Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T18:34:31.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current Legal Developments in the Field of Transboundary Pollution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

I.Seidl Hohenveldern
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

1. introduction

Chernobyl and Sandoz-Bâle are certainly among the most remarkable current events in the field of transboundary pollution. The Chernobyl incident has sensitised at least a part of European public opinion to such an extent that the IAEA had to consider it a great success that the Final Document of the Special Session of the General Conference after Chernobyl could still proclaim that the General Conference “recognizes that nuclear power will continue to be an important source of energy for social and economic development”.

Type
Current Legal Developments
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , November 1988 , pp. 212 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1988

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.)

References

1. IAEA Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and IAEA Convention on Assistance in the Case ofa Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency, 14 Legal Series 101 (1987); P. Sands, Chernobyl: Law and Communication 235ff. (1988).

2. The Question of Territorial Rights over a River Flowing into a Lower-lying State, 7 A J.I.L. 653 (1913).

3. Lammers, J.G. Pollution of International Watercourses 569 (1984); he doubts the usefulness of this principle to solve environmental problems.Google Scholar

4. 25 I.L.M. 1370 (1986); Sands, supra, note 1, at 235.

5. Id., at 1377; Sands, supra, note 1, at 261; A.O.Adcde, The IAEA Notification and Assistance Conventions in Case of a Nuclear Accident 157 (1987); giving the text of both Conventions and their drafting history.

6. Kiss, L'Accident de Tchernobyl el ses Consequences au Point de Vue du Droit International, 32 A.F.D.1.146 (1986).

7. 1949ICJ Rep. 20.

8. Lang, Frühwarnung beiNuklearanfallen, to be published in 39 Österr. Zeitschriftf. Öff. Recht u. Vr., (1989).

9. Id.

10. Rest, The Sandoz Blaze and the Pollution of the Rhine in Regard to Public International Law; Private International Law and National Liability Issues, 3 Tijdschrift voor Milieuaansprakelijkheid, 58–65 (1987); BÖckstiegel, K.H.Folz, H.E.MOssner, J.M.Zemanek, K. (eds.), Fehlende Verantwortlichkeit bei Transnationalen Unwehunfälien?, Festschrift fur Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern, 495 (1988).Google Scholar

11. Hafner.Das Übereinkommen überHilfeleistungen bei nuklearen Unfällen oderStrahlungsbedingten Notfällen, to be published in 39 Österr. Zeitschrift f. Öff. Recht u. Vr., (1989).

12. Id.

13. Appendix 9 and Appendix 2 to annex 2 of IAEA General Conference (GC) (XXXI) 816 of 21 September 1987; but see: USSR Proposed Program for Establishing an International Regime for the Safe Development of Nuclear Energy (25 September 1986); Sands, supra, note 1, at 227.

14. Id., Appendix 6.

15. Fischer, Le Bombardement par Israel d' un Réacleur Nucléaire Irakien, 27 A.F.D.1.147 (1981).

16. Appendix 7, Annex 2 of IAEA GC (XXXI) 816 of 21 September 1987.

17. Seidl-Hohenveldern,La Pollution Transfrontière et la Recommendation C(74) 224 de l' OECD, Symbolae Garcia Arias 273 (1974); Froehlcr and Zchcincr, Rcchtsschutzprobleme bei grenzüberschreitende Umweltbeeinträchtigungen (1979); A. Rest, Luftverschmutzung und Haftung in Europa 114–121 (1986) and Tschernobyl und die Internationale Haftung, 1986 Versicherungsrecht 933. Following this line the German Federal Administrative Court on 17 December 1987, in Kalkar Fast Breeder case, 33 Recht der Intemationalen Wirtschaft 87 (1987), admitted the complaint of a Netherlands citizen and resident in proceedings concerning the construction of a fastbreeder in the Federal Republic of Germany. The relevant OECD recommendations C(74) 224 and C(77) 28 are reproduced in Sands, supra, note 1, at 150,157.

