{"id":36,"date":"2019-09-17T11:17:57","date_gmt":"2019-09-17T11:17:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lawp08.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=36"},"modified":"2022-01-11T05:13:19","modified_gmt":"2022-01-11T05:13:19","slug":"principles-of-environmental-law","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/chapter\/principles-of-environmental-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Principles of Environmental Law"},"content":{"raw":" \r\n
\"epgp<\/a>\r\n<\/span><\/div>\r\n \r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 UN GA Resolution 1831 (1962)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Encouraged governments to pay attention to natural resource management early into a phase of economic development<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Fournex Report (1971)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Stockholm Declaration (1972): Principle 13<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Called on states to adopt \u2018an integrated and co-ordinated approach to their development planning so as to ensure that their development is compatible with the need to protect and improve the human environment\u2019<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 World Conservation Strategy (1980)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Integration of conservation and development to ensure that modifications to the planet do indeed secure the survival and well-being of all people<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Brundtland Report (1987)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0 ...development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 needs \u2013 essential need of the world\u2019s poor \u2013 overriding priority<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 limits \u2013 not absolute; interaction of \u2018present state of technology and social organisation on natural resources\u2019 and \u2018the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities\u2019<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Rio Declaration (1992)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Principle 1: Human beings are at the centre of concerns for SD. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Principle 4: In order to achieve SD, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Principle 3: The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (2002)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 we assume a collective responsibility to advance and strengthen the interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable development \u2014 economic development, social development and environmental protection \u2014 at the local, national, regional and global levels<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Nagymaros Project <\/em><\/strong>(1997, ICJ)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Parties - Hungary and Slovakia<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Treaty to build a series of hydroelectric dams on the Danube<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Both parties referred to SD<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 \u201c\u2026This need to reconcile economic development with protection of\u00a0<\/span>the environment is aptly expressed in the concept of SD. For the purposes of the present case, this means that the Parties together should look afresh at the effects on the environment of the operation of the Gabcikovo power plant\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Right to development does not exist in the absolute sense; it is relative always to its tolerance by the environment<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Right to development is clearly part of modern international law - compendiously referred to as SD<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Pulp Mills Case (Provisional Measures)\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>(2006, ICJ)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Parties \u2013 Argentina and Uruguay<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Case highlights the importance of the need to ensure environmental protection of shared natural resources while allowing for sustainable economic development<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Necessary to bear in mind the reliance of the Parties on the quality of the water of the River Uruguay for their livelihood and economic development<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Account must be taken of the need to safeguard the continued conservation of the river environment and the rights of economic development of the riparian States<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

SD in the Supreme Court of India<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Compromise approach in disputes concerning termination of mining leases (late 1980s)<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 More environmental focus (1990s)<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Anthropocentric or eco-centric basis of SD (recent)<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Article 21 - Right to life includes right to environment & right to development<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh <\/em><\/strong>(1991, SC)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 If a just balance is not struck between development and environment by proper tapping of natural resources, there will be violation of articles 14, 21, 48-A and 51(g) of the Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Vellore Citizens\u2019 Welfare Forum v. UoI & Others <\/em><\/strong>(1996, SC)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Suit in response to reports that tanneries were discharging effluents into the river Palar, the source of drinking water<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 \u2018the traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other, is no longer acceptable\u2019<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 SD \u2018has been accepted as a part of the customary international law though its salient features have yet to be finalized by the international law jurists\u2019<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 SC identified \u2018salient principles\u2019 and \u2018essential features\u2019 of\u00a0<\/span>SD<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Notwithstanding the economic benefits of leather industry, economic interests cannot be allowed to \u2018destroy the ecology, degrade the environment and pose a health hazard\u2019 to the public at large<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE OR APPROACH\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Swedish and German environmental law & policy (national)<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 1982: World Charter for Nature<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 1984: North Sea Conference (international)<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 1990: Bergen Ministerial Declaration on SD (regional - EC)<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 1991: EU proposed a text<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 1992: UNCED<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Rio Declaration: Principle 15<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

