What does the ‘polluter pays principle’ mean? How has it been applied its specific legal measures and how effective has its implementation been in practice?

Environment, Featured, Legal — By on February 22, 2012 at 4:31 PM

On the Environmental Law we have Spyros D. Kintas’ work, an interested work for this important aspect of the Environment which is top of the Agenda with Piracy and Terrorism, particularly when it comes from the new generation! As we have said, this is a platform for all, your plattform and we welcome students of any degree as well as graduates to present their work.

Introduction

The aim of this piece of work is to provide a rounded evaluation concerning the value of the ‘polluter pays’ principle. At the beginning of this essay, I am going to analyze the ideology of this theorem that serves the area of environmental law. Afterwards, I will try to draw, briefly, a connection between the ideology of the ‘polluter’s pay’ principle and the vague area of law. Later on, I will access possible arguments presenting the level of successfulness of this measure in correlation to practical issues. Last but not least, I will try to come to the conclusion of whether a measure like that is valuable or not.

“Modern technology Owes ecology An apology.[1]

Alan M. Eddison puts it successfully but in a very elegant way and apart from an apology people responsible for contaminating of our environmental media should be regulated in a more severe way.  In 1972 the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) adopted the ‘polluter pays’ principle (PPP)[2] which was also introduced into the European Community Treaty in 1987. The main aim was, and still is, to create a “pragmatic statement”[3] of the internalization of environmental costs by using a systematic form of distributing the expenses of effluences and nowadays it constitutes one of the most fundamental principles of International Environmental Law. Since 1972, it has developed a lot and especially in 1989 where negligent pollution was added, followed by, inter alios, the Rio Declaration (1992), the Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation approved at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) (2002)[4].

According to Professor Hans Bugge the PPP can be conceived under four interpretations[5]. Firstly, as an economic principle of efficiency, secondly, as a legal principle (fair spreading of costs), thirdly, as a principle of international coordination of national environmental policy and lastly, as a principle of allotment of costs between states[6].

“The polluter pays principle is followed insofar as a person responsible for pollution is required to clean the polluted water within a reasonable period and at his own expense”[7]. Hence, this principle gives two choices to the polluters; either decrease and preferably eliminate the pollution or abide the expenses required to eradicate it. One of the main objectives of the PPP is to compel the initiators of pollution comply with the gauges required to guarantee that the ecosystem is in an adequate shape. Also, another objective is to shun unbalances of international trade or unjust benefits on rivalry between the countries[8]. Thus, the PPP has been connected with the principle of ‘proportionality’[9].

“We have the Bill of Rights. What we need is a Bill of Responsibilities.”[10]

The emergence of a big change in the world of environmental policy and international shipping transactions came after the incident of the case of Exxon Valdez[11] in 1989 spilling 10 million gallons of crude oil at Prince William Sound in Alaska. The PPP would demand complete reparation and limitless liability under the umbrella of new laws, mainly integrated under the 1990 US Oil Pollution Act (OPA). Exxon paid, a huge amount of money[12] that proved to be unsuccessful for the restoration of the environment, to a great extent. Since then all the ‘new-building’ tankers are obliged to be ‘double-hulled’ by 2015 in order to avoid disasters like those in the future.

In our times the term defining the PPP lays down under Article 15 of the Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on squander coming from the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). To be more precise, the term is defined as follows: “In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the cost of disposing of waste must be borne by: (a) the holder who has waste handled by a waste collector, or by an undertaking as referred to in Article 9; and/or (b) the previous holders or the producer of the product from which the waste came”. As it has been used in the latest case Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura and Others v Comune di Casoria[13] in the European Court of Justice. Article 15 also obliges the ones responsible for the disposition of waste to carry out this procedure at their own expenses by using “a waste collector”. This is a very good regulation, which binds the polluters not just for the creation of waste but also for its dematerialization.

In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (1992), The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) sustained that although environmental law is improving progressively many of the bodies that make new regulations in many states stay ad hoc[14]. The UNCED came to the conclusion that in order to combine successfully environment and progress in the principles of action it is fundamental to advance impressive and striking laws. The PPP is also found as definition under Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration; “promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution…”[15] This definition mainly focuses on issues basically dealing with energy cleanings or health care issues.

