Contemporary International Environmental Law: The Precautionary Principle and Reversal of the Burden of Proof

Main Article Content

LJJ Kandala

Abstract

Assessing the burden of proof concerning the safety of human activities for both health and the environment presents a nuanced and intricate challenge. This paper delves into the evolving standards of burden of proof, examining the application and consequences within international environmental law. It addresses the issue of the allocation of the burden of proving harmlessness between developers and those impacted by activities. Employing a doctrinal research approach, this paper observes a shift in the allocation of the burden of proof in contemporary international environmental law. The paper synopsises that debate over the burden of proof is primarily bifurcated into two perspectives: traditional or treaty and judicial or contemporary approaches. The former posits that the responsibility to prove harmlessness rests with the developer be it private entities or the state to ensure that activities conducted within their jurisdiction do not harm the environment. Conversely, the latter marks a shift where opponents of an activity bear the obligation to furnish evidence of the harmful implications of an activity to be halted.

Article Details

Section
Articles

References

UN and other international instruments

UN GA Resolution 60/147 A/RES/60/147 ‘Basic principles and guidelines on the rights to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law’ 21 March 2006.

Declaration on Establishment of the Artic Council, 35 ILM 1382 (1996);

Yaoundé Declaration on the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Forests, 38 ILM 783 (1999); Agreement on Co-operation for the Sustainable Development of Mekong River Basin, 34 ILM 864 (1995); Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community, 40 ILM (2001).

International Law Association Final Draft Report (ILA) (n 23) P. 39.

Article 2 & 31 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session, Official Records of General Assembly, Fifty-sixth session, Supplement N0 10(A/56/10), Chp.IV.E.1.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (art. 30)

European Commission/EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R, 16 January 1998.

Amsterdam Treaty amended the EC Treaty.

Declaration on Establishment of the Artic Council, 35 ILM 1382 (1996).

Journal articles

Adriana Fabra, ‘The LOSC and the Implementation of the Precautionary Principle’, (1999), 10 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 15; Scott, (n 30) 66.

Arie Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights and Duties of States, (Leiden/Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), 193.

Barney Dickson, ‘Fairness and the Costs and Benefits of Precautionary Action’, in Rosie Cooney and Barney Dickson (eds), Biodiversity & The Precautionary Principle: Risk and Uncertainty in Conversation and Sustainable Use (London, Earthscan, 2007), 275.

Crawford J. (2012). Brownlie’s principles of public international law. (8th Ed.) Oxford University Press.

Cordonier, S. MC & Khalfan, A. (eds.) (2004). Sustainable development law: Principles, practices, and prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dayna Nadine Scott, ‘Shifting the BOP: The Precautionary Principle and its Potential for the Democratization of Risk’ in Law Commission of Canada (ed.) Law &Risk (Vancouver: UBC Press and Les Presses de L 'Université Laval, 2005) 50.

Eric Wyler From ‘State Crime’ to Responsibility for ‘Serious Breaches of Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law’ EJIL (2002), Vol. 13 No. 5, 1147–1160.

Jonathan B. Wiener, ‘Precaution’, in Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunee and Ellen Hey (Eds), International Environmental Law, (New York, OUP, 2007), 599.

Judith Jones and Simon Bironitt, ‘The Burden and Standard of Proof in Environmental Regulation: The Precautionary Principle in an Australian Context’, in Elizabeth Fisher, Judith Jones and Rene von Schomberg (Eds), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects, (Edward Elgar-2006), 139.

Haritz, M. (2011). An inconvenient deliberation: The precautionary principle’s contribution to the uncertainties surrounding climate change policy. Wolters Kluwer Law& Business, Netherlands.

Gaja, ‘Obligations Erga Omnes, International Crimes and Jus Cogens: A Tentative Analysis of Three Related

Concepts’, in J. H. H. Weiler, A. Cassese and M. Spinedi (eds), International Crimes of States: A Critical Analysis of the ILC’s Draft Article 19 on State Responsibility (1989) 273.

Mehmet Suat KAYIKÇI The Burden of Proof within the Scope of the Precautionary Principle: International and European Perspectives.

Patricia Birnie, Alan Boyle and Catherine Redgwell, International Law and the Environment, (3rdEdt., OUP, 2009), 163

Roberto Andorno, ‘The Precautionary Principle: A New Legal Standard for A Technological Age’, (2004), J Vol 01 I, JIBL, 11.

Ramirez-Llodra, E., et al. Man, and the last great wilderness: human impact on the deep sea. 2011. PLoS One 6 (8), e22588. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0022588.

Santos M.M.et al. The last frontier: Coupling technological developments with scientific challenges to improve hazard assessment of deep-sea mining’ Science of the Total Environment 627 (2018) 1505–1514.

Sicilianos, ‘The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility’, 13 EJIL (2002), Issue 5, p1147-1160. 14p. 1.

Whyler Eric (2018) From ‘State Crime’ to Responsibility for ‘Serious Breaches of Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law’ Eric. European Journal of International Law. Nov2002, Vol.13.

Book & chapters

Christoforou, T. (2002). Science, law, and precaution in dispute resolution on health and environmental

Sands, P. (2000). International law and sustainable development. in Revez, R.; Sands, P. & Stewart, R. Environmental law, the economy and sustainable development. Oxford University Press, p.101.

Sands, P., Peel, J, with Fabra, A., MacKenzie, R. (2018). Principles of international environmental law. University Press Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Case Law

Case concerning the arbitration on the Iron Rhine railway (the Kingdom of the Netherlands v the Kingdom of Belgium) 2005 Arbitration Court Hague at Par 59-84 and 222.

Case n0 155/96 ACHPR, Social Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) V Nigeria (2001) Para 43: Decision of the African Commission on Human right in the complaint concerned the consequences of environmental degradation in Ogoniland, (2001) AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001) 175.

Case concerning Protective Measures (United Kingdom v EC Commission the European Court of Justice (ECJ) 1998 at Par 99 -100 Case C-180/96 ECRI-2265,

Case concerning Gabcikovo –Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia) 1997 ICJ Reports 78 at par 140.

Case concerning the administrative review of the decision to extend the operation of nuclear facility (Balmer – Schafroth v. Switzerland) 1987 ECHR Reports IV Paragraph 40.

Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicaragua v. United Nation) 1986 ICJ Rep14 par 99-101.

Case concerning the status of the precautionary principle (Beanal v. Freeport- McMoran) 1977 US District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana at 362 -969.

/1941 Trail Smelter case the Arbitral Tribunal placed the burden to meet this high evidential standard on Canada, the victim of air pollution from a US smelter."

In the 1938/1941 Trail Smelter case the Arbitral Tribunal placed the burden to meet this high evidential standard on Canada, the victim of air pollution from a US smelter."

Tãtar v Romania App no 67021/10 (ECtHR, 27 January 2009).

Case between Australia & New Zealand and France before the ICJ regarding nuclear tests (the First Nuclear Test Case).

MOX Plant Case between Ireland and UK (2001)

Online sources

European Commission Communication 2000 (1) available at www.europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf. (Accessed 13-02-2021).

Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity inclusive impact assessment. Available at www3. Webng.com/jerbanler/home/eia.toolkits/ (Accessed 13-02-2021).

Declaration

1. Funding The study has been undertaken with the support ( resources, internet, library access but no finding ) from the University of Johannesburg.

2. Conflicts of interest/Competing interests: Unless otherwise, I declare no conflict of interest as the research used primary and secondary sources of information

3. Availability of data and material (data transparency) N/A

4. Code availability (software application or custom code) n/a

5. Authors' contributions: This is my individual contribution. No other author is associated

6. Ethics approval: n/a

7. Consent to participate n/a

8. Consent for publication: I am hereby giving my consent for the publication of this manuscript.