P-15 (contd)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Does not have normative character of rule of law<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Phrased in very general terms<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 What it does?<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Helps identify whether a legally significant risk exists by addressing the role of scientific uncertainty<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 What it does not do?<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 What should the \u2018measures\u2019 be?<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2013 How to control the \u2018risk\u2019?<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2013 What level of \u2018risk\u2019 is socially acceptable?<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Questions best answered by politicians and society; rather than courts or scientists<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Approach, not Principle<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 US insistence<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Offers greater flexibility + less potentially restrictive<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Is the difference significant?<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 High uncertainty and costs - risk of irreversible harm<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2013 Significant level of uncertainty and potential costs \u2013 harm is less irreversible<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 European treaties and EC law<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Precautionary principle<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Global agreements<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Precautionary approach or measures<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Strong v. Weak version<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Strong version<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Potentially risky activity is banned<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Burden of proof on proponent to demonstrate that the activity is benign and that it poses no (or acceptable) risk<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Can stifle innovation and creativity, hamper scientific and technological advancement and result in regulatory paralysis (Sunstein)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Not supported in IL<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Adopted by SC of India (<\/span>Vellore case<\/em><\/strong>)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0 Weak version<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Application of P-15: International<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Widely endorsed by states<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Agenda 21<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Applied\/endorsed by a growing number of IOs and treaty\u00a0<\/span>bodies<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Matter of policy<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Legally binding treaty articles and subsidiary rules<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Different thresholds of harm<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 UNFCCC: risk of \u2018serious or irreversible harm\u2019<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Burden of proof<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Reversal<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Lower standard of proof<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Application of P-15: ICJ<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Relied on by Hungary<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Referred to with approval by Judge Weeramantry in his dissent<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 No reference by ICJ although willing to apply new norms of\u00a0<\/span>IEL<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013\u00a0 Environmental risks were sufficiently certain<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013\u00a0 ICJ did not regard the principle as having any legal status<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Pulp Mills Case <\/em><\/strong>(2006)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Referred to in the dissent of ad hoc Judge Vinuesa<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Application of P-15: WTO<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Beef Hormones Case <\/em><\/strong>(1998)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 EC: principle of customary law or general principle of law<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Canada: emerging principle of IL<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 US: denied that it had any legal status<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 WTO AB<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013\u00a0 Applicable agreement incorporated precautionary elements<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013\u00a0 Uncertain legal status of principle in general IL<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Application of P-15: ITLOS<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Provisional Measures) Cases <\/em><\/strong>(1999)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Conservation of tuna stocks<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 ITLOS took no view on precautionary principle\/approach in general IL<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 ITLOS relied on <\/span>scientific uncertainty<\/strong> to justify grant of provisional measures to protect the stock from further depletion pending dispute resolution<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Precautionary approach is inherent in award of provisional measures<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 UNCLOS 1982 in effect requires a precautionary approach to fisheries conservation<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Is it Customary International Law?<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 WTO <\/span>Asbestos Case<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 EC argued that principle is customary IL<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013\u00a0 Not accepted by Appellate Body<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Advisory Opinion on Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities w.r.t. Activities in the Area <\/em><\/strong>(2011)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Seabed Disputes Chamber<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2013 The incorporation of the precautionary approach into a growing number of international treaties and other instruments, many of which reflect the formulation of P-15, has initiated a trend towards making the approach part of customary IL.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Issues<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Changes the role of scientific data in environmental cases<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Not applied universally<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Uncertainties in meaning, application & implications<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Concept of precaution means different things in different contexts<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Identification of risk<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 How to respond to that risk<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Customary obligation of due diligence<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 What do the States have to do?<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Are they required to act?<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Are they empowered to act?<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Are they encouraged to be more cautious?<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Vellore case<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 The principle requires the state to take environmental measures \u2018to anticipate, prevent and attack\u2019 the causes of environmental degradation. <\/span>[Prevention]<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. <\/span>[Precautionary principle]<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 The onus of proof is on the actor or the developer\/industrialist to demonstrate that the proposed action is \u2018environmentally benign\u2019. <\/span>[Burden<\/strong>of proof]<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Precaution in Other SC Decisions<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>AP PCB <\/em><\/strong>v.<\/span> MV Nayudu <\/em><\/strong>(1999)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Principle used to emphasize the need for scientific inputs before adjudicating complicated issues of environmental pollution<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>TN Godavarman Thirumalpad <\/em><\/strong>v.<\/span> UoI & Others <\/em><\/strong>(2002)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Principle of proportionality \u2013 balance priorities of development and environmental protection<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

