Abstract
The act of utilising all the resources owned by a state, including natural resources, is the right of every state. However, its use is prohibited if it causes harm to other states. This is then referred to as the principle of no harm rule in international law. Therefore, each state is responsible not for causing damage to other States' environments or areas outside the limits of its jurisdiction. This article will analyse the development of the no harm rules and its application model for claiming state responsibility. As normative research, it used secondary data as the main data, and the primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials were analysed qualitatively. In discussion, this principle has long existed as customary international law to mitigate transboundary pollution. In the case of the environment in general, many studies have applied this principle. However, due to the uniqueness of the climate change issue, evidence and proof of the impacts caused cannot be used as the basis for a lawsuit like ordinary environmental cases. Based on the discussion and simulation conducted, it is concluded that the no harm rules principle can be applied to climate change issues. However, this principle is not satisfactory and has limitations in its application.
Highlights
International law recognises that every state has sovereignty over its natural resources
RESEARCH METHODS The study used a juridical approach by logically examining the legal aspects that underlie the no-harm rule principle, its application in international conventions related to the environment, and how it was applied through a model to claim state responsibility for environmental damage and losses due to climate change
Based on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision related to the Nuclear Test case, it can be interpreted that the existence of a general obligation of states to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control in respect of the environment of other States or areas beyond their national control are currently part of the corpus of international law
Summary
International law recognises that every state has sovereignty over its natural resources. Each state is responsible not for causing damage to the environment of other States or to areas outside the limits of its jurisdiction This principle arises from the Latin proverb sic utere tuo, ut alienum non laedas, which means that a State is responsible not to carry out or permit activities within their territory or public space without regard to or contrary to or the rights of other States to protect the environment.. The Arbitration of the Island of Palmas case stated that all States should “...to protect within the territory the rights of other states, in particular, their right to integrity and inviolability in peace and war”.4 This obligation is studied in more depth in the case of the Trail Smelter, in which the Arbitration focuses on the damage or loss suffered by the State of America, Washington, due to the presence of harmful fumes, sulphur dioxide emissions from the Smelter located on the Trail, British Columbia Canada. The question posed in this case is whether the Trail Smelter should be asked to stop causing damage to Washington State in the future and, if so, to what extent?.5 In answering this question, Arbitration is of the opinion:
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
