Environmental Civil Liability Research Articles

ENVIRONMENTAL CIVIL LIABILITY OF CARGO TRANSPORTERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MORAL DAMAGE

This article aims to analyze the environmental civil liability of cargo carriers and the (im)possibility of environmental moral damages occurring in such a type of contract. Since the beginning of time, human beings – thinking animals – have had the need to move themselves and their objects for their own survival and that of their loved ones. To this end, over the years, it became necessary for Civil Law to regulate such a form of mobility through a transportation contract. From this perspective, but without the intention of exhausting the subject, the focus will be on the transportation contract from the perspective of environmental law. The environmental civil liability of those who transport objects and people will be investigated, focusing on the possibility of applying, or not, environmental moral damages in such contracts.

Legal exploration of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and environmental civil liability

سابقه و هدف: کلیه ­ی اشخاص، اعم از حقیقی یا حقوقی مسئولیت حفاظت از محیطزیست را برعهده دارند. مسئولیت اشخاص به این معنی است که فرد ملزم است خساراتی که به دیگری وارد کرده است جبران کند که در حقوق از این امر به مسئولیت قانونی یاد می‌شود. در این مقاله به تحلیل چگونگی ارتباط مسئولیت مدنی محیط‌زیستی و مسئولیت اجتماعی پرداخته شده است و مسئولیت محیط‌زیستی، مسئولیت اجتماعی و مسئولیت مدنی در یک ساختار سه‌گانۀ یکپارچه مورد بحث و بررسی قرار گرفته است.مواد و روش‌ها: در این تحقیق کیفی از روش تحلیل محتوا استفاده شده است؛ بدین شرح که از میان منابع داخلی و بین‌المللی در حوزۀ مسئولیت مدنی، مسئولیت اجتماعی شرکت‌ها و مسئولیت محیط‌زیستی افراد حقیقی و حقوقی، موضوع ارتباط بینامتنی و ماهوی میان این مفاهیم شناسایی شد. برای بررسی منابع تحقیق از روش تحقیق کتابخانه‌ای و به­ صورت تحلیلی و توصیفی استفاده شد. جهت پی بردن به چگونگی ارتباط میان مسئولیت مدنی محیط‌زیستی و مسئولیت اجتماعی، ابتدا به تبیین و تحلیل جداگانه آنها پرداخته شد، سپس از لحاظ قلمرو، اهداف، رواج عرفی و ارکان، مقایسه تحلیلی میان این دو مسئولیت صورت گرفت.نتایج و بحث: نتایج پژوهش نشان داد رابطه منطقی مسئولیت اجتماعی و مدنی از نظر قلمرو به صورت عموم و خصوص من وجه است، یعنی برخی مصادیق مسئولیت اجتماعی و مسئولیت مدنی منطبق هستند و در پاره‌ای از موارد با هم متفاوتند. تمایزی که بین این دو مسئولیت وجود دارد این است که قواعد مسئولیت مدنی در جامعه فقط به نیازها و ارزش‌های موجود در همان زمان توجه می‌کند؛ در­حالی­ که مسئولیت اجتماعی علاوه بر نسل حاضر، به نسل‌های آینده نیز می‌پردازد. بنابراین، رابطه نسبت این دو مفهوم مسئولیت در نتایج اهداف عموم خصوص مطلق است. به لحاظ ارکان هیچ اشتراکی میان این دو مسئولیت وجود ندارد و هر دو کاملاً متمایز هستند و در واقع نسبت تباین میان آنها برقرار است. مسئولیت مدنی شیوه رایج جبران ضرر در میان مردم است و به دلیل وجود ضمانت اجرایی مشخص مورد حمایت قانون‌گذار می‌باشد. اما در مقابل، مفهوم مسئولیت اجتماعی به علل گوناگون رواج کمتری دارد، هرچند سابقه جهانی پررنگ‌تری دارد. پس به عنوان نتیجه دو علت عمده عدم رواج مسئولیت اجتماعی در کشور ما اول شناخت مبسوط در مقایسه با مسئولیت مدنی وجود ندارد و تمایل قانون‌گذار به در نظر گرفتن ضمانت اجرای حقوقی درباره نقض تعهدات اجتماعی است؛ تفاوت دوم را باید در عدم شناخت مردم نسبت به حقوق خود در مقابل شرکت‌هایی دانست که در سطح منطقه زندگی آنان فعالیت می‌کنند.نتیجه‌گیری: تفاوت ساختاری میان مسئولیت مدنی و اجتماعی این است که مسئولیت مدنی به عنوان شاخه‌ای از مسئولیت حقوقی اجتماعی، تلاشی جهت بهبود زندگی اجتماعی است، در حالی که مسئولیت اجتماعی بر مبنای ارتباط افراد و محیطزیست و با هدف حفاظت از محیطزیست است. در مسئولیت مدنی نسبت به غرامت به اشخاص و اموال مطرح است، در­حالی ­که در مسئولیت اجتماعی محیط‌زیستی برای بازدارندگی و مجازات برخی اقدامات مخرب و عواقب آنها و ویژگی جبران کننده آن اشاره دارد. در مجموع، با وجود اشتراکات نمی‌توان دو مفهوم مسئولیت اجتماعی و مسئولیت مدنی را به ­عنوان یک شاخه مسئولیت در نظر گرفت.

