BN.com Gift Guide

Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration

Hardcover (Print)
Used and New from Other Sellers
Used and New from Other Sellers
from $1.99
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
(Save 98%)
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (15) from $1.99   
  • New (11) from $6.88   
  • Used (4) from $1.99   

Overview

The Russian media are widely seen to be increasingly controlled by the government. Leaders buy up opposing television channels and pour money in as fast as it hemorrhages out. As a result, TV news has become narrower in scope and in the range of viewpoints which it reflects: leaders demand assimilation and shut down dissenting stations. Using original and extensive focus group research and new developments in cognitive theory, Ellen Mickiewicz unveils a profound mismatch between the complacent assumption of Russian leaders that the country will absorb their messages, and the viewers on the other side of the screen. This is the first book to reveal what the Russian audience really thinks of its news and the mental strategies they use to process it. The focus on ordinary people, rather than elites, makes a strong contribution to the study of post-communist societies and the individual’s relationship to the media.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

From the Publisher
"Television, Power, and the Public in Russia by Ellen Mickiewicz, a highly respected authority on the political role of television in Russia, provides surprising and significant insights into the gap separating the current Russian leadership from the Russian people."
-Zbigniew Brzezinski, Counselor and Trustee, Center for Strategic and International Studies

"This focus group based study of Russian television audiences presents a superb analysis of the many ways in which diverse life circumstances alter television’s impact on viewers. It also provides fascinating insights into ordinary citizens’ perceptions of life, politics, and the mass media in contemporary Russia, using U.S. news media and politics as a foil for comparison. This is essential reading for comparativists, political psychologists, and mass media scholars."
-Doris Graber, Department of Political Science, University of Illinois at Chicago

"A fascinating approach to current issues in post-Soviet television. Mickiewicz has an unparalleled range and depth of knowledge and is not afraid to use this to create a more personal approach. This is an important book that makes a significant contribution toward understanding the particular pathologies of the broadcast sphere in Russia through the study of the audience."
-Sarah Oates, Department of Politics, University of Glasgow

"Ellen Mickiewicz [...] yesterday was one of the most highly regarded American Sovietologists; now [she is] the greatest authority in the field of the study and analysis of Russian mass media. [...] Liberty, even when it is limited always has a revolutionary potential. More so if the power ignores the impact as emerges from the fine research of [this] American political scientist."
-Piero Ostellino, Editor-in-Chief, Corriere della Sera

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780521856430
  • Publisher: Cambridge University Press
  • Publication date: 5/31/2006
  • Pages: 370
  • Product dimensions: 5.98 (w) x 8.98 (h) x 0.87 (d)

Meet the Author

Rebecca M. Bratspies holds a B.A. in Biology from Wesleyan University and graduated with honors from the University of Pennsylvania Law School where she was elected to the Order of the Coif and awarded the Green Prize for Excellence in Torts. She served as a law clerk for the Hon. Judge C. Arlen Beam on the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was named a 1994/95 Henry Luce Foundation Scholar, and spent a year in Taiwan working with the Ministries of Justice and Environment. Her scholarly research focuses on environmental regulatory regimes and she is particularly interested in the international dimensions of environmental regulation, and the role of non-state actors. Professor Bratspies has lectured and published widely on such topics as genetically modified organisms, environmental liability, and international fisheries. She currently holds an associate professorship of law at CUNY School of Law where she teaches environmental law, property and administrative law. While on the faculty at the University of Idaho College of Law, she co-founded, with Professor Russell Miller, the Annual Idaho International Law Symposium. The inaugural symposium gave rise to the present project.