The topic of PPP has been scrutinized by Professor Fisse, in “Sentencing Options Against Corporations”[16], who asserts that unorthodox penalties would work better than just money fines. For instance, a business closing down, an ineligibility to perform specific kind of operations or even an industry probation in which industries are involved, under administration, into an examination of the causes of the possible pollution[17]. Another option of alternative fine which can be added in the meaning of PPP can be ‘community service’ in the sense of charity as per United States v Allied Chemical Corpn[18]. In this case, a business was commanded to conduct an aid called the ‘Virginia Environmental Endowment’. These added measurements would make the PPP even more severe and at the same time give it a sense of the ‘good instructor’.

Apart from its international existence the PPP exists also in a national level. The WSSD (2002) Plan stresses attention as well on the national level policy that states should bear in mind. It also gives emphasis on the significance of the promotion of logical and consistent tactics to institutional framework[19]. Paragraph 163 characteristically states that; “…countries have a responsibility to strengthen governmental institutions, including by providing necessary infrastructure and by promoting transparency, accountability and fair administrative and judicial institutions.” Some good examples of implementation of national environmental law policy can be the National Rivers Authority (Southern Region) v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd[20] and Environment Agency (formerly National Rivers Authority) v Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd[21]. The first one has to do with water pollution and section 85 of the Water Resources Act (1991) in which Alfred McAlpine Homes Limited was building some houses and due to a work taking place cement entered the Ditton Stream polluting it and killing fish. The second case deals also with section 85 and liability of the polluter concerning the escape of diesel into a river where an unknown person opened a tap of a tank of fuel kept by another person.

It has being stated in the past, that ‘law is a work in progress’ so the PPP, alongside with the entity of Environmental law, although enhanced over the years has always room for improvement. In consequence, the latest changes that have not yet being decided fully will take place in the Copenhagen Treaty (2009), which targets to surpass the Kyoto protocol.  During the last negotiations, some changes related to the PPP principle try to make it more effective. The Treaty aims on a gigantic transfer of capital from the urbanized to the urbanizing countries who need support. A paradigm of that might be a free offer of mitigating systems from big businesses to corporations in emergent countries, or the full payment for their alternation and alleviation. A substitute choice, as seen in page 133 states that[22]; “An assessed contribution from developed country Parties based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, GDP, GDP per capita, the polluter pays principle historical responsibility of Annex I Parties, historical climate debt, including adaptation debt…”[23] To a great extent the PPP aims to be more strict as, according to the Green New Deal, the PPP “is, after all, only necessary because developed countries have warmed the planet and taken up most of the atmospheric ‘space’ for greenhouse gases.”[24] This view, also supported by professor Michael Howard[25], comes to a contradiction with the view supported by Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He mainly alleges that this delegation of wealth in the form of the PPP will favor a communist world government or otherwise stated favor Barrack Obama poised to cede U.S. sovereignty and in general he expresses his skepticism about it[26]. Nonetheless, many can claim that since he shares the same ideological beliefs with Margaret Thatcher and Thatcher had been characterized that she followed a neo-liberal approach to her policies he is against the Treaty in order to favor the corporation by letting things in the current situation. To sum up, the future will show us whether good changes are going to come up or not, but at this point it would be useful to analyze PPP’s efficacy so far.

Effectiveness of the ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle

At this part of my work it would be indispensable to assess arguments in correlation to the extent of value of this principle. As it was mentioned above, according to the PPP the polluter has to disburse for the control of the contamination; but could this be considered as a limitation of this economic instrument? More specifically, many can claim that by adopting such a policy is like allowing the selling off of the environment.

To start with, there are situations in which it is debatable whether the “costs assessed to the polluter are in fact borne by the polluter”[27] [28]. To be more specific, the creation of the OPA could proliferate the cost of tanker transportation of oil to the US by, roughly speaking, US$450 million per year. This predictable cost is then transferred to the American consumer as an upsurge of $2.00 per year in gasoline and utility bills[29]. Therefore, the purchaser will have to give some extra amount of money for the good and services that instigated pollution. Something all academics have agreed on is that the best way to tackle pollution is to put a tax on pollution to commodify it and allow the market to reduce it naturally on its own. However, this is something that no president would do and individual politicians who push for it have failed because it would indicate losing a lot of votes from citizens. This would mean that incapability of imposing fines to the polluter could result, de facto, to the giving of the privilege to contaminate[30]. Nevertheless, the counter argument could be that since there is demand for oil, there will also be supply and the polluters are not only the ones who provide oil but also the ones who consume it as well-hence, everyone.