TN Godavarman Thirumalpad <\/em><\/strong>v.<\/span> UoI & Others <\/em><\/strong>(2006)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Principle used to advocate general \u2018precautionary measures\u2019<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

PPP\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>as an Economic Principle<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Producer should bear the cost of externalities (eg environmental pollution) resulting from production\/consumption of good\/service<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

OECD: Partial cost internalization\u00a0<\/strong>approach<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 1972 & 1974 Recommendations<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Cost allocation principle<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 To improve efficiency and encourage rational use of scarce natural resources<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Governments decide pollution prevention & control measures to ensure that environment is in acceptable state<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Polluter must internalize\/bear full cost of carrying out these measures<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Cost should be reflected in cost of goods and services which cause pollution<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Nothing has to be paid to anyone<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Non-subsidization principle<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 To avoid distortions in international trade and investment arising from\u00a0<\/span>adoption of differential pollution abatement mechanisms\/methods<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 No to government subsidies<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Exceptions\/special arrangements possible<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

OECD: Full cost internalization approach<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Wider scope of PPP<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Costs of accidental pollution caused by hazardous installations + control, clean-up and rehabilitation costs<\/span>\u2013 1989 Recommendation<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Internalization of damage costs<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 1991 Recommendation<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Rio Declaration: P-16<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 National authorities should \u2013 at the inter-national level<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 endeavor to promote \u2013 not absolute or obligatory<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments - beyond OECD definition<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 taking into account that \u2013 non-binding language<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 the polluter should, in principle,<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 bear the cost of pollution - wide meaning of \u2018cost\u2019<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment \u2013 scope for exceptions<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Application of P-16: International & Regional<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0 Unclear content and legal status<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Not an absolute principle<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Exceptions permitted<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Marine agreements \u2013 international and regional<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Parties are required to apply the PPP<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Operative provision - binding<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Softer language of guidance<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Environmental liability agreements<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 General principle?<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Preambles to some conventions<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Limited role<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 <\/span>North Sea Continental Shelf Case<\/em><\/strong>, ICJ Reports (1969) 3, para 72.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

PPP\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>in Domestic Environmental Law<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Implicit or explicit<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\u2022 Judicial Decisions<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 <\/span>Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UoI<\/em><\/strong> (1996, SC) [<\/span>Bicchri case<\/em><\/strong>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 <\/span>Vellore Citizens\u2019<\/em><\/strong>Welfare Forum v. UoI and Others<\/em><\/strong> (1996, SC) [<\/span>Vellore case<\/em><\/strong>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Legislation<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Bicchri case<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 PPP has \u2018now come to be accepted universally as a sound principle\u2019 and \u2018has gained almost universal recognition\u2019<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Based on a journal article discussing PPP in the context of the OECD and the EC<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 General principle of law prevalent in other systems<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 No reference to international environmental law<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 No reference to the Constitution of India and\/or domestic legislation<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Offending industry is responsible for repairing the damage<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Referred to in a number of subsequent decisions<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Vellore case<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Two sources of PPP<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Implicit inclusion in the constitutional provisions relating to environmental protection as well as environmental legislation, such as Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Its status as a principle of customary international law<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 No reference to Rio Declaration<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

