100%(1)100% нашли этот документ полезным (1 голос)
195 просмотров11 страниц
This document summarizes the Trail Smelter Arbitration between the United States and Canada. A Canadian smelting plant in British Columbia emitted large amounts of sulfur dioxide across the border into Washington state in the 1930s, damaging land and property. The arbitration tribunal in 1941 ruled that under international law, no state has the right to permit pollution that causes serious injury to another state. It found Canada responsible for the damages to Washington and required the smelter to pay compensation and refrain from further pollution. The tribunal concluded that international law and rules from similar cases in the US and Switzerland should guide its decision.
This document summarizes the Trail Smelter Arbitration between the United States and Canada. A Canadian smelting plant in British Columbia emitted large amounts of sulfur dioxide across the border into Washington state in the 1930s, damaging land and property. The arbitration tribunal in 1941 ruled that under international law, no state has the right to permit pollution that causes serious injury to another state. It found Canada responsible for the damages to Washington and required the smelter to pay compensation and refrain from further pollution. The tribunal concluded that international law and rules from similar cases in the US and Switzerland should guide its decision.
This document summarizes the Trail Smelter Arbitration between the United States and Canada. A Canadian smelting plant in British Columbia emitted large amounts of sulfur dioxide across the border into Washington state in the 1930s, damaging land and property. The arbitration tribunal in 1941 ruled that under international law, no state has the right to permit pollution that causes serious injury to another state. It found Canada responsible for the damages to Washington and required the smelter to pay compensation and refrain from further pollution. The tribunal concluded that international law and rules from similar cases in the US and Switzerland should guide its decision.
Assignment #2 The Trail Smelter Arbitration 08/03/2014
Presented to : Dr. Ahmed F. Khalifa
Presented by Group #1 : Ahmad Sami Ahmed Dawood Diaa Abdel Rahman Noha Assem Rabab Badr Wessam Foaad 42-C Saturday Class Heliopolis
FIRAC The Trail Smelter Arbitration
United Sates Vs. Canada Arbitral Tribunal ,1941 Agenda
Facts Issue Rules Application Conclusion
Facts: A Canadian company built a lead & zinc smelting plant at Trail, British Columbia, 10 miles north of the state of Washington border.
In 1928, US & Canada agreed on Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909
By 1930, more than 300 tons of sulfur, including large quantities of sulfur dioxide was emitted daily.
Emissions were carried down the Columbia river causing damage to land and other property in Washington. Facts Rule Issue Application Conclusion Facts: In 1931, Canada paid $ 350,000 for damages reported by the commissions Arbitral Tribunal. Canada did not dispute its liability, but the smelter continues to operate.
In 1938, the tribunal grants $ 78,000 to USs claim that the plant has caused damages up to $ 2 Million
In 1941, The United states required to have the operation of the smelter enjoined.
At the time of the arbitration , Tribunal did not manage any case of air pollution , nearest analogy was for air pollution
No decision of an international tribunal has been found
Facts Rule Issue Application Conclusion Issues: Whether the plant should be closed to refrain from further damage to the state of Washington and, if so, to what extent?
Whether damages caused by the Trail Smelter in the state of Washington occurred since the first day of January, 1932, and if so, what compensation should be paid therefore.
In accordance to the previous questions, what measures should be taken by the Trail Smelter?
What compensation should be paid?
Which Law should be followed united states or international Law?
Facts Rule Issue Application Conclusion Rules: Under the principals of united states & International Law No state has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious consequences and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence Report of the united nations conference on environment and development states have , in accordance with the charter of united nations and the principal of international law , the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies , and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control dont cause any damage to the environment of other states or areas beyond the limit of national jurisdiction
Facts Rule Issue Application Conclusion Rules: Supreme court of the US As a guide Regarding both air pollution and water pollution , certain decision of US supreme count may be taken as a guide in this filed in international law
Similar cases: Territorial relation between Cantons of soleure & Argovia , Federal court of Switzerland
Facts Rule Issue Application Conclusion Application: Tribunal finds this problem need to be solved here as the law followed in US in dealing with quasi-sovereign rights of the states of union .In the matter of air pollution ,even as more definite is in conformity with the general rules in international law
The Smelter had caused sufficient damages to Washington thus violating state rights.
Canada is responsible for the damages caused by the Smelter.
Facts Rule Issue Application Conclusion Conclusion: The tribunal found that the smelter has caused damages The smelter shall pay US $ 78,000 for compensation The smelter shall refrain from causing any more damages to the US Damages referred to and its extent being such as would be recoverable under the decisions of the courts of US in suits between private individuals The compensation for such damage should be fixed in such manner as government acting under article XI of the convention
Facts Rule Issue Application Conclusion Thank You Thank you.. Any questions ?