Seeking Legal Redress for Transboundary Environmental Injury

  • Robert A. Taylor
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies book series (COASTAL, volume 20)


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.


Supra Note Strict Liability Tidal Power Public Nuisance Domestic Legal System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    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).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S.C. §§1601–1611 (1976).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S.C. §1605(a)(2).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See generally Comment, supra note 1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.g., IAM v. OPEC, 649 F.2d 1354, 1358 (9th Cir. 1981 ).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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).Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 ).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Rodgers, Environmental Law 102 (1977).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 (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 ).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Rodgers, supra note 9, at 136–42; R. Franson and A. Lucas, supra note 10, at; e.g., New England Legal Foundation v. Costle, 666 F.2d 30, 33 (2d Cir. 1981 ).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Rogers, supra note 9, at 154.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Franson and A. Lucas, supra note 10, at 3.3; McCaffrey, supra note 10, at 51.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Rodgers, supra note 9, at 158.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. Rodgers, supra note 9, at 170–71; McCaffrey, supra note 10, at 40–41.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCaffrey, supra note 10, at 53.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burgess v. M/V Tamano. 370 F. Supp. 247 (D.Me. 1973).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See, e.g., Maine v. M/V Tamano,357 F. Supp. 1097 (D.Me. 1973).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    U.S.C. §1610(a)(2) (1976).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    U.S.C. 21610(b) (1976).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Id. at 1965–66.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    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).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    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).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Canadian Declaration Concerning the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, reprinted in 9 I.L.M. 598 (1970).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Statute of the International Court of Justice, supra note 9, Article 41, 59 Stat. at 1061.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    E.g., Nuclear Tests Case (Austl. v. Fr.), [ 1973 ] I.C.J. 99, 102 (Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Oil Carriage Limitation Regulations, P.C. 1982–449, SOR/82–244, 116 Can. Gaz. [Part II] 892 (Oct. 3, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    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).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Taylor

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations