What is International Environmental Law?

Environmental laws are the standards that governments establish to manage

natural resources and environmental quality. The broad categories of natural resources
and environmental quality include such areas as air and water pollution, forests and
wildlife, hazardous waste, agricultural practices, wetlands, and land use planning. In the
United States, some of the more widely known environmental laws are the Clean Air Act,
the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species
Act. The body of environmental law includes not only the text of these laws but also the
regulations that implement and the judicial decisions that interpret this legislation. In
general, the standards set forth in environmental laws can apply to either private parties
or the government. The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, for example, are frequently used
to regulate the polluting activities of private enterprises. These laws mandate certain
pollution-reducing technology or limit the levels of pollution for power plants and
factories. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies only to the actions of
the U.S. government. NEPA requires that the federal government undertake a
comprehensive environmental impact assessment before it can proceed with projects that
are likely to harm the environment.

Distinguishing National Law from International Law

To understand the nature of international environmental law, one must first
understand the difference between national and international law. National law is law that
is adopted by the government of an individual country. In the United States, the most
common examples of national law are federal and state legislation and judicial decisions.
Agency regulations and executive orders would also fall within this category. Although
an individual country adopts these national laws, they may have international impacts.
International law, on the other hand, concerns agreements among different nations, or
between citizens or corporations of different nations. Agreements or treaties among
different nations are generally referred to as public international law. Contracts between
private parties (corporations or citizens) residing in different nations are generally
referred to as private international law. Because the field of international environmental
law focuses on the relations and agreements among nations, it is part of public
international law.
Primary Sources
The major sources of international environmental law are treaties and
international agreements. An additional source is customary international law, which is
often evidenced by national legislation, government statements, restatements of the law,
and the interpretations of international tribunals such as the International Court of Justice
and other arbitral bodies.

History
Before 1900 there were few multilateral or bilateral agreements concerning
international environmental issues. Relevant international agreements were based on
unrestrained national sovereignty over natural resources and focused primarily on
boundary waters, navigation, and fishing rights along shared waterways, particularly the
Rhine River and other European waterways. They did not address pollution or other
ecological issues. The dramatic exception to this pattern emerged in 1909 in the United
States-United Kingdom Boundary Waters Treaty, which provided in Article IV that water
``shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.'' In
the early 1900s, countries began to conclude agreements to protect commercially
valuable species. These agreements include the 1902 Convention for the Protection of
Birds Useful to Agriculture, the 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds in
the United States and Canada, and the Treaty for the Preservation and Protection of Fur
Seals signed in 1911. Only one convention focused on wildlife more generally: the 1900
London Convention for the Protection of Wild Animals, Birds and Fish in Africa. By the
1930s and 1940s, states recognized the importance of conserving natural resources and
negotiated several agreements to protect fauna and flora generally. These include the
1933 London Convention on Preservation of Fauna and Flora in Their Natural State
(focused primarily on Africa), and the 1940 Washington Convention on Nature Protection
and Wild Life Preservation (focused on the Western Hemisphere). During this period,
states also concluded the well-known International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling, as well as other conventions concerned with ocean fisheries and birds. In the
first half of this century there was little development and application of customary
international norms to environmental issues. The classic Trail Smelter Arbitration
between Canada and the United States, which affirmed Canada's responsibility for the
damage from copper smelter fumes that transgressed the border into the state of
Washington, was the notable exception. The language of the Arbitral Tribunal has been
cited widely as confirming the principle that a state is responsible for environmental
damage to foreign countries caused by activities within its borders, even though in this
case Canada's liability for the damage was determined in the compromise establishing the
Tribunal. One of the most important aspects of the Arbitration is the Tribunal's decision
that if there is a threat of serious continuing harm, the state must cease the harmful
conduct (which implies that damages would not be sufficient). The Tribunal required the
parties to effectuate a monitoring regime to ensure that further damaging pollution did not
occur. Because the Trail Smelter Arbitration is a rare example of international
environmental adjudication in this early period, it has acquired an unusually important
place in the jurisprudence of international environmental law. 1950-1972. During the
1950s and early 1960s, the international community was concerned with nuclear damage
from civilian use (a by-product of the Atoms for Peace Proposal) and marine pollution
from oil. Thus, countries negotiated agreements governing international liability for
nuclear damage and required measures to prevent oil pollution at sea. In the 1960s,
environmental issues began to emerge within countries. Rachel Carson published her
famous book Silent Spring and comparable books were published in European countries.

In the United States, this new environmental awareness led to the adoption of the first
major piece of federal environmental legislation, the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, which initiated the environmental impact statement. In 1971 the U.S. Council on
Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were formed.
Internationally, during the 1960s, multilateral international environmental agreements
increased significantly. Conventions were negotiated relating to interventions in case of
oil pollution casualties, to civil liability for oil pollution damage, and to oil pollution
control in the North Sea. The African Convention on the Conservation of 4 Nature and
Natural Resources was concluded in 1968. 1972 and Beyond: The Modern Era of
International Environmental Law. Modern international environmental law dates to
approximately 1972 when countries gathered for the United Nations Stockholm
Conference on the Human Environment, and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) was established. Many important legal developments took place in
the period surrounding the Conference, including negotiation of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species, the London Ocean Dumping Convention, the
World Heritage Convention, and the first of the UNEP regional seas conventions. Since
then, there has been a rapid rise in international legal instruments concerned with the
environment, to the point that we are concerned today with developing new means for
coordinating the negotiation and implementation of related agreements, in particular their
administrative, monitoring, and financial provisions. Since 1970, hundreds of
international environmental instruments have been concluded. Including bilateral and
multilateral instruments (binding and nonbinding), there are close to nine hundred
international legal instruments that have one or more significant provisions addressing
the environment. Within the last two years alone, there have been about a dozen highly
important multilateral negotiations occurring more or less in parallel.
The subject matter of international environmental agreements now bears little
resemblance to that in agreements concluded in the first half of this century, which
focused on boundary rivers, fishing rights, and protection of particularly valued animal
species. Today there are agreements to control pollution in all environmental media,
conserve habitats, protect global commons, such as the high-level ozone layer, and
protect resources located within countries that are of concern to the international
community. Moreover, the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development held last
June in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, suggests that we are entering a new phase in international
environmental law in which environmental and economic issues will be joined. The scope
of international agreements has expanded significantly since 1972: from trans boundary
pollution agreements to global pollution agreements; from control of direct emissions
into lakes to comprehensive river basin system regimes; from preservation of certain
species to conservation of ecosystems; from agreements that take effect only at national
borders to ones that restrain resource use and control activities within national borders,
such as for world heritages, wetlands, and biologically diverse areas. The duties of the
parties to these agreements have also become more comprehensive: from undertaking
research and monitoring to preventing pollution and reducing certain pollutants to
specified levels. Notably, there is no example in which the provisions of earlier
conventions have been weakened; rather, they have been strengthened or their scope has
been expanded. The international community is increasingly aware that it is important not
only to monitor and research environmental risks, but also to reduce them. Thus states

have moved from international agreements that mainly address research, information
exchange, and monitoring to agreements that require reductions in pollutant emissions
and changes in control technology. The Protocol on Sulphur Dioxide to the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (U.N.-ECE) Convention on Long-Range
Trans boundary Air Pollution calls for a thirty percent reduction in national annual
sulphur emissions or their trans boundary fluxes by 1993, and the Montreal Protocol on
Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, including the 1990 Adjustments and
Amendments, requires that chlorofluorocarbons and halons, except for essential uses, be
phased out by the year 2000. This emphasis on preventing pollution is likely to continue
as we appreciate that the capacity of our environment to absorb the byproducts of
production and consumption is limited. The last seven years, from 1985 to 1992, illustrate
the increasingly rapid development of international environmental law. During this
period, countries have negotiated a surprisingly large number of global agreements.
These include the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer; the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer with the London Adjustments and
Amendments; the Protocol on Environmental Protection (with annexes) to the Antarctic
Treaty, the Basel Convention on the Trans boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and Their Disposal; the two International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Conventions on
Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear
Accident or Radiological Emergency; the International Convention on Oil Pollution
Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, the Framework Convention on Climate
Change; the Convention on Biological Diversity; the principles on forests; the nonbinding legal instrument of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy; and the London
Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade.
Developments at the regional level have proceeded at a similar rate. Member states of the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe have negotiated three protocols to the
U.N.-ECE Convention on Long-Range Trans boundary Air Pollution: a protocol
providing for a thirty percent reduction in trans border fluxes of sulphur 5 dioxides, a
protocol freezing the emissions of nitrogen oxides, and a protocol controlling emissions
of volatile organic chemicals. These countries have also concluded agreements on
environmental impact assessment, transnational industrial accidents, and trans boundary
fresh waters and lakes. As part of the United Nations Environment Programme's regional
seas program, countries have negotiated the South Pacific Resource and Environmental
Protection Agreement with two protocols, one on dumping and the other on emergency
assistance. Under the UNEP Caribbean Regional Seas Convention, parties have
concluded a protocol on protected areas and are considering negotiation of a protocol on
land-based sources of marine pollution. There have been similar advances in legal
instruments to safeguard freshwater resources. States concluded an unusually
comprehensive agreement to protect the Zambezi River Basin. In 1987, Canada and the
United States agreed to a protocol to their 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,
which addresses groundwater contamination affecting the Great Lakes and the airborne
transport of toxics into the Great Lakes. Amazon Basin countries issued the Declaration
of Brasilia and provided for the establishment of two new commissions under the
auspices of the Amazon Pact, one to conserve the fauna and flora and the other to protect
indigenous peoples. In Asia, members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) concluded the Convention on the Conservation of Nature, which provides

ecosystem protection and controls on trade in endangered species. And in Africa, the
Bamako Convention on Hazardous Wastes bans the importation of hazardous wastes and
creates a strict regimen for moving such wastes within the African continent. In Europe,
the Single European Act now provides clear authority for the European Community to act
on environmental and natural resource issues. The Community has already issued many
directives and regulations aimed at controlling pollution and protecting the environment,
and more are under consideration. The European Court of Justice has assumed an
important role in ensuring that measures adopted by individual nations conform to
Community directives. A new European Environment Agency is being established as part
of the institutional framework of the European Community. At the bilateral level, many
international environmental legal instruments have been concluded during this period. In
North America, the United States has signed bilateral agreements with Canada and
Mexico on the transport of hazardous wastes. An agreement between Mexico and the
United States addresses urban air pollution problems in Mexico City. In 1991, Canada
and the United States concluded an agreement to control acid precipitation. In Latin
America, Brazil and Argentina concluded an agreement that provides for consultation in
case of nuclear accidents in either country. Most of these agreements were considered
impossible ten years ago; some were thought impossible only months before they were
concluded. The provisions in the new agreements are generally more stringent and
detailed than in previous ones, the range of subject matter broader, and the provisions for
implementation and adjustment more sophisticated. This history is encouraging because it
suggests that the international community's learning curve as reflected in international
environmental law is surprisingly steep. This should give us hope that we may be able,
with some success, to address the immense challenges of global environmental change
and to meet the urgent need for environmentally sustainable development.
Edith Brown Weiss, International Environmental Law: Contemporary Issues and the Emergence of a New
World Order, 81 GEO. L. J. 675-84, 702-10 (1993). Copyright 1993.

Means of Implementing & Enforcing International Environmental Law

There are forums where international environmental disputes can be adjudicated,
such as national courts, the International Court of Justice, and international arbitration
panels. These forums, however, generally require that the disputing parties voluntarily
submit to the jurisdiction of the court or panel. Additionally, even when these forums
obtain jurisdiction over an international environmental dispute, they must rely on the
cooperation of national governments to enforce rulings. For economic and political
reasons, this cooperation is often withheld. A small number of environmental agreements
have established international institutions that can directly impose trade sanctions or have
authorized member states to impose trade sanctions against violating parties. For
instance, in response to Japans violation of the International Whaling Commissions
whaling moratorium, the United States threatened to restrict Japanese fishing vessel
activity in U.S. territorial waters. Japan elected to accede to the whaling moratorium
rather than suffer any such restrictions. The type of sanctions envisioned under the
Montreal Protocol and International Whaling Commission are procedurally very difficult

to impose. In general, there is no international body authorized to directly enforce

international environmental law. The task of direct enforcement is left to the member
nations, whose governments propose and adopt implementing policies. Sometimes the
implementing national legislation is identical to the international agreement. For
example, Canada implemented the Migratory Birds Treaty (with the United States) by
adopting the Migratory Birds Treaty Act. Because the language of this act is identical to
language in the treaty, the law is basically a legislative codification of the international
agreement. Other times, however, the international environmental agreement is of a
general nature and national governments must draft and implement more specific laws.
For instance, in 1989 the International Convention on Trans boundary Movement of
Hazardous Waste was signed in Basel, Switzerland. This convention forbids the export of
hazardous wastes to countries that lack adequate means to dispose of them. Under the
terms of the convention, signatory nations are called upon to draft their own more
specific national laws to implement this pledge. Although international institutions are
generally not responsible for directly implementing and enforcing international
environmental law, they often play important monitoring, informational, and diplomatic
roles. For example, Understanding Global Change: Earth Science and Human Impacts 4
agendas adopted at the 1992 Convention on Environment and Development at Rio de
Janeiro created a new international body, the Commission on Sustainable Development
(CSD). The CSD meets yearly at the United Nations in New York to review and advance
the implementation of Agenda 21an enormous and complex mandate. An annual or
biennial Conference of Parties (COP) implements most global agreements, such as the
Biodiversity Convention and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. These
COPs lack the power to bring enforcement actions against either governments or private
parties. They help monitor national compliance by requiring member nations to submit
annual reports. Through meetings and publications, COPs also provide a forum to discuss
and debate issues associated with the implementation of the agreement. There are other
institutions similar in function to the CSDs and the COPs. The North American
Commission on Environmental Cooperation (NACEC) based in Montreal, Canada,
monitors compliance with the North American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation, one of the side agreements under the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). The European Environmental Agency based in Copenhagen,
Denmark, monitors the compliance of individual European countries with environmental
directives adopted by the European Union. Although the CSD, COPs, NACEC, and the
European Environmental Agency indicate that the international community is trying to
improve compliance with environmental agreements, there is still a lack of effective
implementation and enforcement. A 1992 study by the U. S. General Accounting Office
concluded that international environmental agreements lack adequate procedures to
monitor and ensure compliance. Countries have become skilled in negotiating
international environmental agreements, but they are much less skilled at making the
agreement operate effectively. In the past two decades, states have also used economic
incentives and trade bans to encourage compliance with international environmental
agreements. For example, the Montreal Protocol, the Framework Convention on Climate
Change, and the Biodiversity Convention provide economic incentives in the form of
technical assistance, technology transfers, and money to build the administrative capacity
of national environmental agencies. These incentives have been of particular value in

promoting the involvement and compliance of developing countriespart of the Rio

bargain between northern (developed) and southern (developing) countries. The Global
Environmental Facility (GEF), a new international funding institution, also provides
money for training, equipment, and enforcement related to environmental protection
measures. Some recent international environmental agreements, such as the Biodiversity
Convention, have designated the GEF as their exclusive funding mechanism.

Jurisdiction for Disputes: Courts, Parties, and Enforcement

Roughly speaking, jurisdiction may be defined as a courts legal ability to hear a
complaint. If the subject matter of the case is not within the scope of a courts
jurisdiction, or if one of the parties, either the one bringing the case (plaintiff) or the one
against whom it is brought (defendant) is not within a courts jurisdiction, the court will
not hear the dispute. This is particularly relevant to international environmental law for a
number of reasons. First and foremost, if a treaty or convention does not specify an
international forum that has subject-matter jurisdiction, often the only place to bring a
suit with respect to that treaty is in the member states domestic court system. This then
presents at least two additional hurdles. If the members state being sued does not have
domestic implementing legislation in place to hear the dispute, there will be no forum
available. Even in the event that the domestic legislation provides for suits of this nature,
the judges who decide the case are residents of the country against which it is brought,
and the resulting potential conflicts of interest are apparent. With respect to parties,
treaties and conventions bind only nations. In international forums, such as the
International Court of Justice, countries must consent to being sued in order to preserve
their sovereignty. Thus, it is often impossible to sue a country. In any case, it is often an
International Environmental Law 5 transnational corporation (TNC), not a country that
has violated an international agreement. It is nearly impossible to sue a country for not
enforcing its laws against a TNC or for not enacting sufficient implementing legislation.
The final difficulty in the jurisdictional arena is the question of who may bring a suit.
Often, only countries may sue countries, not individual citizens and not nongovernmental
organizations. This has huge repercussions in that the environmental harm must be large
and notorious for a country to even notice it. Second, for a country to have a stake in the
outcome of the subject matter, some harm may have to cross the borders of the violating
country into the country that is suing. Finally, even if trans boundary harm does exist, the
issue of causation, especially in the environmental field, is often impossible to
demonstrate with any certainty. In addition, in all fields of international law no country is
ever in perfect compliance with every international obligation. Moreover, some countries
are substantially more powerful than others. This may seem self-evident and unimportant,
until one considers that suing another country may expose the plaintiff country to
retaliatory actions. In spite of this political reality, however, Mexico successfully
challenged the United States in the World Trade Organization in the TunaDolphin Case,
and several Asian countries successfully challenged the United States over U.S. efforts to