18. Rest, A. Die Wahl des günstigeren Rechts im grenzüberschreitende Umweltschutz, (1980).Google Scholar

19. Innsbruck Court of Appeals, 21 July 1986, Chernobyl Atomic Power Plant Case No.l., 42 Österr. Jur.Zeitung 279 (1987).

20. Law of 1 August 1895, Österreichisches Reichsgesetzblatt / as amended.

21. Linz Court of Appeals. 15 June 1987,4 Wackersdorf Reprocessing Plant Case, 109 Jur. Blätter 577 (1987).

22. Supreme Court, 23 February 1988, Mochovce Atomic Power Plant Case, 5 Nd. 509/87 to be published in 39 Österr. Zeitschrift f. Öff. Recht und Vr.

23. The Linz Court of Appeals (at 580) considered it premature to bring this action at present; construction of the Wackersdorf plan had hardly begun. At present nobody knows what safeguards the German authorities will require before granting a licence.

24. Between Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany there exists a treaty to this effect: The Enforcement Treaty of 6 June 1959, Österreichisches Bundesgesetzblatt 1960/105; cf. Linz Court of Appeals, supra, note 21, at 578.

25. Supreme Court, 13 January 1988, Chernobyl Atomic Power Plant Case No.2, 110 Jur.Blätter 323 (1988); to be published in 39 Osterr. Zcitschrift f. Öff. Recht u. Vr.

26. Rest, supra, note 18.

27. Cf. supra, note 20.

28. I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Corporations in and under International Law 59–60 and 118–119 (1987).

29. But see: Decision of the Court of First Instance (Amlsgerichl), Bonn, 29 September 1987,8 Umweltund Planungsrecht 79 (1987).

30. Schaumann and Habscheid, Die Immunität ausländischer Staate nach VÖlkerrecht und deutschem Zivilprozessrecht, 8 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur VOlkerrecht 289 (1968).

31. Kiss,L'Abus de Droit en Droit lnternational, L.G.D.J. 1953.

32. Seidl-Hohenveldern, International Economic Law, RdC 198 (1986 III), 142; Id., Sovereignty and Economic Coexistence, 86 Clunet 1055 (1959).

33. Austrian Supreme Court, 23 February 1988.

34. Austrian Supreme Court, supra, note 26.

35. I. Seidl-Hohenveldem, supra, note 26, at 60, likewise rejects this argument.

36. See supra, note 26.

37. Rest, lnternationaler Umweltschutz vor Verwaltungs, Zivil- und Strafgerichten. Der niederländisch französische Rheinverschmutzungsprozess, 35 Österr Zeitschrift f. Öff. Recht und Vr. 225 (1985).

38. Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy, 55 A.J.I.L. 1083 (1961); Sands, supra, note l. at 51.

39. 2 I.L.M. 727 (1963); Sands, supra, note 1, at 96. Efforts to harmonise these conventions have hitherto not been successful. Appendix 5 to Annex 2 of GC (XXXI) 816.

40. Annex 4, GC (XXXI) 816.

41. No official claims appear to have been submitted to the Soviet Union; cf. Kiss, L' Accident de Tchernobyl et ses Conséquences au Point de Vue de Droit International, A.F.D.1.144 (1986).

42. Seidl-Hohenveldern, International Economic Law, RdC 198 (1986 III), 136; Zehetner, F. Tschernobyl, Umwelt-und Planungsrecht, 329 (1986).Google Scholar

43. Mohr,The ILC's Distinction between International Crimes and International Delicts and its Implications; M.Spinedi and B.Simma (eds.), United Nations Codification of State Responsibility 141 (1987), quotes statements of state representatives to this respect.

44. Id., at 133.

45. I. Seidl-Hohenveldern in his remarks to the report by Do Nascimento e Silva, Air Pollution across National Frontiers, 62 A.I.D.1.245 (1987); Sands, supra, note 1, at 274; on the basis of this report the Institut adopted a resolution on this subject on 20 September 1987.