Double-Faceted Environmental Civil Liability and the Separate-Regulatory Paradigm: An Inspiration for China

The recognition of the intrinsic value of the environment and natural resources contributed to the establishment of liability for damage to the environment per se, which, coupled with the traditional environmental tort liability, constitute the double facets of environmental civil liability. Although the two facets share some common characteristics, their distinct focuses indicate that they cannot be fully covered by tort law or environmental law systems alone. As a result, an international trend toward the regulatory approach to environmental civil liability, which is referred to in this article as the “separate-regulatory paradigm”, is emerging. In such a pattern, as followed by the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), environmental tort liability and liability for environmental damage are mainly regulated by tort law and environmental statutes, respectively. However, China, relying substantially on its civil law system to address liability for environmental harm, seems to deviate from this paradigm. This article analyzes the significance of the separate-regulatory paradigm and argues that it has profound implications for China. This article suggests a separate statutory liability scheme that moves beyond the existing Chinese civil law framework to achieve the full recovery of environmental damage.

Civil environmental liability of the government in the French and Iranian legal systems

One of the most important issues of the present age is the issue of the environment and understanding its position and importance in human life. However, the importance of this irreplaceable Capital is such that human health is completely tied to its health as a bed of lifetime. However, it can be claimed that in this age, human and natural environment has been exposed to many serious damages. And environmental damage, many of which is virtually irreparable, threatens human life even more. That in case of damage to the environment, On what basis can the loser be held liable; A noteworthy discussion in the present study, Examining the principles of environmental civil liability in the French and Iranian legal systems, we found that both legal systems, While still embracing the traditional theory of environmental civil liability, Over time, and given the shortcomings of this theory, Steps have been taken towards other theories as the basis for this responsibility. Also, the discussion of environmental obligations and civil liability of governments is a fundamental issue in the field of environmental rights. In this research work، In order to achieve the goals that can be imagined in the field of preserving and supporting this universal gift, it has been examined. Keywords: Environmental Damages, Civil Liability, French Legal System, Iranian Legal System DOI : 10.7176/JLPG/112-22 Publication date :August 31st 2021

The duty of care of parent companies: a tool for establishing a transnational environmental civil liability

The duty of vigilance of parent companies in respect of the environmental damage caused by the activities of their subsidiaries abroad occupies an increasingly important place in various rights. While the legislator came to recognize this duty in French law, the judge offers him a place in Common Law and the companies themselves recognize it in the transnational order. However, this article aims to show how, in complement and interaction, under the action of the legislator, the judge and the addressees of the duty, the bringing into play of the responsibility of the parent companies in a transnational dispute could be facilitated. The duty of care could become an important tool of environmental responsibility.

