuvro Prosun Sarker
T. R. Subramanya
Public Policy ofthe West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences
Bio
Shuvro Prosun Sarker
Governance and Public Policy of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences
Bio

Published 2017-11-30

Keywords

  • No Keywords.

How to Cite

Subramanya, T. R., & Sarker, S. P. (2017). Emergence of Principle of Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non-Laedes in Environmental Law and Its Endorsement by International and National Courts: An Assessment. Kathmandu School of Law Review, 5(2), 1–13. Retrieved from https://kslreview.org/index.php/kslr/article/view/989

Abstract

The maxim of sic utere tuo ut alienum non-laedes (use your own property in such a way that you do not injure that of another) has been recognized as a fundamental principal of law both in Roman and common law systems. In international law, this principle acts as a limitation on the sovereignty of a State. It is a settled principle of international law that a State has the sovereign right to exercise the basic functions of a state.1 But then the exercise of this right is subject to certain limitations. One limitation is that the state cannot allow certain activities to interfere with the sovereignty of other states. A state will be found liable under international law if the consequences of activities within that state’s control seriously injure persons or property of other states. This principle over a period of time has come to be known as the “no harm rule”. According to this principle, a state isanswerable even for acts of a private person who is under that state’s control.2 State practices clearly show that the laws governing state responsibility will apply to injuries arising out of hazardous activities which are within a state’s control because the riskof consequences posed by such hazardous activities are serious, regardless of their legality within the individual state.3

