scholarly journals Due Diligence Obligations and Transboundary Environmental Harm: Cybersecurity Applications

Laws ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akiko Takano
Keyword(s):  
Customary Law ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
Water Law ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Environmental Impact Assessments ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Water Law ◽  
International Water ◽  
Definition Of

This paper analyzes the due diligence obligations with regard to transboundary harm in international water law and their application to cybersecurity by clarifying the definition of due diligence in light of the procedural duties in recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) cases. The paper explores whether states have responsibilities to prevent transboundary harm caused by nonstate actors. The existing literature on due diligence obligations in international water law and cybersecurity was reviewed, along with ICJ cases relating to procedural duties (international co-operation, environmental impact assessments, and information sharing). The findings confirm that, although procedural duties may be less onerous in cyberspace than in the environment, such duties indeed exist, albeit to a lesser degree. The differences may be accounted for by the fact that customary law related to the environment is already well developed. This study clarifies the concept of due diligence by focusing on procedural duties and examining the definition of due diligence in cyber operations. Due diligence obligations are crucial for states seeking to prevent transboundary harm and are an evolving principle of international law.

scholarly journals Determinación de un curso de agua internacional: La disputa de Chile c. Bolivia concerniente al río Silala

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Kriener
Keyword(s):  
Atacama Desert ◽  
Water Law ◽  
Valuable Resource ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Water Law ◽  
International Water ◽  
Legal Arguments

Chile and Bolivia find themselves before the International Court of Justice yet again, this time litigating about the most valuable resource in the Atacama Desert: Water. Bolivia started asserting exclusive ownership over the Silala watercourse towards the end of the last century provoking the Chilean application to the Court in mid-2016. Therein, Chile seeks the Court to establish the applicability of International Water Law to the Silala watercourse employing scientific and legal arguments. This article analyzes the States’ arguments and arrives at the conclusion that the Silala is an international watercourse as Chile explicitly and Bolivia tacitly agreed on this status.

scholarly journals The inter-relationship between no harm, equitable and reasonable utilisation and cooperation under international water law

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 619-629
Author(s):  
Attila M. Tanzi
Keyword(s):  
International Justice ◽  
Water Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Community Interest ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Water Law ◽  
International Water ◽  
No Harm Principle

Abstract The chapter addresses the no-harm principle as a core pillar of the international water law regime, and its inter-relationship with the principles of equitable and reasonable utilisation and cooperation. No harm will be described in its harmonised relation to the latter two principles under the “community interest” approach to transboundary watercourses, as enunciated by the Permanent Court of International Justice and later corroborated by the International Court of Justice. Such a harmonised construction of the three-pronged body of international water law will be illustrated as one disproving any alleged priority or, conversely, subservience of either principle with respect to the others. It will also be shown how the same construction emphasises the integration and inter-relationship between the legal principles at hand.

scholarly journals The Legitimacy of Dam Development in International Watercourses: A Case Study of the Harirud River Basin

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (02) ◽  
pp. 247-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohsen Nagheeby ◽  
Mehdi Piri D. ◽  
Michael Faure
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Water Law ◽  
Transboundary Water ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Water Cooperation ◽  
International Water Law ◽  
International Water ◽  
Transboundary Water Cooperation

AbstractThis article examines the international legitimacy of unilateral dam development in an international watercourse from the perspective of international water law. Drawing upon technical analysis over the Harirud River Basin, the article discusses probable negative impacts of unilateral dam development in Afghanistan on downstream Iran and Turkmenistan. Competing claims are analyzed to assess emerging transboundary damage under customary international water law. Applying these insights to the case study, this article explores how legal norms and principles can contribute to transboundary water cooperation. It investigates how equitable and reasonable utilization, as required by the United Nations Watercourse Convention, could be reached and whether current activities are in conformity with international norms. Based on this analysis and in the light of international customary law, the article questions the compatibility of unilateral control and capture of water resources in Afghanistan, particularly through the Salma Dam, with ‘equitable and reasonable utilization’ and ‘no significant harm’ rules. The article also argues that building the Salma Dam results in significant transboundary harm to downstream states. Hence, such harm could be considered as significant transboundary damage. Conclusions point to an understanding of water law as a form of institutional guidance in order to provide a transparent setting for transboundary water cooperation among riparian states.

The Obligation to Undertake an Environmental Assessment in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ: A Principle in Search of Autonomy

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-169
Author(s):  
Elisa RUOZZI
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe practice of carrying out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) has gained strength in international law and jurisprudence, finding application in the case law of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). If, on the one hand, the ICJ has recognized the customary nature of this principle, on the other its application poses a set of challenges, mainly linked to the autonomy of this obligation from other international environmental law norms. More precisely, the obligation at issue has been applied in connection with the due diligence and notification principles, creating uncertainty about its scope, as well as about its substantive or procedural nature. Likewise, the autonomy of the obligation to perform an EIA has been challenged in relation to the definition of the content and scope of the obligation itself, which in turn is linked to the existence of applicable treaty provisions or of soft law. This article discusses the impact of these elements on the reasoning of the Court in the cases at issue, in order to demonstrate how such lack of autonomy can undermine the coherence of the reasoning itself and, therefore, an effective application of the principle.

The Primacy of the Principle of Equitable Utilization in the 1997 Watercourses Convention

1998 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 215-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles B. Bourne
Keyword(s):  
General Assembly ◽  
Water Law ◽  
Final Report ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Water Law ◽  
International Water ◽  
No Harm Principle ◽  
Equitable Utilization ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
The Relationship

SummaryThe International Law Commission wrestled for over a decade with the relationship between the principle of equitable utilization and the no harm principle in its work on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses. In its final Report to the UN General Assembly on this topic in 1994, the Commission presented a set of Draft Articles couched in obscure language that reflected the sharp differences of opinion on the matter and the compromises that had been made. This division of opinion about the relationship between these two principles persisted in the Working Group of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly to which the Draft Articles were referred. Again, compromises were reached and the language of the substantive articles (in particular Articles 5, 7, 20, and 21) of the Watercourses Convention, adopted by the General Assembly on May 21, 1997, continues to be obscure and its meaning debatable.It is argued here that in this Convention the principle of equitable utilization, which prescribes the reasonable and equitable sharing of the beneficial uses of the waters of an international watercourse, is made the primary substantive rule of international water law; harm caused by a utilization of these waters is, of course, an important factor to be taken into account in determining whether, in a particular case, the utilization is reasonable and equitable and, therefore, lawful. This interpretation of the Watercourses Convention brings it into harmony with customary international water law. It is an interpretation that finds support in the recent decision of the International Court of fustice in the Gabákovo case.

The invocation of the right to self-defence in response to armed attacks conducted by armed groups: Implications for attribution

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (01) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika de Wet
Keyword(s):  
Due Diligence ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Right ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Territorial States ◽  
Self Defence

AbstractThe right to self-defence in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is increasingly being invoked in response to armed attacks conducted by armed groups located in a territory of another state, with or without the (direct) assistance of such a state. This article examines the implications of the invocation of the right to self-defence under these circumstances for the principles of attribution within thejus ad bellumparadigm. First, it illuminates how the threshold requirements for indirect armed attacks (that is, the state acting through a private actor) have been lowered since the 1986Nicaraguadecision of the International Court of Justice. In so doing, the article suggests that in order to prevent a complete erosion of the benchmarks of an indirect armed attack, the notions of ‘substantial involvement’ in an armed attack, ‘harbouring’, and ‘unwillingness’ should be interpreted as manifestations of due diligence. Thereafter, the article illustrates that there is also an increasing attribution of armed attacks directly to non-state actors, notably those located in areas over which territorial states have lost control. Such states could be depicted as being ‘unable’ to counter the activities of non-state actors. The article further submits that particularly in these instances, the principle of necessity within the self-defence paradigm can play an important role in curbing the potential for abuse inherent in the vague notion of ‘inability’, if interpreted in light of Article 25 of the Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document