Seguros para riscos ambientais e o problema da delimitação da infortunística ambiental em um cenário de riscos difusos e complexos: aspectos jurídicos no Brasil

Partindo-se de noção de crise ambiental e da constatação de que o Estado, a sociedade e as empresas vêm criando mecanismos para propiciar o desenvolvimento sustentável, pondera-se que no âmbito jurídico aparecem como importante solução os instrumentos econômicos de proteção ambiental, dentre os quais sobressai-se o Seguro Ambiental. Demonstra-se que, embora de forma ainda tênue, o seguro ambiental vem progredindo no Brasil, fruto não de uma obrigatoriedade legal, mas isto sim de uma evolução gradual e adequada às exigências do mercado. Diante deste contexto, preocupando-se com a inserção e consolidação do seguro ambiental de forma apropriada, rentável e duradoura, ressalta-se que o seguro ambiental deve estar devidamente ajustado às modernas construções legais, jurisprudenciais e doutrinárias sobre responsabilidade civil ambiental. Discorre-se sobre as peculiaridades relacionadas aos riscos e danos ambientais, analisando destacadamente a forma como a jurisprudencia do Superior Tribunal de Justiça vem enfrentando as questões de litigiosidade em matéria ambiental. Conclui-se que o Direito Ambiental que vem sendo implementado pelos Tribunais vem empregando significativas inovações em matéria de responsabilidade civil ambiental, tanto do direito material quanto processual, o que é um cenário de incertezas, fator que dificulta a implementação das técnicas securitárias. São apresentados os principais elementos relacionados à técnica securitária, ressaltando-se a necessidade de os seguros atuarem em cenários jurídicos estáveis e previsíveis. Tais pressupostos, se demonstra, não estão presentes no Direito brasileiro. O modelo legal europeu de asseguração de riscos ambientais é analisado, destacando-se a previsibilidade e segurança possíveis, a partir de marcos legais claros sobre responsabilidades ambientais. Por fim demonstram-se as potencialidades e os benefícios da inserção do seguro ambiental no sistema de tutela do meio ambiente, notadamente como instrumento com vantagens preventivas e reparatórias.

On the Joint Use of Safety Regulation and Civil Liability to Promote Safe Management of Hazardous Operations: A French Case Study

The aim of this article is to analyze the precise role of environmental civil liability in France. We do so by focusing on data from France, and claim that judges in fact seize hold of the possibility of combining regulation and civil liability. In other words, civil liability and regulation are complementary because they promote a duty of care in different ways. Moreover, judges and regulators interact; they provide each other with relevant information that is mutually beneficial for the maintenance of standards. Based on a unique database – that gathers all the litigations concerning environmental accidents judged by the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) from 1956 to 2010 – we conclude that judges heavily rely on prior regulation, especially in cases of causal uncertainty. We argue that particularly in those cases where liability would traditionally be weak, courts tend to rely on breaches of regulation as evidence of increased risk of an activity by the perpetrator. On the other hand, judges can hold regulators liable when regulators did not monitor a regulated plant and this threat provides regulators with incentives to design and to apply stringent standards over risky activities. For these reasons, we conclude that regulation and civil liability should be jointly used to promote smart interdependencies that mitigate civil liability and regulatory failures.

On the joint use of safety regulation and civil liability to promote safe management of hazardous operations: a French case study

The aim of this article is to analyze the precise role of environmental civil liability in France. We do so by focusing on data from France, and claim that judges in fact seize hold of the possibility of combining regulation and civil liability. In other words, civil liability and regulation are complementary because they promote a duty of care in different ways. Moreover, judges and regulators interact; they provide each other with relevant information that is mutually beneficial for the maintenance of standards. Based on a unique database – that gathers all the litigations concerning environmental accidents judged by the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) from 1956 to 2010 – we conclude that judges heavily rely on prior regulation, especially in cases of causal uncertainty. We argue that particularly in those cases where liability would traditionally be weak, courts tend to rely on breaches of regulation as evidence of increased risk of an activity by the perpetrator. On the other hand, judges can hold regulators liable when regulators did not monitor a regulated plant and this threat provides regulators with incentives to design and to apply stringent standards over risky activities. For these reasons, we conclude that regulation and civil liability should be jointly used to promote smart interdependencies that mitigate civil liability and regulatory failures.

The Role of Environmental Civil Liability: An Economic Analysis of the French Legal System

This study analyses the long standing question whether environmental risks and accidents can be sufficiently controlled under a civil liability regime. The literature generally holds that regulation should be the primary instrument to promote environmental care, but that environmental liability can have a supplementary effect. However, little is known empirically on how environmental liability actually supplements regulation and whether this combination can in fact be considered efficient. This paper uses a dataset from France with all environmental cases that reach the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) in the past 50 years, analysing how courts play such a supplementary role in addition to regulation. It is argued that regulators do provide judges with relevant information to help solve causal uncertainty problems, but that on the other hand liability rules are especially applied when regulation is weak. The data we provide hence lend some support to the hypothesis that environmental liability plays an important supplemtary function in deterring environmental harm in combination with regulation.