PPP\u00a0<\/strong>in Domestic Legislation<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 NGT is required to apply PPP in all its orders etc.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 & E-Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Certain entities are responsible for preventing environmental damage and liable in case of their failure to do this<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Issues<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Who is a polluter? <\/em><\/strong>Industry, government or members of the public<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>What does the polluter have to pay for? <\/em><\/strong>Past, present or future pollution<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>When is the obligation to pay triggered? <\/em><\/strong>Violation of an environmental standard and occurrence of actual harm, violation of an environmental standard without occurrence of actual harm (potential to harm); occurrence of actual harm without violation of an environmental standard<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>How to determine payment? <\/em><\/strong>Percentage of annual turnover formula or absolute liability principle etc.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 W<\/span>hat is to be paid? <\/em><\/strong>Monetary compensation to victims, costs for environmental damage to affected persons or into a government-managed fund or punitive\/exemplary costs<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Who has to actually pay? <\/em><\/strong>Polluter, government or members of the public<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Liability<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Fault-based liability<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Proof of polluter\u2019s negligence<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 No-fault liability<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Reversal of burden of proof<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Strict liability<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Absolute liability<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Liability (contd)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Strict liability<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Subject to certain exceptions<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Examples: Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Disincentive to pollute in future<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 If high amount of liability imposed on polluter<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 In most cases, capped liability<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Absolute liability<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 Not subject to any exceptions whatsoever or a cap on liability<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2013 <\/span>MC Mehta v Union of India (Oleum gas leak case)<\/em><\/strong> (1987, SC)<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Polluter engaged in an inherently dangerous and hazardous activity is absolutely liable for the resulting harm<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
you can view video on Principles of Environmental Law<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n \r\n\r\nWeblinks:<\/span><\/strong>\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n

\u2022 Decisions of the Supreme Court of India and High Courts: http:\/\/indiankanoon.org [please note that these are not the official versions]<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 International Court of Justice, Judgments, Advisory opinions and Orders by chronological order: http:\/\/www.icj-cij.org\/docket\/index.php?p1=3&p2=5.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, List of Cases: https:\/\/www.itlos.org\/index.php?id=35&L=etc%2Fpasswd.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u2022World Trade Organization, Dispute Settlement \u2013 Appellate Body Reports: http:\/\/www.icj-cij.org\/docket\/index.php?p1=3&p2=5.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

\"epgp<\/a>
\n<\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 UN GA Resolution 1831 (1962)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Encouraged governments to pay attention to natural resource management early into a phase of economic development<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Fournex Report (1971)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Stockholm Declaration (1972): Principle 13<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Called on states to adopt \u2018an integrated and co-ordinated approach to their development planning so as to ensure that their development is compatible with the need to protect and improve the human environment\u2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 World Conservation Strategy (1980)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Integration of conservation and development to ensure that modifications to the planet do indeed secure the survival and well-being of all people<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Brundtland Report (1987)<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0 …development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 needs \u2013 essential need of the world\u2019s poor \u2013 overriding priority<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 limits \u2013 not absolute; interaction of \u2018present state of technology and social organisation on natural resources\u2019 and \u2018the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rio Declaration (1992)<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Principle 1: Human beings are at the centre of concerns for SD. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Principle 4: In order to achieve SD, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Principle 3: The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (2002)<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 we assume a collective responsibility to advance and strengthen the interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable development \u2014 economic development, social development and environmental protection \u2014 at the local, national, regional and global levels<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nagymaros Project <\/em><\/strong>(1997, ICJ)<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Parties – Hungary and Slovakia<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Treaty to build a series of hydroelectric dams on the Danube<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Both parties referred to SD<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 \u201c\u2026This need to reconcile economic development with protection of\u00a0<\/span>the environment is aptly expressed in the concept of SD. For the purposes of the present case, this means that the Parties together should look afresh at the effects on the environment of the operation of the Gabcikovo power plant\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Right to development does not exist in the absolute sense; it is relative always to its tolerance by the environment<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Right to development is clearly part of modern international law – compendiously referred to as SD<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Pulp Mills Case (Provisional Measures)\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>(2006, ICJ)<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Parties \u2013 Argentina and Uruguay<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Case highlights the importance of the need to ensure environmental protection of shared natural resources while allowing for sustainable economic development<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Necessary to bear in mind the reliance of the Parties on the quality of the water of the River Uruguay for their livelihood and economic development<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Account must be taken of the need to safeguard the continued conservation of the river environment and the rights of economic development of the riparian States<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

