INTRODUCTION

No presentation of today's approaches to transboundary harm would be complete without a glance at Internet law. Of particular interest is the question of how to deal with tortious acts committed online where the act is committed in one country and the harm occurs in another. The difference between the solution that has been adopted for transboundary harm in that area of law and the approach to transboundary (environmental) harm chosen in the Trail Smelter arbitration could hardly be more striking. In the Trail Smelter case, private international law failed to provide a solution for the United States farmers whose fields were damaged as a result of fumigations connected with smelting activities in Canada. Rather than pursuing their claims in national courts, the farmers nudged the United States into taking up their case, and the countries involved found the solution for the situation on the international plane in the form of an ad hoc arbitral tribunal. The well-known public international law rule, “that no State has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein (…),” salvaged the situation and was the key to the parties' obtaining indemnification for the harm they had suffered.