Furthermore, dealing with the polluters by imposing them ‘eco-taxes’ makes it hard for States to punish them. One should also bear in mind the real world limitations, which can work as a slippery slope effect. These could be a) legal constraints endorsed by taxpayers and b) government’s unwillingness to compel taxes in the sense of blighting their aptitude to magnetize new commerce and industries[31]. Also, the concept underlying in this principle is to prevent the twists in relative benefits and commercial flows that can be created if member states confronted the environmental issues in a more extensive way. According to statistics[32], less that 2% of United Kingdom’s total tax income is generated by environmental taxes, even though in case where general taxes on energy were added as well in a more vague interpretation of environmental connected taxes, then this numeral increases to the scale of 8.5% of United Kingdom’s total tax profits.

Another issue that makes the PPP a bit doubtful is that it is not suitable as a tenet of liability among governments. Firstly, according to the scholar Edith Brown Weiss[33] it is almost impossible to pay damages, which will bring a full balance for the environmental harm that has being caused as in Exxon Valdez[34]. In addition, he adds that since one of the aims of PPP is to hinder a non-environmental friendly attitude, then the sum of money required will not be sufficient or similar to the one of the reimbursement of the harm. Likewise, the PPP imposes liability merely for ‘negligence’ and not ‘strict’ liability (Alphacell Ltd v Woodward[35]) in the context of international law[36]. Moreover, liability has not, yet, being confessed by states for pollutions in other countries. He also alleges that the status quo has being completely different-some governments gave money for the creation of pollution control inaugurations for the reason that the charge of performing something like that was less than the one of undergoing a harm of contamination. However, another review, by Professor Alexandra Klass, claims that; “cases show that while the prevailing trend among courts may be to reduce the reach of common law strict liability, the trend in environmental contamination cases appears to be the opposite.”[37]

Another drawback might be, exempli gratia,  in cases of forsaken wastes where the contaminator has long since vanished[38]. A further black area on that can also be the exact definition of ‘pollution’ and whether there are approved productions of waste or not. Before the appearance of the European Court of Justice the WFD seemed to confront ambiguities concerning some definitions. However, EC’s response to that was, for example, the Product-Oriented Approaches in conjunction with the Packaging Directive. More precisely, the (2000/53/EC) Directive vis-à-vis disposition of ended life vehicles makes available to the last holder to dismantle his/her truck free of charge in co-operation with the manufacturers, being responsible for the cost of an ecological friendly discarding[39].

A view under an economic evaluation shows us that the PPP is well recognized, but at the same time open to discussion. At this point it would be useful to mention whether the pollution taxes are in a manner conforming to the PPP. The British economist Ronald Coase claims that by atoning the victims, or taxing the ones who were influenced by a contamination, would have the same outcome as imposing taxes to the contaminators. Professor William Baumol, on the other side, alleged that the ultimate supply of distribution could only be obtained by a ‘Pigovian’ method of taxing imposed on the dynamo of the ‘externality’[40]. The Coase theorem also comes to question the principle in the sense of the distribution of rights. This means that it will be the same if the injured parties paid the offender not to contaminate (this is also known as ‘victim pays’ principle (VPP))[41]. Although PPP is a globally recognized rule, “international aid is an area where the VPP is often the rule rather than the exception”[42]. An example of that might be the money invested by Western Europe to Eastern Europe for the decrease of ecological damage, in the context of Bulgaria concerning nuclear safety. As seen in that case, the VPP was the dominant principle instead of the PPP because the cost of radioactive waste will be paid by future generations and not by those who gained via electric power or nuclear weapons.

It would be of great importance to analyze a positive outcome that resulted in adopting the PPP policy. Firstly, the use of the principle does not influence the use of domestic-national laws[43] or EC’s obligations to states and their international obligations that may be addressed[44] to a harmful environmental incident and thus making regulations more flexible. A significant case supporting that statement is the Commune de Mesquer v Total France SA[45] in which an oil ship called Erika spread 10, 000 tones of fuel in the French Atlantic during its shipwreck. An Italian energy company, ENEL, signed a contract with Total International Ltd in order to provide ENEL with oil transferred from Dunkirk to Italy by Erika. The international regulations related to the pollution initiated by the release of hydrocarbons were in favor of the ‘Total’ companies. However, these opposing intervening norms did not influence court’s decision in correlation to the PPP, in the basis that since they played a significant factor, in the “conduct to the risk that the pollution caused by the shipwreck”[46] occurrence, it was their legal responsibility. Also, in accordance with the interpretation doctrine, the domestic courts are requested to evaluate national law in harmony with the EC law[47]. Otherwise judged this would have resulted to the forward of a considerable role in public’s liability.