SD in the Supreme Court of India<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Compromise approach in disputes concerning termination of mining leases (late 1980s)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 More environmental focus (1990s)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Anthropocentric or eco-centric basis of SD (recent)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Article 21 – Right to life includes right to environment & right to development<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh <\/em><\/strong>(1991, SC)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 If a just balance is not struck between development and environment by proper tapping of natural resources, there will be violation of articles 14, 21, 48-A and 51(g) of the Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vellore Citizens\u2019 Welfare Forum v. UoI & Others <\/em><\/strong>(1996, SC)<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Suit in response to reports that tanneries were discharging effluents into the river Palar, the source of drinking water<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 \u2018the traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other, is no longer acceptable\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 SD \u2018has been accepted as a part of the customary international law though its salient features have yet to be finalized by the international law jurists\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 SC identified \u2018salient principles\u2019 and \u2018essential features\u2019 of\u00a0<\/span>SD<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Notwithstanding the economic benefits of leather industry, economic interests cannot be allowed to \u2018destroy the ecology, degrade the environment and pose a health hazard\u2019 to the public at large<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE OR APPROACH\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Swedish and German environmental law & policy (national)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 1982: World Charter for Nature<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 1984: North Sea Conference (international)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 1990: Bergen Ministerial Declaration on SD (regional – EC)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 1991: EU proposed a text<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 1992: UNCED<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rio Declaration: Principle 15<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