compel shrimp-exporting countries to harvest shrimp without harming turtles. The

enforcement issue is one where advocates for a safer environment often find themselves
stymied. The entirety of international law, beyond the environmental field, remains
largely unenforceable, even if a treaty or convention provides for specific substantive
measures to be taken by a country (which is not always the case, since many treaties
merely provide frameworks), and even if a forum for litigation or dispute resolution is
specified or sanctions by member states for noncompliance are authorized. A country
cannot be forced to do what it is not willing to do. One can sanction the country, order
damages, restrict trade, or, most frequently, declare noncompliance, but beyond that, if a
country will not comply, there is very little to be done. Countries usually accept or avoid
international environmental obligations because it is in their economic self-interest to do
so. Nations rarely take actions that may harm their domestic economy or their
international trade for altruistic reasons. They take these actions expecting some
economic or political benefit sooner or later.

Stockholm Declaration
The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, having met at Stockholm
from 5 to 16 June 1972,having considered the need for a common outlook and for
common principles to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and
enhancement of the human environment.
Principles of the Stockholm Declaration:
Principle 1: Human rights must be asserted, apartheid and colonialism condemned
Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an
environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well being, and he bears a
solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future
generations. In this respect, policies promoting or perpetuating apartheid, racial
segregation, discrimination, colonial and other forms of oppression and foreign
domination stand condemned and must be eliminated.
Principle 2: Natural resources must be safeguarded
The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and
especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the
benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as
appropriate.
Principle 3: The Earths capacity to produce renewable resources must be maintained
The capacity of the earth to produce vital renewable resources must be maintained and,
wherever practicable, restored or improved.

Principle 4: Wildlife must be safeguarded

Man has a special responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wildlife
and its habitat, which are now gravely imperiled by a combination of adverse factors.
Nature conservation, including wildlife, must therefore receive importance in planning
for economic development.
Principle 5: Non-renewable resources must be shared and not exhausted
The non-renewable resources of the earth must be employed in such a way as to guard
against the danger of their future exhaustion and to ensure that all mankind shares
benefits from such employment.
Principle 6: Pollution must not exceed the environments capacity to clean itself
The discharge of toxic substances or of other substances and the release of heat, in such
quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them
harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not
inflicted upon ecosystems. The just struggle of the peoples of ill countries against
pollution should be supported.
Principle 7: Damaging oceanic pollution must be prevented
States shall take all possible steps to prevent pollution of the seas by substances that are
liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to
damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.
Principle 8: Development is needed to improve the environment
Economic and social development is essential for ensuring a favorable living and
working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary for
the improvement of the quality of life.
Principle 9: Developing countries therefore need assistance
Environmental deficiencies generated by the conditions of under-development and
natural disasters pose grave problems and can best be remedied by accelerated
development through the transfer of substantial quantities of financial and technological
assistance as a supplement to the domestic effort of the developing countries and such
timely assistance as may be required.
Principle 10: Developing countries need reasonable prices for exports to carry out
environmental management