Environmental Civil Liability under Comparison: Some notes in soft law

La responsabilidad civil medioambiental sirve como complemento de políticas públicas de regulación. Desastres naturales de devastadora magnitud, paralelo al incremento desmesurado de la población mundial, han capturado la atención de políticos y legisladores a escala global. Preocupantes informes de naturaleza tanto oficial como independiente, concluyen en la imperiosa necesidad de establecer un término para el cambio. Los vacíos dejados por débiles instrumentos internacionales sólo pueden ser subsanados por el estudio comparativo de aquellas normativas que han probado cierto éxito doméstico. Consecuentemente, soluciones europeas y norteamericanas son referenciadas en la actualidad por países en desarrollo. En el presente estudio centraremos nuestra atención en tales desarrollos jurídicos, especialmente en aquellos brindados por el denominado soft law.Después de abordar las especiales características del daño medioambiental, en relación con el daño tradicional, haremos lo propio con los demás elementos configuratorios de la responsabilidad civil. Posteriormente, estudiaremos los elementos característicos de los modelos europeo y norteamericano. Intentaremos dar respuesta a la marcada influencia que históricamente ha ejercido el sistema norteamericano a nivel mundial, así como si ello resulta retrospectivamente justificable. No pasaremos por alto las directivas europeas que desde 1986 hasta 2004 han incorporado importantes avances respecto de su par Transatlántico. Este será el primero de subsiguientes esfuerzos por incluir un análisis interdisciplinario que involucre tópico tales como la prevención y la autorregulación del daño medioambiental.

Recent development in the field of international liability regimes to tackle environmental risks

The polluter-pays principle requires States to take any actions that may be necessary to ensure that polluters bear the full environmental and social costs of their activities. One step to implement this principle is the development of regulations on environmental Civil Liability. The adoption of the UN-ECE Protocol on Civil Liability and Compensation for Damage caused by the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents on Transboundary Waters (Kiev Protocol) in May 2003 was the result of a three-year negotiation process undertaken in the aftermath of the Baia Mare accident in Romania. The accident caused transboundary water pollution in the downstream countries Hungary and Yugoslavia. Owing to the absence of applicable liability rules, no compensation was ever paid for the damage caused by the pollution. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety mandates the Parties to establish rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress. Here there is likely to be a longer negotiation process before an agreed regime on liability and redress for damage arising from the use of living modified organisms (LMOs) becomes available, owing to the complexity and the particularities of gene technology.

Tolerance limits and temporal priority in environmental civil liability

Tolerance limits and temporal priority in environmental civil liability

Austria – Environmental Civil Liability Schemes: Do they Make Sense for Austria?

Austria – Environmental Civil Liability Schemes: Do they Make Sense for Austria?

