Abstract
One option that the United States and Canada may utilize to resolve transboundary environmental problems may be described as the remedial approach. The term ‘remedial’ suggests that rights have been violated, that some level of transboundary damage has already occurred, and that efforts are directed toward assigning compensation responsibility to redress the damage. In addition to compensatory remedies, injunctions may be sought to prevent a violation of rights that has not yet transpired but is threatened. Underlying both categories of remedies is the preventive function that adequate post hoc remedial actions may serve. Where compensatory legal remedies for transboundary damages are perceived as available and effective, persons or organizations undertaking activities with possible transboundary impacts will be aware of their potential liability and can be expected to take steps to reduce the likelihood of damage.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See Comment, “Act of State and Sovereign Immunity Doctrines: The Need to Establish Congruity,” 17 U.S.F.L. Rev. 91, 93–96 (1982); The Schooner Exchange v. McFadden, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812).
U.S.C. §§1601–1611 (1976).
U.S.C. §1605(a)(2).
See generally Comment, supra note 1.
E.g., IAM v. OPEC, 649 F.2d 1354, 1358 (9th Cir. 1981 ).
The case commonly cited for the local action rule is British South Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambique,[1983] A.C. 602. See McCaffrey, “Transboundary Pollution Injuries: Jurisdictional Considerations in Private Litigation Between Canada and the United States,” 3 Cal. W. Int’l L.J. 191, 217–229 (1973).
See, e.g., Armendiaz v. Stillman, 54 Tex. 623 (1881); Ducktown Sulphur, Copper and Iron Co. v. Barnes,60 S.W. 593 (Tenn. 1900); Vermont Valley R. Co. v. Connecticut River Power Co.,99 Vt. 397, 401, 133 A. 367, 371 (1926); Mannville Co. v. Worcester,138 Mass. 89, 91 (1884); cf. Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co.,119 Me. 213, 215 (1920) 110 A 429, 431.
See, e.g., Albert v. Fraser Companies, Ltd., 1 D.L.R. 39, 11 Mar. Prov. 209 (N.B. 1936); Brereton v. Canadian P.R. Co., 29 Ont. 57 (1899); Winnipeg Oil v. Can. Nor. Ry., 18 W.L.R. 421, 21 Man. 274 (1911); Boslund v. Abbotsford Lumber, Mining and Development Co. Ltd., 1 D.L.R. 978 (B.C. 1925 ).
W. Rodgers, Environmental Law 102 (1977).
Id. at 106; McCaffrey, “Private Remedies for Transfrontier Pollution Damage in Canada and the United States: A Comparative Survey,” 19 W. Ont. L. Rev. 35, 47–48 (1981); 1 R. Franson and A. Lucas, Canadian Environmental Law 3.1.1.3 (1976) (Six-volume looseleaf). See, e.g., Hickey v. Electric Reduction Co. of Can. Ltd., 21 D.L.R. 3d 368 (Nfld. 1972), and Union Oil v. Oppen, 501 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1974 ).
W. Rodgers, supra note 9, at 136–42; R. Franson and A. Lucas, supra note 10, at 3.1.2.2; e.g., New England Legal Foundation v. Costle, 666 F.2d 30, 33 (2d Cir. 1981 ).
W. Rogers, supra note 9, at 154.
R. Franson and A. Lucas, supra note 10, at 3.3; McCaffrey, supra note 10, at 51.
W. Rodgers, supra note 9, at 158.
Fletcher v. Rylands, 3 H. and C. 774, 159 Eng. Rep. 737 (1865), rev’d 1 L.R.-Ex. 265 (1866), aff’d,3 L.R.-E.andI. App. 330 (1868). See also,W. Rodgers, supra note 9, at 159.
W. Rodgers, supra note 9, at 170–71; McCaffrey, supra note 10, at 40–41.
McCaffrey, supra note 10, at 53.
Burgess v. M/V Tamano. 370 F. Supp. 247 (D.Me. 1973).
See, e.g., Maine v. M/V Tamano,357 F. Supp. 1097 (D.Me. 1973).
U.S.C. §1610(a)(2) (1976).
U.S.C. 21610(b) (1976).
Trail Smelter Case (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R. Int’l Arb. Awards 1907 (1941). See generally Rubin, Pollution by Analogy: The Trail Smelter Arbitration, 50 Or. L. Rev. 259 (1971); Read, The Trail Smelter Dispute,1 Can. Y.B. Int’l L. 213 (1963); Dinwoodie, The Politics of International Pollution Control: The Trail Smelter Case,27 Int’1 J. 219.
Id. at 1965–66.
E.g.,Corfu Channel Case (U.K. v. Alb.), [1949] I.C.J. 4; Statement of Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, House of Commons Debates, June 8, 1972, at 2995, reprinted in 11 Can. Y.B. Int’l L. 333–34 (1973) (statements of Canadian authorities in connection with a 1972 oil spill in the State of Washington that fouled British Columbia beaches); Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, June 5–16, 1972, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.48/14 and Corr. 1, reprinted in 11 I.L.M. 1416 (1972); Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Council Recommendations on Principles Concerning Transfrontier Pollution, adopted Nov. 21, 1974, OECD Doc. C(74)224, reprinted in 14 I.L.M. 242 (1975).
E.g.,Handl, “The Principle of `Equitable Use’ As Applied to Internationally Shared Natural Resources: Its Role in Resolving Potential International Disputes Over Transfrontier Pollution,” in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Transfrontier Pollution 98 (1981).
See., e.g.,Dupuy, “International Liability of State, for Damage Caused by Transfrontier Pollution,” in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Legal Aspects of Transfrontier Pollution,345, 355 (1977); Handl, “Balancing of Interests and International Liability for the Pollution of International Watercourses: Principles of Law Revisited,” 13 Can. Y.B. Int’l L. 156 (1975).
Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 36 of the Statute, 59 Stat. 1031, 1060 T.S. No. 993.
Declaration on the Part of the United States, Aug. 14, 1946, 61 Stat. 1218, T.I.A.S. No. 1598, 1 U.N.T.S. 9.
Canadian Declaration Concerning the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, reprinted in 9 I.L.M. 598 (1970).
Statute of the International Court of Justice, supra note 9, Article 41, 59 Stat. at 1061.
E.g., Nuclear Tests Case (Austl. v. Fr.), [ 1973 ] I.C.J. 99, 102 (Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection).
Id.
Oil Carriage Limitation Regulations, P.C. 1982–449, SOR/82–244, 116 Can. Gaz. [Part II] 892 (Oct. 3, 1982 ).
Department of State Statement on Government of Canada’s Bills on Limits of the Territorial Sea, Fisheries and Pollution, 52 Dep’t St. Bull. 610 (1970), reprinted in 9 I.L.M. 605 (1970); Summary of Canadian Note of April 16 Tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House April 17, reprinted in 9 I.L.M. 607 (1970).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1986 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this paper
Cite this paper
Taylor, R.A. (1986). Seeking Legal Redress for Transboundary Environmental Injury. In: Rieser, A., Spiller, J., VanderZwaag, D. (eds) Environmental Decisionmaking in a Transboundary Region. Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, vol 20. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1408-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1408-1_5
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-96446-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-1408-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive