international environmental law

Question 1

Development of IEL

Answer 1

1. Environmental benefits as incidental to economic concerns (1945 - 1972): From UN charter (env protection in its competences from art 1 and 55) to ‘72 Stockholm Conference on Human Environment
2. Treaties towards pollution abatment and conservation
   - ‘72 Stokcholm conference -> declaration and programme of action
   - regional and global treaties in particular on marine environment protection
   - until ‘92 Rio conference on environment and development
3. Current: precautionary principle
   - from 92 Rio -> holisic approach
   - other treaties

Question 2

IEL treaties + conferences

Answer 2

‘72 stockholm conference
‘75 CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
‘91 Convention on Transboundary environmental Impact Assessment
‘92 Rio conference
- > United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change operationalized by the Kyoto protocol in ‘97
‘02 Johannesburg conference
‘12 Rio +20 conference
2015 Paris Agreement
2019 Urgenda case
2024 KlimaSeniorinnen

Question 2

Norms in IEl

Answer 2

• Concept of sustainable development = balancing needs of current and future generations
• Principles
• • Common but differentiated responsibilities
• • no harm principle/good neighbour <- application of due diligence
• • prevention
• • precaution = not using scientific uncertainty as a reason not to act
• • polluter pays
• • sustainable use of natural resources
• Rules
• • of customary law
• • of treaties -> but sometimes too broad to be applicable (es art 2 UNFCCC vs very clear art 3 Kyoto protocol

Question 3

Litigation under IEL

Answer 3

• Regular courts at national level (es Urgenda case)
• Arbitration
• International courts and tribunals (es ICJ)
• ECtHR

Question 4

ICJ: Argentina vs Uruguay

Answer 4

Statute of the river Uruguay
- Procedural violation of Uruguay accoridng to Argentina: unilaterally autgorized construction of pulp mills on the river without previous notification/consulation -> yes violation
- Substantive violation: these pulp mills would impair quality of river’s water causing transboudary damage -> no violation

Question 5

ICJ: Whaling in the artic: Aaustralia vs Japan

Answer 5

International Convention for the regulation fo whaling
- art VIII: Party can authorize a national a special permit to kill whales for purposes fo scientific research. But japan gave this permission to JARPA II -> violation, not scientific purposes

Question 6

Litigations under WTO: EU and certain Member State palm oil (Malaysia)

Answer 6

Malaysia claimed that certain EU measures focused on sustainability restricting import of palm oil were inconsistent with some TBT agreements and GATT obligations

Panel did find that some of these measures were inconsistent with EU obligations

Question 7

WTO: US-shrimp: India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand

Answer 7

Agreement: GATTArt XI and XX
Measures at issue: US import prohibition of shrimps from countries that had not use specific nets
Findings:
- Art XI: yes violation (quantitative restriction)
- Art XX: exceptions not valid because of chapeau (discriminatory measure)

US changes with “those nets or other comparable in effectiveness” -> now it is ok

Question 8

ECtHR: other 2

Answer 8

• Careme vs France: formed resident/mayor of french town complains france did not take enough steps to prevent climate change
  Inadmissable because no victim status (art 34) because former resident
• Duarte Agostino and others vs Portugal: 6 young protuguese complain present/future effects of climate change
  Inadmissible: not used legal avenues available in Portugal before going to ECtHR

Question 9

ECtHR: Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Scheweizoo vs Switzerland

Answer 9

Complainant:
- 4 old women: don’t fulfil victim status (Art 34) because no high intenstity of exposure to adverse effect of climate change + pressing need to ensure individual protection
- Swiss association -> locus standi
Violations
- art 8 (respect private life and famility lofe)-> yes violation. Older Women helath problem during heat wase. Swizz government failed in
- - quantify national GHG emissions
- - Meet past GHG reduction targets
- art 6 -1 (access to court) -> yes violation: swiss courts did not provide convincing reasons not to consider these complains
- Art 2 (duty of Swiss government to protect life )-> not examined
- Art 13 (right to an effective remedy) -> not examined