Raised in America's Inland Northwest near the Columbia River (where the events on which the book is set took place), Russell Miller has degrees from Washington State University (B.A.); Duke University (J.D./M.A.); and Johann Wolfgang Goethe University - Frankfurt, Germany (LL.M.). He was the recipient of a 1999 Robert Bosch Foundation Fellowship, during which he interned at the German Federal Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights. He is a frequent Visiting Scholar at theMax Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and Public International Law, Heidelberg, Germany. Professor Miller is the co-founder and co-editor-in-chief of the German Law Journal (germanlawjournal.com). He is also the co-editor of the Annual of German & European Law (Berhahn Books) and the co-author of the forthcoming third edition of The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany (Duke University Press). He has authored articles in the field of constitutional law, comparative constitutional law and public international law.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

Transboundary harm in international law
Cambridge University Press
0521856434 - Transboundary harm in international law - lessons from the Trail Smelter arbitration - Edited by Rebecca M. Bratspies and Russell A. Miller
Excerpt

INTRODUCTION

Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration

Rebecca M. Bratspies and Russell A. Miller

PERSPECTIVE

If you go to Trail, British Columbia, as most of the contributors to this volume did in March 2003, you can still see one of the two 409-foot smokestack built there by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company in the mid-1920s. It was this smokestack that accelerated a chain of events that ultimately produced the Trail Smelter arbitration and etched the name of this tiny Canadian town into the annals of international law.1 Nestled in an alcove along the shores of the remote but majestic Columbia River, Trail seems an unlikely setting for a case that would assume a prominent role in the law of nations. But viewing the fateful smokestack, which seems somewhat diminished by the combined effect of the smelter’s much expanded facilities and the surrounding peaks of the Canadian Rockies, one contributor to this book was moved to exclaim “arbitration works – the arbitration worked.” It was a rare, unequivocal endorsement of international law, especially in such an improbable context.

   Certainly, the Columbia River Valley, from northeastern Washington state upstream to Trail, is no longer routinely bathed in toxic fumes from the smelter. Gone are the plumes of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and particulate matter that cut a swath of damage in those earlier years, even while Trail continues as one of the world’s most significant centers for mining and smelting. To this extent, the arbitration was undoubtedly a success. The name of the local hockey team, the “Smoke Eaters,” now seems a quaint throwback to another time, although James Allum, in his contribution to this volume, puts the team’s name to good use in his critical examination of the historical class structures operating in the Trail Smelter dispute. Cleaning up the smelter, and thus improving life in the local communities and ecosystems on two sides of an international border, if true, would be no small matter. On this basis alone, the Trail Smelter arbitration would undoubtedly fall in the asset column of the ledger of international environmental accounting.

   But how far-reaching was the success wrought by the investigation, litigation, decisional reasoning, and monitoring regime to which we refer throughout this volume as the Trail Smelter arbitration? With regard to the smelter itself, there are ample grounds for skepticism. As Neil Craik outlines in his contribution to Part One of this book, the beginning of the twenty-first century has seen the reemergence of environmental tensions along the border in the Columbia River valley. Current concerns surround the transboundary environmental damage the smelter has inflicted on the Columbia River itself. There were attempts during the Trail Smelter arbitration to bring the damage done to the Columbia River to the Tribunal’s attention,2 but those efforts were unsuccessful, and the smelter’s harm to the transboundary Columbia River watershed remains unaddressed.

   Looking beyond the smelter and its immediate environs, are there international environmental successes that can trace their origin back to the Trail Smelter arbitration? What, if any at all, has been the influence of the Trail Smelter arbitration on the approach of international law to transboundary harm more generally?

   It was to explore these questions, with the benefit of the half century that had passed since the final decision of the Tribunal (and the benefit of proximity to the smelter itself) that we organized the 2003 Annual Idaho International Law Symposium, held in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. This book is a product of the dialogue that began among the contributors at the symposium. It collects the commentary of a distinguished set of scholars who were asked to participate in a rigorous reflection on the Trail Smelter arbitration, and transboundary harm more generally, from three distinct perspectives. These perspectives form the three parts of this book:

  • Part One: Trail Smelter’s legal and historical foundations and its jurisprudential legacy in international environmental law;
  • Part Two: Trail Smelter’s significance in the normative framework for responding to transboundary environmental challenges, including some of the most pressing environmental problems confronting the international community today; and, most radically,
  • Part Three: Trail Smelter’s resonance in international responses to nonenvironmental transboundary harm.