P-15 (contd)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Does not have normative character of rule of law<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Phrased in very general terms<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 What it does?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Helps identify whether a legally significant risk exists by addressing the role of scientific uncertainty<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 What it does not do?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 What should the \u2018measures\u2019 be?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2013 How to control the \u2018risk\u2019?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2013 What level of \u2018risk\u2019 is socially acceptable?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Questions best answered by politicians and society; rather than courts or scientists<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Approach, not Principle<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 US insistence<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Offers greater flexibility + less potentially restrictive<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Is the difference significant?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 High uncertainty and costs – risk of irreversible harm<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2013 Significant level of uncertainty and potential costs \u2013 harm is less irreversible<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 European treaties and EC law<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Precautionary principle<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Global agreements<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Precautionary approach or measures<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Strong v. Weak version<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Strong version<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Potentially risky activity is banned<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Burden of proof on proponent to demonstrate that the activity is benign and that it poses no (or acceptable) risk<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Can stifle innovation and creativity, hamper scientific and technological advancement and result in regulatory paralysis (Sunstein)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Not supported in IL<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Adopted by SC of India (<\/span>Vellore case<\/em><\/strong>)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0 Weak version<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Application of P-15: International<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Widely endorsed by states<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Agenda 21<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Applied\/endorsed by a growing number of IOs and treaty\u00a0<\/span>bodies<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Matter of policy<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Legally binding treaty articles and subsidiary rules<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Different thresholds of harm<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 UNFCCC: risk of \u2018serious or irreversible harm\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Burden of proof<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Reversal<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Lower standard of proof<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Application of P-15: ICJ<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Relied on by Hungary<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Referred to with approval by Judge Weeramantry in his dissent<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 No reference by ICJ although willing to apply new norms of\u00a0<\/span>IEL<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013\u00a0 Environmental risks were sufficiently certain<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013\u00a0 ICJ did not regard the principle as having any legal status<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Pulp Mills Case <\/em><\/strong>(2006)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Referred to in the dissent of ad hoc Judge Vinuesa<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Application of P-15: WTO<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Beef Hormones Case <\/em><\/strong>(1998)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 EC: principle of customary law or general principle of law<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Canada: emerging principle of IL<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 US: denied that it had any legal status<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 WTO AB<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013\u00a0 Applicable agreement incorporated precautionary elements<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013\u00a0 Uncertain legal status of principle in general IL<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Application of P-15: ITLOS<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Provisional Measures) Cases <\/em><\/strong>(1999)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Conservation of tuna stocks<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 ITLOS took no view on precautionary principle\/approach in general IL<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 ITLOS relied on <\/span>scientific uncertainty<\/strong> to justify grant of provisional measures to protect the stock from further depletion pending dispute resolution<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Precautionary approach is inherent in award of provisional measures<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 UNCLOS 1982 in effect requires a precautionary approach to fisheries conservation<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Is it Customary International Law?<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 WTO <\/span>Asbestos Case<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 EC argued that principle is customary IL<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013\u00a0 Not accepted by Appellate Body<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Advisory Opinion on Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities w.r.t. Activities in the Area <\/em><\/strong>(2011)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Seabed Disputes Chamber<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2013 The incorporation of the precautionary approach into a growing number of international treaties and other instruments, many of which reflect the formulation of P-15, has initiated a trend towards making the approach part of customary IL.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Changes the role of scientific data in environmental cases<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Not applied universally<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Uncertainties in meaning, application & implications<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Concept of precaution means different things in different contexts<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Identification of risk<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 How to respond to that risk<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Customary obligation of due diligence<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 What do the States have to do?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Are they required to act?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Are they empowered to act?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Are they encouraged to be more cautious?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vellore case<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 The principle requires the state to take environmental measures \u2018to anticipate, prevent and attack\u2019 the causes of environmental degradation. <\/span>[Prevention]<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. <\/span>[Precautionary principle]<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 The onus of proof is on the actor or the developer\/industrialist to demonstrate that the proposed action is \u2018environmentally benign\u2019. <\/span>[Burden<\/strong>of proof]<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Precaution in Other SC Decisions<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>AP PCB <\/em><\/strong>v.<\/span> MV Nayudu <\/em><\/strong>(1999)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Principle used to emphasize the need for scientific inputs before adjudicating complicated issues of environmental pollution<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>TN Godavarman Thirumalpad <\/em><\/strong>v.<\/span> UoI & Others <\/em><\/strong>(2002)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Principle of proportionality \u2013 balance priorities of development and environmental protection<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

TN Godavarman Thirumalpad <\/em><\/strong>v.<\/span> UoI & Others <\/em><\/strong>(2006)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Principle used to advocate general \u2018precautionary measures\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PPP\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>as an Economic Principle<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Producer should bear the cost of externalities (eg environmental pollution) resulting from production\/consumption of good\/service<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

OECD: Partial cost internalization\u00a0<\/strong>approach<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 1972 & 1974 Recommendations<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Cost allocation principle<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 To improve efficiency and encourage rational use of scarce natural resources<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Governments decide pollution prevention & control measures to ensure that environment is in acceptable state<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Polluter must internalize\/bear full cost of carrying out these measures<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Cost should be reflected in cost of goods and services which cause pollution<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Nothing has to be paid to anyone<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Non-subsidization principle<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 To avoid distortions in international trade and investment arising from\u00a0<\/span>adoption of differential pollution abatement mechanisms\/methods<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 No to government subsidies<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Exceptions\/special arrangements possible<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