For the developing countries, stability of prices and adequate earnings for primary
commodities and raw materials are essential to environmental management, since
economic factors as well as ecological processes must be taken into account.
Principle 11: Environment policy must not hamper development
The environmental policies of all States should enhance and not adversely affect the
present or future development potential of developing countries, nor should they hamper
the attainment
Of better living conditions for all, and appropriate steps should be taken by States and
international organizations with a view to reaching agreement on meeting the possible
national and international economic consequences resulting from the application of
environmental measures.
Principle 12: Developing countries need money to develop environmental safeguards
Resources should be made available to preserve and improve the environment, taking
into account the circumstances and particular requirements of developing countries and
any costs which may emanate- from their incorporating environmental safeguards into
their development planning and the need for making available to them, upon their
request, additional international technical and financial assistance for this purpose.
Principle 13: Integrated development planning is needed
In order to achieve a more rational management of resources and thus to improve the
environment, States should adopt an integrated and coordinated approach to their
development planning so as to ensure that development is compatible with the need to
protect and improve environment for the benefit of their population.
Principle 14: Rational planning should resolve conflicts between environment and
development
Rational planning constitutes an essential tool for reconciling any conflict between the
needs of development and the need to protect and improve the environment.
Principle 15: Human settlements must be planned to eliminate environmental problems
Planning must be applied to human settlements and urbanization with a view to avoiding
adverse effects on the environment and obtaining maximum social, economic and
environmental benefits for all. In this respect projects which arc designed for colonialist
and racist domination must be abandoned.
Principle 16: Governments should plan their own appropriate population policies

Demographic policies which are without prejudice to basic human rights and which are
deemed appropriate by Governments concerned should be applied in those regions where
the rate of population growth or excessive population concentrations are likely to have
adverse effects on the environment of the human environment and impede development.
Principle 17: National institutions must plan development of states natural resources
Appropriate national institutions must be entrusted with the task of planning, managing
or controlling the environmental resources of States with a view to enhancing
environmental quality.
Principle 18: Science and technology must be used to improve the environment
Science and technology, as part of their contribution to economic and social development,
must be applied to the identification, avoidance and control of environmental risks and
the solution of environmental problems and for the common good of mankind.
Principle 19: Environmental education is essential
Education in environmental matters, for the younger generation as well as adults, giving
due consideration to the underprivileged, is essential in order to broaden the basis for an
enlightened opinion and responsible conduct by individuals, enterprises and communities
in protecting and improving the environment in its full human dimension. It is also
essential that mass media of communications avoid contributing to the deterioration of
the environment, but, on the contrary, disseminates information of an educational nature
on the need to project and improve the environment in order to enable mal to develop in
every respect.
Principle 20: Environmental research must be promoted, particularly in developing
countries
Scientific research and development in the context of environmental problems, both
national and multinational, must be promoted in all countries, especially the developing
countries. In this connection, the free flow of up-to-date scientific information and
transfer of experience must be supported and assisted, to facilitate the solution of
environmental problems; environmental technologies should be made available to
developing countries on terms which would encourage their wide dissemination without
constituting an economic burden on the developing countries.
Principle 21: States may exploit their resources as they wish but must not endanger others
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of
international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own
environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their
jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Principle 22: Compensation is due to states thus endangered

States shall cooperate to develop further the international law regarding liability and
compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage caused by
activities within the jurisdiction or control of such States to areas beyond their
jurisdiction.
Principle 23: Each nation must establish its own standards
Without prejudice to such criteria as may be agreed upon by the international community,
or to standards which will have to be determined nationally, it will be essential in all
cases to consider the systems of values prevailing in each country, and the extent of the
applicability of standards which are valid for the most advanced countries but which may
be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries.
Principle 24: There must be cooperation on international issues
International matters concerning the protection and improvement of the environment
should be handled in a cooperative spirit by all countries, big and small, on an equal
footing.
Cooperation through multilateral or bilateral arrangements or other appropriate means is
essential to effectively control, prevent, reduce and eliminate adverse environmental
effects resulting from activities conducted in all spheres, in such a way that due account
is taken of the sovereignty and interests of all States.
Principle 25: International organizations should help to improve the environment
States shall ensure that international organizations play a coordinated, efficient and
dynamic role for the protection and improvement of the environment.
Principle 26: Weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated
Man and his environment must be spared the effects of nuclear weapons and all other
means of mass destruction. States must strive to reach prompt agreement, in the relevant
international organs, on the elimination and complete destruction of such weapons.

Sources:

Edith Brown Weiss, International Environmental Law: Contemporary Issues and the
Emergence of a New
World Order, 81 GEO. L. J. 675-84, 702-10 (1993). Copyright 1993.
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/gcip/m3elaw/m3pdfc1.pdf
http://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/ERG_ENVIROMENT.pdf
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?
documentid=97&articleid=1503