PART ONE: HISTORY AND LEGACY OF THE TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION

The Trail Smelter arbitration is familiar to any student of international or environmental law. It is the first and, to this day, one of only a handful of international environmental law decisions. More specifically, it is usually the only case cited in which “transboundary damage was settled by the application of the general principles of international law on State liability for cross-border damage...”3 Thus, the dispute between Canada and the United States required the Tribunal to decide, for the first (and, for an adjudicatory body addressing an environmental dispute, perhaps last) time, the limits of the fundamental legal concept of the sovereign equality of states. Where Canada’s sovereignty implied the right to exploit its natural resources as it willed, that same sovereign norm protected the United States’ right to the inviolability of its national territory. The activities of Consolidated Mining and Smelting in Trail, by virtue of climatic conditions that sent its emissions downstream and into the United States,4 implicated both sovereign rights at the same time.

   The Trail Smelter Tribunal navigated this clash of sovereignties by articulating what have come to be known as the Trail Smelter principles: (1) the state has a duty to prevent transboundary harm, which is commonly expressed in the Latin maxim sic utere tuo ut alilenum non laedas (“one should use one’s own property so an not to injure another”); and (2) the “polluter pays” principle, which holds that the polluting state should pay compensation for the transboundary harm it has caused.5 Both of these principles were first announced by the Trail Smelter Tribunal in 1941.6

   The ensuing half century has seen expansive, almost mythological status attributed to the Trail Smelter Tribunal and these principles. Having solved the contradiction at the core of sovereign equality, so the reasoning goes, the Tribunal’s decisions represent a triumph of international law and diplomacy. Trail Smelter has been proclaimed the locus classicus7 and the fons et origo8 of international law on transboundary environmental harm. Indeed, many multilateral environmental treaties endorse the normative quality of the Trail Smelter principles. This celebration of the arbitration’s success is convincingly advanced in Part One of this book in a contribution from Stephen McCaffrey and a republished excerpt of an article written by John Read, the Canadian Agent in the arbitration and later a judge at the International Court of Justice.

   However, despite the arbitration’s ubiquity, there is surprisingly little depth to most invocations of Trail Smelter. The dispute’s rich factual tapestry remains largely ignored, a criticism thoughtfully explored from various perspectives by James Allum, Jaye Ellis, and John Knox in their contributions to Part One of this volume. It is also a theme raised in articles by Karin Mickelson and Alfred Rubin, which are excerpted and republished here. All raise objections to ritual incantations of the Trail Smelter principles, challenging the rhetoric surrounding the Trail Smelter arbitration, and reconsidering the Tribunal’s mandate, its decisions and their precedential weight.9 Trail’s champions portray the arbitration as an expansive declaration of state responsibility and liability, with environmental principles and international law triumphant, but its critics point to the extraordinary narrowness of that victory. After all, under the Tribunal’s reasoning, states are responsible for transboundary air pollution only when the resulting harm is “of serious economic consequence”10 and established by clear and convincing evidence. Without proof of such harm, as Rubin has observed, “there appears to be no international responsibility at all [under the Trail Smelter Tribunal’s reasoning] for acts of pollution.”11 In Part Two, Phoebe Okowa and Günther Handl take vigorous exception to this criticism of Trail Smelter.

   Rounding out the contributions to Part One, Mark Drumbl and Mark Anderson explore Trail Smelter’s relationship to traditional and contemporary, domestic and international jurisprudence on questions of responsibility, liability, and indemnification for harm. These matters were fundamental to the Trail Smelter dispute, and in many ways define the complex of interests affected by the Tribunal’s resolution of the conundrum of conflicting sovereignties. In particular, Mark Drumbl considers Trail Smelter’s significance for the International Law Commission’s ongoing project of defining and codifying state responsibility (for wrongful acts) and state liability (for non–wrongful acts) in international law.

PART TWO: TRAIL SMELTER AND CONTEMPORARY TRANSBOUNDARY HARM

It is not mundane to remark, in fact Trail Smelter demands no less, that a boundary lies at the heart of every transboundary harm.12 An extensive body of literature grapples with the role boundaries play in many global environmental problems, often contributing to the creation of these problems and at the same time frustrating attempts to resolve them.13 The contributors in Part Two of this book confront the constraints that sovereign boundaries (however sovereignty may be delimited and defined) play in resolving transboundary harms. With regard to this point, one particular lesson repeatedly emerges: the distinct character of the border at issue in the Trail Smelter dispute limits the precedential significance of the case.

   The Trail Smelter transboundary dispute and adjudication occurred across a border, which, throughout its history, has been most distinctively characterized by American and Canadian efforts to downplay its functional significance. The point made by Phoebe Okowa and others is that the history of amicability and cooperation along the 49th parallel in North America made an adjudicatory resolution of the dispute possible.14 But that amicability and cooperation undermine the relevance of the case for other, more complex transboundary situations. Borrowing from the title of John Knox’s contribution to this book, one might be inclined to conclude that Trail Smelter involved the “wrong border” for establishing generally applicable principles of international law regarding transboundary harm.

   Trail Smelter’s relevance to contemporary transboundary environmental harm is further complicated because the case reflects a distinct, historical view of state boundaries. Territorial borders, generally speaking, “delineate areas within which different sets of legal rules apply. There has been, until now, a general correspondence between borders drawn in physical space...and borders in ‘law space’.”15 The Trail Smelter Tribunal worked from a presumption that Canada not only ought to, but could, exert control over its territory. That presumption no longer rings true. Many contemporary environmental threats strain the traditional concept of sovereignty, defined as states’ control over defined territories. Pollution, global warming, and loss of ecosystem services defy borders. Indeed, these contemporary problems exploit the limitations imposed by clearly demarcated boundaries of state authority, creating harms over which individual states have little control and few tools to combat. States face new dilemmas of shared risk – problems that cross borders, and issues that no single government can control. The challenge posed by transboundary harm thus represents the dark underside of the reshaped relationship between states that the advances in technology, transport, and communications have produced.16

   Conscious of the limits imposed by the unique characteristics of the boundary at the center of the Trail Smelter dispute, the contributors in Part Two of this book explore Trail Smelter’s significance to some of today’s most pressing transboundary environmental problems. They discover a diverse array of transboundary environmental issues converging in the shadow cast by the Trail Smelter arbitration. The Stockholm Declaration’s Principle 21 and the Rio Declaration’s Principle 2 trace their origins, more or less directly, back to Trail Smelter.17 Many existing multilateral environmental treaties endorse the normative quality of the Trail Smelter principles. Encoded within the Tribunal’s decisions were the basics of prevention, mitigation, and reparation by which transboundary pollution has since been understood and regulated. The Trail Smelter Tribunal, like contemporary international environmental regimes, had to respond to the competing imperatives of science, economics, politics, and environmental protection. In our own contributions to the book we explore, as does Phoebe Okowa, how the Tribunal struck this balance. We reach related but different conclusions about how Trail Smelter might speak to the use of science in resolving current environmental problems.

   As Günther Handl explains, the problematic concepts of harm, responsibility, and due diligence, central to contemporary international environmental issues, also played out in the context of the Trail Smelter arbitration. Where Handl praises the arbitration’s engagement with due diligence in his exploration of transboundary nuclear energy issues, Austen Parrish offers a more cautions perspective on Trail Smelter’s legacy for contemporary hazardous waste issues. In the context of the law of the sea, Dean Stuart Kaye explores the limits of Trail Smelter’s legacy when environmental harms cross the border between a sovereign state and the global commons.18 James Jacobsen uses a comparison to the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project Case to consider how the Trail Smelter principles interact with modern expectations about sustainable development.