OECD: Full cost internalization approach<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Wider scope of PPP<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Costs of accidental pollution caused by hazardous installations + control, clean-up and rehabilitation costs<\/span>\u2013 1989 Recommendation<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Internalization of damage costs<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 1991 Recommendation<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rio Declaration: P-16<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 National authorities should \u2013 at the inter-national level<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 endeavor to promote \u2013 not absolute or obligatory<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments – beyond OECD definition<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 taking into account that \u2013 non-binding language<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 the polluter should, in principle,<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 bear the cost of pollution – wide meaning of \u2018cost\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment \u2013 scope for exceptions<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Application of P-16: International & Regional<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0 Unclear content and legal status<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Not an absolute principle<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Exceptions permitted<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Marine agreements \u2013 international and regional<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Parties are required to apply the PPP<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Operative provision – binding<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Softer language of guidance<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Environmental liability agreements<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 General principle?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Preambles to some conventions<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Limited role<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 <\/span>North Sea Continental Shelf Case<\/em><\/strong>, ICJ Reports (1969) 3, para 72.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PPP\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>in Domestic Environmental Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Implicit or explicit<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Judicial Decisions<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 <\/span>Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UoI<\/em><\/strong> (1996, SC) [<\/span>Bicchri case<\/em><\/strong>]<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 <\/span>Vellore Citizens\u2019<\/em><\/strong>Welfare Forum v. UoI and Others<\/em><\/strong> (1996, SC) [<\/span>Vellore case<\/em><\/strong>]<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Legislation<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Bicchri case<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 PPP has \u2018now come to be accepted universally as a sound principle\u2019 and \u2018has gained almost universal recognition\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Based on a journal article discussing PPP in the context of the OECD and the EC<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 General principle of law prevalent in other systems<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 No reference to international environmental law<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 No reference to the Constitution of India and\/or domestic legislation<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Offending industry is responsible for repairing the damage<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Referred to in a number of subsequent decisions<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vellore case<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Two sources of PPP<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Implicit inclusion in the constitutional provisions relating to environmental protection as well as environmental legislation, such as Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Its status as a principle of customary international law<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 No reference to Rio Declaration<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PPP\u00a0<\/strong>in Domestic Legislation<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 NGT is required to apply PPP in all its orders etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 & E-Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Certain entities are responsible for preventing environmental damage and liable in case of their failure to do this<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Who is a polluter? <\/em><\/strong>Industry, government or members of the public<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>What does the polluter have to pay for? <\/em><\/strong>Past, present or future pollution<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>When is the obligation to pay triggered? <\/em><\/strong>Violation of an environmental standard and occurrence of actual harm, violation of an environmental standard without occurrence of actual harm (potential to harm); occurrence of actual harm without violation of an environmental standard<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>How to determine payment? <\/em><\/strong>Percentage of annual turnover formula or absolute liability principle etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 W<\/span>hat is to be paid? <\/em><\/strong>Monetary compensation to victims, costs for environmental damage to affected persons or into a government-managed fund or punitive\/exemplary costs<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0<\/span>Who has to actually pay? <\/em><\/strong>Polluter, government or members of the public<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Liability<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Fault-based liability<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Proof of polluter\u2019s negligence<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 No-fault liability<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Reversal of burden of proof<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Strict liability<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Absolute liability<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Liability (contd)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Strict liability<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Subject to certain exceptions<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Examples: Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Disincentive to pollute in future<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 If high amount of liability imposed on polluter<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 In most cases, capped liability<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Absolute liability<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 Not subject to any exceptions whatsoever or a cap on liability<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2013 <\/span>MC Mehta v Union of India (Oleum gas leak case)<\/em><\/strong> (1987, SC)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Polluter engaged in an inherently dangerous and hazardous activity is absolutely liable for the resulting harm<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
you can view video on Principles of Environmental Law<\/strong><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Weblinks:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 Decisions of the Supreme Court of India and High Courts: http:\/\/indiankanoon.org [please note that these are not the official versions]<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 International Court of Justice, Judgments, Advisory opinions and Orders by chronological order: http:\/\/www.icj-cij.org\/docket\/index.php?p1=3&p2=5.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, List of Cases: https:\/\/www.itlos.org\/index.php?id=35&L=etc%2Fpasswd.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022World Trade Organization, Dispute Settlement \u2013 Appellate Body Reports: http:\/\/www.icj-cij.org\/docket\/index.php?p1=3&p2=5.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"menu_order":3,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["ms-lovleen-bhullar"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[60],"license":[],"class_list":["post-36","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","contributor-ms-lovleen-bhullar"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/36","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/36\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":138,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/36\/revisions\/138"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/36\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=36"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=36"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/lawp08\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=36"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}