Holdouts, Externalities, and the Single Owner: One More Salute to Ronald Coase

Previous articleNext article No AccessHoldouts, Externalities, and the Single Owner: One More Salute to Ronald CoaseRichard A. EpsteinRichard A. Epstein Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Law and Economics Volume 36, Number 1, Part 2Apr., 1993John M. Olin Centennial Conference in Law and Economics Sponsored by The University of Chicago Booth School of Business and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/467289 Views: 30Total views on this site Citations: 33Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1993 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Richard A. Epstein Rules and reasons, public and private on the use and limits of simple rules 25 years later, European Journal of Law and Economics 52, no.2-32-3 (Feb 2021): 363–380.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-020-09681-3Robert T. Miller Insider trading and the public enforcement of private prohibitions: some complications in enforcing simple rules for a complex world, European Journal of Law and Economics 52, no.2-32-3 (May 2021): 307–322.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-021-09700-xRobert T. Miller Insider Trading and the Public Enforcement of Private Prohibitions: Some Complications in Enforcing Simple Rules for a Complex World, SSRN Electronic Journal 1 (Jan 2021).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3764835Javier E. Portillo Land-assembly and externalities: How do positive post-development externalities affect land aggregation outcomes?, Regional Science and Urban Economics (Mar 2019).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2019.03.004Charan K. Bagga, Neil Bendle, June Cotte , Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 47, no.11 ( 2019): 97.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0596-3Tamar Meshel, Moin A. Yahya International Water Law and Fresh Water Dispute Resolution: A Coasean Perspective, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2019).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3482185Javier E. Portillo The impact of bargaining delays under the threat of eminent domain, Journal of Regional Science 58, no.22 (Sep 2017): 451–482.https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12363Abel M. Winn, Matthew W. McCarter , Journal of Urban Economics 105 ( 2018): 176.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2017.10.001Francesco Parisi Coase Theorem, (Feb 2018): 1724–1733.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_517Karamjit Kaur On the Rationale of Coercive Land Acquisitions, Asian Journal of Law and Economics 8, no.22 (Jan 2017).https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2016-0028R. Mark Isaac, Carl Kitchens, Javier E. Portillo Can buyer “mobility” reduce aggregation failures in land-assembly?, Journal of Urban Economics 95 (Sep 2016): 16–30.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2016.06.001Barbara Luppi, Francesco Parisi, Daniel Pi Double-edged torts, International Review of Law and Economics 46 (Jun 2016): 43–48.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2015.10.003 Anticommons, the Coase Theorem and the problem of bundling inefficiency, International Journal of the Commons 10, no.11 (Feb 2016): 244–264.https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.614Steven McMullen, Daniel Molling Environmental Ethics, Economics, and Property Law, (Jan 2015): 21–40.https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137443762_2Yu-Chih Lin, Feng-Tyan Lin A Strategic Analysis of Urban Renewal in Taipei City Using Game Theory, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 41, no.33 (Jun 2014): 472–492.https://doi.org/10.1068/b37164Paul H. Rubin Emporiophobia (Fear of Markets): Cooperation or Competition?*, Southern Economic Journal 80, no.44 (Apr 2014): 875–889.https://doi.org/10.4284/0038-4038-2013.287Sean M. Collins and R. Mark Isaac Holdout: Existence, Information, and Contingent Contracting, The Journal of Law and Economics 55, no.44 (Jul 2015): 793–814.https://doi.org/10.1086/665830Rita Yi Man Li THE INTERNALISATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNALITIES AFFECTING DWELLINGS: A REVIEW OF COURT CASES IN HONG KONG, Economic Affairs 32, no.22 (Jun 2012): 81–87.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2012.002160.xBarbara Luppi, Francesco Parisi, Daniel Pi Double-Edged Torts, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2012).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2165862Barbara Luppi, Francesco Parisi Toward an asymmetric Coase theorem, European Journal of Law and Economics 31, no.11 (Nov 2010): 111–122.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-010-9201-zEjan Mackaay Good Faith in Civil Law Systems – A Legal-Economic Analysis, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2011).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1998924Manuel Castilla Cubillas Non-Recourse Mortgages and the Prevention of Housing Bubbles: A Proposal for a Reverse in the Default Rule on Mortgage Liability in Spain, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2011).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2291066Larissa Katz Red Tape and Gridlock, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 23, no.11 (Jul 2015): 99–123.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0841820900004835Barbara Luppi, Francesco Parisi Toward an Asymmetric Coase Theorem, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2010).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1684062Francesco Parisi Coase Theorem, (Mar 2017): 1–10.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_517-2Lee Anne Fennell Slices and Lumps, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2008).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1106421Daphna Lewinsohn-Zamir The Impact of Economic Theory on the Israeli Case Law on Property, Israel Law Review 39, no.11 (Jul 2014): 5–38.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700012899Tzu-Chin Lin Land assembly in a fragmented land market through land readjustment, Land Use Policy 22, no.22 (Apr 2005): 95–102.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.02.002Bingyuan Hsiung Coase Theorem and the Taiwan Strait Conflict, Kyklos 57, no.44 (Nov 2004): 505–518.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-5962.2004.00266.xThomas W. Merrill Trespass and Nuisance, (Jan 2017): 2017–2023.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-74173-1_382Bhaskar Vira Claiming Legitimacy: Analysing Conflict in the Environmental Policy Process, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19, no.55 (Oct 2001): 637–650.https://doi.org/10.1068/c7sPeter Newman T, (Jan 1998): 561–636.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14286-6_5Endre Stavang Tolerance limits and temporal priority in environmental civil liability, International Review of Law and Economics 17, no.44 (Dec 1997): 553–574.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8188(97)00037-9