PART THREE: TRAIL SMELTER AND TRANSBOUNDARY HARM BEYOND THE ENVIRONMENT

Transboundary harm is a term of art that international law reserves almost exclusively for environmental issues. Implied in the use of the term is a relatively direct line of causation from activity to physical consequences.19 Scholars typically use the terms cross-border or transnational to refer to less tangible impacts that arise from, for example, economic or political activities that cross sovereign boundaries. We deliberately ignore this distinction. In breaking with scholarly convention on this point, we hope to provoke new thinking about what constitutes “harm.” Defining “harm” or “damage,” as the Trail Smelter Tribunal learned, may be the most confounding facet of forming a legal response to transboundary harm, but the simplicity and logic of the Trail Smelter principles invite consideration of their applicability to a broader conception of harm.

   In its Draft Articles on State Duties to Prevent Transboundary Harm, the International Law Commission (ILC) accepted a distinction between physical and more inchoate harms when it defined transboundary harm to include a component of physical manifestations.20 The contributors in Part Three of this book explore the limits of this definition by subjecting nonenvironmental harms to Trail Smelter’s transboundary lens. This conceptual move responds to the ILC’s conclusion that only physical consequences trigger a state’s duty to prevent transboundary harm, which seems an artificial formalism that neglects modern international environmental law’s consciousness of social and ecological interdependencies. After all, environmental scholars have long recognized that “discriminatory trade practices” or “currency policies” are also likely to have “physical” and particularly “environmental” consequences.

   Judith Wise/Eric Jensen and Jennifer Peavey Joanis, in particular among the contributors to Part Three, point to the indeterminacy of notions of harm. They echo Okowa’s point that the Trail Smelter Tribunal’s reasoning is intimately tied to physical manifestations of harm. Other contributors in Part Three reinforce Drumbl’s claim that traces of the Trail Smelter Tribunal’s struggle to define harm have been confronted and refined by the International Law Commission’s decision to limit state liability for transboundary harm to those physical harms susceptible to relatively high levels of proof.21

   Redefining “harm” also means confronting new actors and new victims. Although certainly a product of its time, Trail Smelter is nonetheless a surprisingly modern dispute. In a world shaped by multinational enterprises, international organizations, and the Internet, globalization has forced scholars and policy makers to grapple anew with the definition of transboundary harm. Nominally a dispute between two states, Trail Smelter also confronted this question. The arbitration bore all the ambiguities created by the contemporary involvement of multinational industrial interests and civil society in the global political economy. Thus, the situation that gave rise to the Trail Smelter arbitration has more in common than one might expect with many of the transboundary issues that arise from globalization. As one of the very few international law decisions squarely confronting the conflicting imperatives of sovereign equality and mutual dependence, Trail Smelter may offer lessons beyond its environmental roots.

   Terrorism, Drugs, Refugees, Corporate Responsibility, and Human Rights: these are some of the most consuming issues of the twenty-first century. All can be construed as raising issues of transboundary harm. The contributors to Part Three of this volume engage with these issues and, with a glance at the Trail Smelter arbitration, join the ongoing debate over how diminished state control over territory, and the rise of new actors, shapes responses to transboundary harm. In doing so, they join the growing scholarly exploration of transboundary and cross-border issues.

   Many of the contributors grapple with the lessons of the Trail Smelter arbitration as regards current debates over the proper balance between state duties of prevention, mitigation, and compensation. Cristina Hoss/Pierre-Marie Dupuy caution against an overbroad reading of what they term Trail Smelter’s “reactionary” brand of state responsibility. Judith Wise/Eric Jensen, Nicola Venemann, and Jennifer Peavey Joanis join Hoss/Dupuy in expressing concern about the Tribunal’s willingness to embrace, without remarking, Canada’s voluntary adoption of the private smelter’s actions for purposes of liability. This concern echoes the questions posed by Drumbl and Anderson in Part One of the book. Peer Zumbansen, on the other hand, seems more comfortable with the “attribution” question, and he sees a broader influence for Trail Smelter than do the other contributors to Part Three.

