Global Regulatory Standards in Environmental and Health Disputes. By Caroline E Foster

Abstract

The idea that international law adopts a light touch when dealing with states’ exercises of authority within their accepted spheres of jurisdictional competence no longer holds much water. Many assumed obligations—both traditional inter-state bargains, and those conferring benefits or protections on individuals—require us to scrutinize governmental action when there is no doubt about a state’s right, in principle, to exercise authority. Numerous treaties condition states’ internal freedom of action or require certain steps to be taken in their external affairs. Many of these commitments are expressed in open-grained terms, requiring significant elaboration to be applied in practice. With the rise in compulsory third-party dispute settlement across areas of international law, this task has increasingly fallen to international adjudicators. Has the state been motivated by a legitimate objective, or has it misused or abused the right or freedom conferred or protected by the treaty? Has it given appropriate attention to others’ interests or made potentially affected parties aware of its proposed action? Where others are likely to be negatively affected by its conduct, has it taken appropriate steps to prevent or mitigate such harm?