Lastly, if governments imposed the PPP then it would expand its bureaucratic integration[48]. Undoubtedly, by the absence of this principle companies could disregard the social and environmental expenses in front of profit. Distinctively, when a company has a choice between the transfer of a good, the PPP increases the possibilities that this choice will also advance sustainable development. On the one hand, PPP ensures more environmental friendly decisions and on the other hand it promotes a substantive integration.

Conclusion

As an overall, the PPP seems to be a highly praised principle but with limitations as seen in the last part of this evaluation. However, the PPP constitutes one of the last phase measurements concerning the protection of our environmental media and the ultimate goal would be its obsolete owing to all people’s highly developed state of mind. “It’s a question of discipline, ” the little prince told me later on.  “When you’ve finished washing and dressing each morning, you must tend your planet.”[49]


References – Footnotes

[1] Inc Icon Group International, Ecologies: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases, ICON Group International, Inc., (2008), page 1

2 See Appendix 1

3 Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, Joseph Weiler, Methods, tools and institutions, Volume 1, Book 1, Walter de Gruyter, (1986), page 228

4 http://www.eoearth.org/article/Polluter_pays_principle accessed on December 6th 2009 at 11:57 pm

5 Hans Bugge Chr., The Principles of ‘Polluter-Pays’ in Economics and Law, Oslo, (1996), pages 53-90

6 Britt Groosman, 2500 Pollution Tax, Center for Environmental Economics and Management-Faculty of Economics and Applied Economics-University of Ghent (1999), page 548-9

7 William Howarth, Romualdo E. Hernandez and Annick Van Houtte, Legislation Governing Shrimp Aquaculture, FAO Legal Papers Online #18, (June 2001), page 72 – http://www.fao.org/legal/Prs-OL/lpo18.pdf

8 Alexandre Charles Kiss, Dinah Shelton, Manual of European Environmental law, Cambridge University Press, (1997), page 43

9 Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura v Comune di Casoria (C-254/08) European Court of Justice (Second Chamber), 16 July 2009

10 Bill Maher quoted in the book: Lisa K. Gundry, Laurie LaMantia, Breakthrough teams for breakneck times: unlocking the genius of creative collaboration, Dearborn Trade Publishing, (2001), page 123

11 Exxon Shipping Company, et al., Petitioners v. Grant Baker et al. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit [June 25, 2008]

12 Approximately, $2.1 billion for the clean-up, $1 billion for reinstatement, ¼ of a billion to the Alaskan fishermen and in 1994 ‘class action suit’ awarding $5 billion in disciplinary remedies is still ongoing through appeals- Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real Estate of the World, Cambridge University Press, (2001), page 192

13 Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura and Others v Comune di Casoria [2009] All ER (D) 14 (Sep)

14 Lal Kurukulasuriya, Nicholas A Robinson, United Nations Environment Programme. Division of Environmental Policy Development and Law, Training Manual on International Environmnetal Law, UNEP/Earthprint, (2006), page 17

15 Pricniple 16 Rio Declaration (1992)

16 David Hughes, Tim Jewell, Jason Lowther, Neil Parpworth, Paula de Prez, Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, (2008), page 26

17 David Hughes, Tim Jewell, Jason Lowther, Neil Parpworth, Paula de Prez, Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, (2008), page 27

18 United States v Allied Chemical Corpn 420 F Supp 122 (ED Va 1976)

19 Lal Kurukulasuriya, Nicholas A Robinson, United Nations Environment Programme. Division of Environmental Policy Development and Law, Training Manual on International Environmnetal Law, UNEP/Earthprint, (2006), page 17

20 National Rivers Authority (Southern Region) v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd [1994] Env. L.R. 198

21 Environment Agency (formerly National Rivers Authority) v Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd House of Lords 05 February 1998

22 http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/after-versailles-the-copenhagen-treaty accessed on December 10, 2009 at 11:56 pm

23 Ibid, accessed on December 10, 2009 at 11:56 pm

24http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/climate_deal/2009_climate_copenhagen/what_must_be_done/role_of_developing_countries/ accessed on December 10, 2009 at 12:08 am

25 http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/23/umaine-professor-says-polluters-must-pay/ accessed on December 10, 2009 at 12:13 am

26 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/ accessed on December 10, 2009 at 12:37 am and the actual speech on October 14, 2009: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80798136/ accessed on December 10, 2009 at 12:38

27 J. Clarence Davies, Jan Mazurek, Pollution Control in the United States: Evaluating the System, Resources for the Future, (1998), page 47

28 see Appendix 2

29 Lynne M. Jurgielewicz, Global Environmental Change and International Law: Prospects for Progress in the Legal Order, University Press of America, (1996), page 67

30 Michael Faure, Goran Skogh, The Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy and Law: An Introduction, Edward Elgar Publishing, (2005), page 162

31 J. Clarence Davies, Jan Mazurek, Pollution Control in the United States: Evaluating the System, Resources for the Future, (1998), page 48

32 Alan Griffiths, Stuart Wall, Applied Economics, Pearson Education, (2007), page 178

33 Edith Brown Weiss quoted in Lynne M. Jurgielewicz, Global Environmental Change and International Law: Prospects for Progress in the Legal Order, University Press of America, (1996), page 68

34 Exxon Shipping Company, et al., Petitioners v. Grant Baker et al. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit [June 25, 2008]

35 Alphacell Ltd v Woodward House of Lords 03 May 1972

36 Kiss, Alex and Shelton, Dinah L., Strict Liability in International Environmental Law.; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 345; GWU Law School Public Research Paper No. 345 (2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstact=1010478 accessed on December 9, 2009 at 02:53 pm

37 Klass, Alexandra B., From Reservoirs to Remediation: The Impact of CERCLA on Common Law Strict Liability Environmental Claims. 39 Wake Forest Review 903 (2004). Available at SSRN: http:/ssrn.com/abstract=682385 accessed on December 9, 2009 at 03:05 pm

38 J. Clarence Davies, Jan Mazurek, Pollution Control in the United States: Evaluating the System, Resources for the Future, (1998), page 47

39 Notes from Lectures undertaken in the University of Kent – Environmental Law I (2009-2010)

40 Britt Groosman, 2500 Pollution Tax, Center for Environmental Economics and Management-Faculty of Economics and Applied Economics-University of Ghent (1999), page 548-9

41 Michael Faure, Goran Skogh, The Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy and Law: An Introduction, Edward Elgar Publishing, (2005), page 27

42 Michael Faure, Goran Skogh, The Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy and Law: An Introduction, Edward Elgar Publishing, (2005), page 30

43 Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law I: Frameworks, Standards, and Implementation, Manchester University Press ND, (1995), page 215

44 In the case following: the Brussels Convention (1969) and the Brussels Convention (1971)

45 Commune de Mesquer v Total France SA (C-188/07) European Court of Justicce (Grand Chamber), 24 June 2008

46 Nicolas De Sadeleer, Liability for oil pollution damage versus liability for waste management: the polluter pays principle at the rescue of the victims, Case comment-Journal of Environmental Law (2009), page 4

47 Nicolas De Sadeleer, Liability for oil pollution damage versus liability for waste management: the polluter pays principle at the rescue of the victims, Case comment-Journal of Environmental Law (2009), page 4

48 John C. Dernbach, Environmental Law Institute, Stumbling Toward Sustainability, Environmental Law Institute, (2002), page 54

49 Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Richard Howard, The Little Prince, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2000), page 15

50 Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law I: Frameworks, Standards, and Implementation, Manchester University Press ND, (1995), page 214

51 OECD Council Recommendation C(72)128(1972) Annex, para. A. 4.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Although the first signs of this principle can be found in Paris Convention (1960), the IAEA Liability Convention (1963), the CLC (1969) and in the Preamble of the Oil Fund Convention (1971) the principle was passed on expressly in 1972[1].

Appendix 2

The OECD Council Recommendation on Guiding Principles Concerning the International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies (1972) defined the PPP as followed: “In other words, the cost of these measures should be reflected in the cost of goods and services which cause pollution in production and/or consumption. Such measures should not be accompanied by subsidies that would create significant distortions in international trade and investment.”[2]


[1] Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law I: Frameworks, Standards, and Implementation, Manchester University Press ND, (1995), page 214

[2] OECD Council Recommendation C(72)128(1972) Annex, para. A. 4.

