University of Tasmania
Browse

File(s) under permanent embargo

The certain activities case: what implications for the no-harm rule?

journal contribution
posted on 2023-05-19, 11:11 authored by Kerryn BrentKerryn Brent
The customary law duty to prevent significant transboundary harm and harm to the global commons (‘no-harm’ rule) has developed considerably since it was first enunciated in the 1938/1941 Trail Smelter arbitration. This article reflects on this development and analyses what implications the 2015 Certain Activities case has for existing understandings of the no-harm rule. The International Court of Justice (ICJ)'s judgment provides greater clarity concerning procedural obligations flowing from the no-harm rule by establishing a positive obligation to ascertain risk and a sequence in which procedural obligations arise. However, it raises questions concerning the nature of the substantive obligation under the no-harm rule. Specifically, whether breach of the substantive obligation is subject to establishing that an activity has resulted in significant transboundary harm. The ambiguity in the Certain Activities case highlights the need to further clarify and develop the content of the no-harm rule to better enable it to contribute to the governance of contemporary transboundary and global environmental problems.

History

Publication title

Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law

Volume

20

Pagination

28-56

ISSN

1385-2140

Department/School

Faculty of Law

Publisher

Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Place of publication

United Kingdom

Rights statement

Copyright 2017 The Author. Journal compilation Copyright 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Repository Status

  • Restricted

Socio-economic Objectives

Understanding climate change not elsewhere classified

Usage metrics

    University Of Tasmania

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC