Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T01:44:04.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - International Drug Pollution? Reflections on Trail Smelter and Latin American Drug Trafficking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2009

Eric L. Jensen
Affiliation:
Professor of Sociology, University of Idaho
Rebecca M. Bratspies
Affiliation:
City University of New York
Russell A. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Idaho
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The illicit Latin American drug trade causes almost incalculable harm in both the producing and consuming states, while generating huge economic rewards for the traffickers. Since the “War on Drugs” was declared twenty years ago, vast sums have been spent to eliminate the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, but these efforts have failed to reduce this international drug trade substantially. Would a reframing of the problem bring a more definite resolution? Perhaps other transboundary, or cross-border legal regimes could offer fruitful insight. Might principles derived from the Trail Smelter arbitration be useful as applied to Latin American drug trafficking? We conclude that neither the Trail Smelter “polluter pays” principle of state accountability for transboundary environmental harms nor the related state obligation to regulate against future continuing harm can be usefully extended to Latin American drug trafficking. The reasons for this conclusion illuminate challenges in applying the “polluter pays” principal in even its original international environmental law context.

LEGAL THEORY AND THE TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION

For purposes of this discussion, we presume the reader's familiarity with the basic events and holdings of the Trail Smelter arbitration. Before leaving the Trail Smelter arbitration for the drug trafficking world, certain key attributes of the Trail Smelter arbitration fact pattern should be noted. The Trail smelter's domicile and ownership were parallel (i.e., the same state was both host and home to the smelter). Canada, as host and home of the polluter, possessed effective regulatory capacity.

Type
Chapter
Information
Transboundary Harm in International Law
Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration
, pp. 281 - 294
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×