 + +

Sources

Books

 

Alan Griffiths, Stuart Wall, Applied Economics, Pearson Education, (2007)

Alexandre Charles Kiss, Dinah Shelton, Manual of European Environmental law, Cambridge University Press, (1997)

Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Richard Howard, The Little Prince, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2000)

Bill Maher quoted in the book: Lisa K. Gundry, Laurie LaMantia, Breakthrough teams for breakneck times: unlocking the genius of creative collaboration, Dearborn Trade Publishing, (2001)

Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real Estate of the World, Cambridge University Press, (2001)

Britt Groosman, 2500 Pollution Tax, Center for Environmental Economics and Management-Faculty of Economics and Applied Economics-University of Ghent (1999)

David Hughes, Tim Jewell, Jason Lowther, Neil Parpworth, Paula de Prez, Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, (2008)

Edith Brown Weiss quoted in Lynne M. Jurgielewicz, Global Environmental Change and International Law: Prospects for Progress in the Legal Order, University Press of America, (1996)

Inc Icon Group International, Ecologies: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases, ICON Group International, Inc., (2008)

J. Clarence Davies, Jan Mazurek, Pollution Control in the United States: Evaluating the System, Resources for the Future, (1998)

John C. Dernbach, Environmental Law Institute, Stumbling Toward Sustainability, Environmental Law Institute, (2002)

Lal Kurukulasuriya, Nicholas A Robinson, United Nations Environment Programme. Division of Environmental Policy Development and Law, Training Manual on International Environmnetal Law, UNEP/Earthprint, (2006)

Lynne M. Jurgielewicz, Global Environmental Change and International Law: Prospects for Progress in the Legal Order, University Press of America, (1996)

Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, Joseph Weiler, Methods, tools and institutions, Volume 1, Book 1, Walter de Gruyter, (1986)

Michael Faure, Goran Skogh, The Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy and Law: An Introduction, Edward Elgar Publishing, (2005)

Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law I: Frameworks, Standards, and Implementation, Manchester University Press ND, (1995)

William Howarth, Romualdo E. Hernandez and Annick Van Houtte, Legislation Governing Shrimp Aquaculture, FAO Legal Papers Online #18, (June 2001), page 72 – http://www.fao.org/legal/Prs-OL/lpo18.pdf

Case List

Alphacell Ltd v Woodward House of Lords 03 May 1972

Commune de Mesquer v Total France SA (C-188/07) European Court of Justicce (Grand Chamber), 24 June 2008

Environment Agency (formerly National Rivers Authority) v Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd House of Lords 05 February 1998

Exxon Shipping Company, et al., Petitioners v. Grant Baker et al. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit [June 25, 2008]

Futura Immobiliare srl Hotel Futura and Others v Comune di Casoria [2009] All ER (D) 14 (Sep)

National Rivers Authority (Southern Region) v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd [1994] Env. L.R. 198

United States v Allied Chemical Corpn 420 F Supp 122 (ED Va 1976)

 

World Wide Web Resources

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Polluter_pays_principle Accessed on December 6th 2009 at 11:57 pm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/ accessed on December 10, 2009 at 12:37 am and the actual speech on October 14, 2009: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80798136/ accessed on December 10, 2009 at 12:38

http://mainecampus.com/2009/11/23/umaine-professor-says-polluters-must-pay/ accessed on December 10, 2009 at 12:13 am

http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/climate_deal/2009_climate_copenhagen/what_must_be_done/role_of_developing_countries/ accessed on December 10, 2009 at 12:08 am

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/after-versailles-the-copenhagen-treaty accessed on December 10, 2009 at 11:56 pm

Other Sources

Kiss, Alex and Shelton, Dinah L., Strict Liability in International Environmental Law.; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 345; GWU Law School Public Research Paper No. 345 (2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstact=1010478 accessed on December 9, 2009 at 02:53 pm

Klass, Alexandra B., From Reservoirs to Remediation: The Impact of CERCLA on Common Law Strict Liability Environmental Claims. 39 Wake Forest Review 903 (2004). Available at SSRN: http:/ssrn.com/abstract=682385 accessed on December 9, 2009 at 03:05 pm

Nicolas De Sadeleer, Liability for oil pollution damage versus liability for waste management: the polluter pays principle at the rescue of the victims, Case comment-Journal of Environmental Law (2009)

Notes from Lectures undertaken in the University of Kent – Environmental Law I (2009-2010)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)

What is 15 + 3 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:

Trackbacks

Leave a Trackback