   Where Zumbansen hears implicit echos of Trail Smelter’s “contemplative legacy” in developing regimes of corporate social responsibility, Hoss/Dupuy are much less sanguine about the arbitration’s influence on global responses to terrorism. In their analysis, they draw a strikingly different portrayal of Trail Smelter’s approach to due diligence than did Handl in Part Two. Wise/Jensen flatly reject Trail Smelter’s applicability to the myriad transboundary harms they identify as stemming from the international drug trade. Venemann’s meditation on jurisdiction recognizes an inspirational resonance of Trail Smelter in the realm of extraterritorial application of international human rights regimes, while Peavey Joanis warns of the dangers inherent in applying Trail Smelter too readily to situations that produce international refugee populations. Holger Hestermeyer offers perhaps the most innovative analysis – considering Trail Smelter’s relevance in the borderless world of the Internet.

   In general, the authors conclude that the disadvantages of the Trail Smelter paradigm outweigh the advantages with regard to these nonenvironmental transboundary harms. However, many of them draw inspiration from the perspectives and ideas imbedded in the arbitration, even as they reject any doctrinal force in their respective fields for the Trail Smelter principles. In measuring Trail Smelter against some of the most pressing contemporary harms that cross borders, these chapters make for fascinating reading. Their conclusions reinforce the limitations and strengths of the Trail Smelter arbitration also present in the earlier sections of the book.

RÉSUMÉ: TRAIL SMELTER AS MECHANISM FOR CONCEPTUALIZING TRANSBOUNDARY HARM

The book underscores that any attempt at conceptualizing transboundary harm and international law’s responses thereto must give consideration to the changing international economic and political order, and the wide range of actors vying to determine its content. In this respect, each contributor to this book responds in some way to the phenomenon of globalization and the consequent erosion of the self-contained state. Where the Trail Smelter Tribunal could presuppose, both politically and theoretically, “state control of space,” or what Ulrech Beck has called “the container theory of society,”22 such an idea is anathema to the postmodern thinker. The measure of control the Trail Smelter Tribunal attributed to the Dominion of Canada over the private smelter operating within its territory no longer rings true in the age of multinational corporations. Whether such an assumption was ever very accurate is beside the point; it was essential to the Tribunal’s determination of state responsibility, and, more broadly, to the project of transforming Westphalian notions of “equality among states into the complex treaty-based system at the heart of modern international law.”23

   This volume also focuses attention on the inherent tensions between international liability regimes, which presuppose that harmful conduct will continue, and international prevention regimes, which seek the cessation of harmful activities. Measuring the arbitration against current social, political, and scientific conditions, the authors consider whether the hybrid liability and prevention regime crafted by the Trail Smelter Tribunal offers useful guidance for resolving questions of transboundary harm.

   Given the diversity of views contained within these chapters, no a priori effort has been made to channel them into a single interpretive framework, theoretical tradition, or consensus conclusion. Rather, the common foundation has been each contributor’s engagement with the Trail Smelter opinions as a vehicle for reconsidering current debates over transboundary harm. The result is a rich menu of perspectives that reflects the debate, the uncertainty and the intellectual passion swirling around these questions.

   To fully explore these transboundary issues, the authors view the Trail Smelter arbitration through many different lenses: jurisprudential, environmental, and geopolitical. Each chapter singles out a unique aspect of the Trail Smelter arbitration for further study, and together the chapters build a thick theoretical framework for exploring the decisions’ many facets. The conclusions differ widely, and make for provocative reading. Although some authors draw substantive and procedural lessons from the Trail Smelter arbitration, others warn against the dangers of blindly, or too broadly, applying Trail Smelter’s vision of state accountability. All agree that extrapolating too freely from Trail Smelter can become a perilous enterprise.