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. See Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States, General Assembly Resolution 375 (IV) adopted on 6 December 1949.
  2. Gunther Handl, ‘State Liability for Accidental Transnational Environmental Damage by Private Persons’, vol. 74, American Journal of International Law, 1980, pp. 525-527; Gunther Handl, ‘Territorial Sovereignty and Problem of Transnational Pollution’, vol. 69, American Journal of International Law, 1975, pp. 50-55.
  3. Gabriel M. Benrubi, ‘State Responsibility and Hazardous Products Exports: A Solution to an International Problem’, vol. 13, California Western International Law Journal, 1983, pp. 135-138.
  4. Arbitrational Awards, Trail Smelter Arbitration Case (United States v Canada), reprinted in vol. 33, American Journal of International Law, 1939, p. 182; vol. 55, American Journal of International Law, 1941, p. 684; ‘The Trial Smelter Dispute’, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 1963, p. 213.
  5. Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania), ICJ Rep 244 (15 December 1949), p. 18.
  6. Ibid, p. 135.
  7. Sanford E. Gaines, ‘Taking Responsibility for Transboundary Environmental Effects’, vol. 14, No. 4, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review,1991, pp. 781-809.
  8. Corfu Channel (n 5), p.22; Brent Carson, ‘Increased Risk of Disease from Hazardous Waste: A Proposal for Judicial Relief’, vol. 60, No. 3, Washington Law Review, 1985, pp. 546-549.
  9. Lake Lanoux Arbitration (France v Spain), vol. 53, American Journal of International Law, 1959, p. 156 also printed in International Arbitration Awards, vol. 12, 1957, p. 281.
  10. Case Concerning Nuclear Tests (Australia v France; New Zealand v France), ICJ Rep 97 (20 December 1974), p. 99.
  11. T.R. Subramanya, ‘The Earth Summit: An Overview’, vol. 34, no. 45, Link, New Delhi, 1992, pp. 4-6.
  12. Nuclear Tests Cases (n 10), p. 288.
  13. Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UNGA Res 2994 (XXVII), (15 December 1972) UN Doc A/RES/2994, ILM, vol. II, 1972, p. 1416.
  14. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 94 (8 July 1996), p. 226, para 29.
  15. Ibid, pp. 241-242; Justin Thornton &Silas Beckwith, Environmental Law, Thompson, London, 2004, pp. 42-44.
  16. Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Judgment, ICJ Rep 7 (25 September 1997), p. 31.
  17. Ibid; P.W. Birnie & A.E. Boyle, International Law and the Environment, OUP, New Delhi, 2004, p. 108.
  18. Southern Bluefin Tuna case (New Zealand-Japan, Australia-Japan), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XXIII (4 August 2000), pp. 1-57.
  19. Mox Plant Case (Ireland v United Kingdom), Order of 3rd December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001: “The conflict between Ireland and the United Kingdom about the building and operation of the Mox Plant at Sellafield, on the Irish Sea, dates back to 1993. The plant is designed to recycle the plutonium produced during the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. Ireland contested this project since its beginning and requested access to information from the UK about the plant in order to protect the marine environment of the Irish Sea, available at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_10/Order.03.12.01.E.pdf, accessed on 24 February 2017.
  20. Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and Around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v Singapore), Order of 8th October, 2003, ITLOS Reports, 2003. The waters of the Straits of Johor were delimited between Singapore and Malaysia in 1966. Singapore started reclaiming the waters on its side of the Straits since 1966 and finally started the work in 2000. Since 2002 Malaysia started notifying Singapore and the notification for arbitration under UNCLOS was given on 2003, available at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/ documents/cases/case_no_12/Order.08.10.03.E.pdf, accessed on 24 February 2017.
  21. The Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), ICJ Reports 2010, p.
  23. Ibid, para 15.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Ibid, paras 105-111.
  26. Ibid, p. 119.
  27. Ibid, paras 236-264.
  28. Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v India), 20 December 2013, available at https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/48, accessed on 24 February 2017.
  29. Viet Koester, ‘From Stockholm to Brundtland’, vol. 20, No. 1 and 2, Environmental Policy and the Law, 1990, p. 15.
  30. Convention Supplementary to the Paris Convention of 29 July 1960 on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy signed on 31 January 1963, ILM vol. 21, 1962, pp. 685-687.
  31. Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, 1963, ILM 1963, pp. 727-737.
  32. Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy, Paris,29 July 1960.
  33. Convention on the Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships, Brussels, 1962.
  34. Convention Relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Materials, 1971, International Legal Materials, vol. 11, 1972, p. 277.
  35. International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, ILM vol. 45.
  36. Ibid, art 5.
  37. Ibid, art 7.
  38. Ibid, art 9.
  39. Ibid, art 11.
  40. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, London, 29 March 1972.
  41. North Sea Convention on Exploration and Exploitation, 1977, ILM, vol. 16, p. 1450.
  42. 1972 Convention (n 39), art 2.
  43. Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UNGA Res 2994 (XXVII), (15 December 1972) UN Doc A/RES/2994, ILM, vol. II, 1972, p. 1416.
  44. B. Sohn, ‘The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment’, vol.14, Harvard International Law Journal, 1973, p. 423.
  45. Statement of Martinez Gonzales, UN Doc. A/C 2/SR 1470 (1972), p.7; Gunther Handl, ‘The Case for Mexican Liability for Transnational Pollution Damage Resulting from Toxic Oil Spill’, vol. 2, Houston Journal of International Law, 1979, p. 231: “Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration provides that States have 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.”
  46. International Responsibility of States in Regard to the Environment, G.A. Res. 2996, UN Doc A/8901 (1972), pp. 42-43.
  47. Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, UN Doc A/Res/3281, 1974, p. 50, International Legal Materials, vol. 14, 1975, p. 251.
  48. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea opened for Signature in December 1982, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/122 (1982), reprinted in International Legal materials vol. 21, 1982, pp.1261-1308.
  49. World Charter for Nature adopted on 29 October, 1982 by the United Nations General Assembly by 111 votes in favour and one against (was that of United States). Resolution A/Res/37/7; UNGAOR Supp. (No. 51), UN Doc. A/51, 1982, p. 17.
  50. See Nicholas A. Robinson, ‘Marshalling Environmental Law to Resolve the Himalaya-Ganga Problem’, vol. 13, Delhi Law Review, 1991, p.4.
  51. Viet Koester, ‘From Stockholm to Brundtland’, vol. 20, no. 1 & 2, Environmental Policy and the Law, 1990, p. 15.
  52. Sanford E. Gaines, ‘Taking Responsibility for Transboundary Environmental Effects’, vol.
  53. , no. 4, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 1991, p. 795.
  54. Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 22 March 1985, International Legal Materials, vol. 26, 1987, p. 1516.
  55. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone, Final Act, September 16, 1987, International Legal Materials, vol. 26, 1987, p. 1541.
  56. Pamela Wexler, ‘Protecting the Global Atmosphere: Beyond the Montreal Protocol’, vol. 14, Maryland Journal of International Law and Trade, 2001, p. 6.
  57. Margot B. Peters, ‘An International Approach to the Green House Effect: The problem of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide can be Approached by an Innovative International Agreement’, vol.20, no.1, California Western International Law Journal, 1989, pp 81-87.
  58. Convention on Early Notification of Nuclear Accident, 1986, International Legal Materials, vol.25, 1986, p.137.
  59. Sands, Principles of International Environmental law cited in W. Birnie and A. E. Boyle, International Law and the Environment, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2004, p.110.
  60. Convention on the Non- Navigational Uses of International Water Courses, International Legal Materials, vol.36, 1997, p. 719.
  61. Report of the International Law Commission, UN GAOR A/56/10(2001) 60 Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v Union of India, AIR, 1996, SC, p. 2715.
  62. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the laws of England, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016, p. 308.
  63. M/s. Kanak Kr. & Ashok Kr. & Anr. V Corporation of Calcutta, 73 CWN 32, India, Calcutta High Court, 1968.
  64. Wayne Alan Laskey and Ors. V Showzone CC and Ors [2006], South Africa, ZAWCHC 50.
  65. Miller and Another v Jackson and Another 1975 M. No. 173, United Kingdom, Court of Appeals, 1977.
  66. Georgia v Tennessee Copper Co, 206 U.S. 230 (1907).
  67. Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,480 US 470 (SC 1987).
  68. Philip Brendale and others v Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indiana Nation,492 US 408(SC 1989).
  69. The principle has also been recognized in the following cases: Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corpn. 401 U.S. 493 (1971)
  70. See J. G Starke, Introduction to International Law, Aditya Books Pvt. Td, New Delhi, 1994, p. 38.
  71. See Goldie, ‘International Principle of Responsibility for Pollution’, vol. 9, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 1970, pp. 283-306.
  72. Jan Schneider, World Public Order of the Environment: Towards an International Ecological Law and Organization, Stevens & Sons, London, 1979, p. 161; See also Justine Thornton and Silas Beckwith, Environment Law, Thompson, London, 2004, pp. 90-95.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.