   More than just an historical accounting of the Trail Smelter arbitration, this book seeks to reengage with the Trail Smelter arbitration and to reinvigorate discussions of its influence on international law. We were resolved to test Trail Smelter’s legacy against today’s transboundary challenges, fully embracing the possibility that doing so might unravel the arbitration’s mythological hold over international environmental law. The project has made two things clear. First, Trail Smelter still has much to say as regards sovereignty, boundaries, and harm, the essential elements of transboundary harm. Second, there are contextual as well as conceptual limits to the relevance of Trail Smelter, with respect to both environmental and nonenvironmental transboundary harm.

   With border-crossing conflicts multiplying and intensifying, approaches to resolving these conflicts have acquired new significance. The time is ripe to revisit Trail Smelter and to take its measure against this radically changed world. There are important lessons to be learned from a modern engagement with Trail Smelter – including both novel applications of the arbitration and a real sense of its limitations.

   Big claims, indeed, for a little town and a pair of solitary smokestacks in the Canadian Rockies.





© Cambridge University Press
Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Introduction; Part I. The Trail Smelter Arbitration - History, Legacy and Revival: A. History: 1. An outcrop of Hell: history, environment, and the politics of the Trail Smelter Dispute James R. Allum; 2. The Trail Smelter Dispute John E. Read; B. Roots and legacy: 3. Of paradoxes, precedents and progeny: the Trail Smelter Arbitration 65 years later Stephen C. McCaffrey; 4. Pollution by analogy: the Trail Smelter Arbitration Alfred P. Rubin; 5. Has international law outgrown Trail Smelter? Jaye Ellis; 6. The flawed Trail Smelter procedure: the wrong tribunal, the wrong parties, and the wrong law John H. Knox; 7. Re-reading Trail Smelter Karin Mickelson; 8. Trail Smelter and the International Law Commission's work on state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts and state liability Mark A. Drumbl; 9. Derivative Versus Direct Liability as a basis for state liability for transboundary harms Mark Anderson; C. Return to Trail: 10. Transboundary pollution, unilateralism and the limits of extraterritorial jurisdiction: the second Trail Smelter Dispute Neil Craik; Part II. Trail Smelter and Contemporary Transboundary Harm - The Environment: 11. Trail Smelter in contemporary international environment law: its relevance in the nuclear energy context Günther Handl; 12. Through the looking glass: sustainable development and other emerging concepts of international environmental law in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case and the Trail Smelter arbitration James F. Jacobson; 13. Trail Smelter's (semi) precautionary legacy Rebecca M. Bratspies; 14. Surprising parallels between Trail Smelter and the global climate change regime Russell A. Miller; 15. Sovereignty's continuing importance: traces of Trail Smelter in the international law governing hazardous waste transport Austen L. Parrish; 16. The legacy of Trail Smelter in the field of transboundary air pollution Phoebe Okowa; 17. The impact of the Trail Smelter Arbitration on the law of the sea Stuart M. Kaye; Part III. Trail Smelter and Contemporary Transboundary Harm - Beyond the Environment: 18. Trail Smelter and terrorism: international mechanisms to combat transboundary harm Pierre-Marie Dupuy and Cristin Hob; 19. The conundrum of corporate social responsibility: reflections on the changing nature of firms and states Peer Zumbansen; 20. A pyrrhic victory: applying the Trail Smelter principle to State creation of refugees Jennifer Peavey Joanis; 21. Transboundary harm: internet torts Holger P. Hestermeyer; 22. International drug pollution? Reflections on Trail Smelter and Latin American drug trafficking Judith Wise and Eric L. Jensen; 23. Application of international human rights conventions to transboundary state acts Nicola Vennemann; Annex: convention for settlement of difficulties arising from operation of Smelter at Trail, British Columbia, Trail Smelter Arbitral Decision 1938, and Trail Smelter Arbitral Decision 1941.

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(0)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)