 Good evening and once you have Professor Dr. Tia Subramanyam, Dean, CMR University School of Legal Studies, Bangalore. And once you share the posters, you are quite familiar to the effect that you will be understanding international exposures on different issues. And today also taking leave from that, we are taking a session on an overview of the origin and development of the international environmental law. We have done various sessions with Mr. Subramanya on the aspects of environmental law and it is another step in that direction itself. We know that once he shares his knowledge, we are all glued to that and we keep on learning. And the very fact that we keep on requesting him, it's only on the request of the audience. I'll straight away ask Professor Dr. Tia Subramanyam to share his knowledge and we are happy to be enlightened from his knowledge. Over to you, sir. Yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Vikas and your team. Today I'll be just discussing something relating to the origin and development of international environmental law. Now, some of them may ask a question, what do you mean by origin? And what do you mean by development? See, unless an incident takes place in a state and this incident when it goes before the court of law, a judge by learned judges, and if this judgment inspires many other states, then it becomes a rule of international law at a later stage. So in order to become a rule of international law, there will be a process. And this process may be taking place in several continents. It may be in the continent of South Asia, or maybe in the continent of Southeast Asia, or maybe in the Western theater in the Indore, or it may be in the region of organization of American states. Now, today, environmental law is a fundamental subject which everyone is supposed to know. And we go to discuss deeply the origin and development. A few of the principles of international environmental law had its origin in a few European countries, especially in Germany. When I speak of this, it may be about 200 years or 300 years, but then the principle originated in the rest while Russia. And afterwards it was being followed by the modern Germany as well. And this principle, when it was considered as good, followed by other sister European states. And what was followed in European states later was accepted as a good law. And then it was accepted and followed and practiced by the Commonwealth nations as well when we come to the 20th century. That is why what inspired in the civil law system was accepted by the Commonwealth system. And what was accepted by the Commonwealth system has become a law in the British colonies as well. That is where the entire international environmental law came to be developed. Now, we go to this. I shall start with the first part of the story will be about discussing about 10 important leading cases relating to the origin and development of international environmental law. Now, when I speak of cases, there will be a few cases decided by the International Court of Justice. There will be a few cases which are decided by municipal courts. And how these courts actually influenced in accepting a fact of life that virtually became a customary rule of international environmental law today. And we take up this matter as early as the 20th century. There appeared a problem. And this problem was initially between the state of Canada as well as the state of United States. Now, you may be knowing that the state of Canada is a huge country with a population of about three and a half to four crores. Now, in this country in one of the states, they had permitted to a private agency for certain mining operations. And the mining operations were carrying on and mining operations which were carried in the state of Canada, bordering the state of Canada states, has released and has been releasing for several years zinc lead sulfur dioxide and other noxious films. So the zinc lead and sulfur dioxide that was released by the company within the state of Canada bordering 10 miles within its borders of the state of United States slowly came out and started entering the Columbian River Valley. And having entered the Columbian River Valley, these gases entered the coast of Washington. It entered the state of Washington and Washington coast first and then the state of Washington. Having entered the coast of Washington, it destroyed standing crops. It destroyed timber. It destroyed vegetations. It destroyed biological diversity. It destroyed fisheries resources. Now, the state of United States was taken by surprise and immediately a research was conducted. When the research that was conducted, they came to know that the ultimate source is of the problem is in the state of Canada. And the state of United States just writes a letter saying that we are living in a peace time and we are at no war. And moreover, we are a friendly relations and friendly relations and friendly nations in such a situation without seeking permission from us. You are releasing noxious fumes, deadly noxious fumes and it has cost damage to the environment of the state of United States. Now, both the parties ultimately agreed to at the ministerial level dialogue. And the ministerial level dialogue, remember, they agreed that the state of Canada should stop the functioning of the mining industry in the state of Canada. Now, what has happened was the agreement was reached, but then the state of Canada was not serious and the activities were going on. The master first came before 1927. The issue was settled in 1929. And from 1929 to 1935, 36, the state of Canada relentlessly releasing the noxious fumes. At this juncture, the state of United States could not tolerate it. And immediately said we have to refer the matter to arbitration and the matter was arbitrated. When the matter was arbitrated, the arbitration tribunal gave a beautiful definition. First and foremost, these states have the sovereign right to do what they want. But then while exercising the sovereign rights, while exercising the sovereignty under no circumstances, it should endure the sovereign rights of another state. See, you have sovereignty and sovereign right, master you are. But then when you carry on this right, you should not endure and cause damage in the territory of another state. And in the event of causing any damage to the territory of another state, there will be liability. See, for this purpose, the state of arbitration, the arbitration tribunal went to the doctrine of basic rights and duties of states. Now, when they discussed the basic rights and duties of states in international law, they pointed out under the document which was adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1960, as well as the Montevideo Convention of 1933, there are certain basic rights as well as duties of state. One basic right happened to be of sovereignty, independence and integrity. Sovereignty and independence is one of the basic rights of a state. The second one happened to be territorial jurisdiction. The concerned state is empowered to exercise, remember territorial jurisdiction within the four walls of its territory. Then the third one is jurisdiction over criminals. All the people who have committed criminal acts and taken shelter in the territory will be exercised jurisdiction by the native state. Now, the other one is a state can demand privileges and amenities to its diplomatic envoys in another country. These are the rights which are being spoken of a state. Then they said there are certain basic duties as well. When I speak of the basic duties, he said that the duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Under no circumstances, a state should interfere the internal affairs of another state. Duty not to permit its subjects, its citizens to violate the territorial integrity and sovereignty of another state. Duty to carry out faithfully to the treaty obligations to which it is a party. Now, the point is we have rights and duties which are specified, which are being classified. Under the system of United Nations, again, it was refined by a document adopted by the International Law Commission in the year 1949. And this document is known as the document of rights and duties of states adopted by the International Law Commission. Now, all these documents go to prove. All those the states have sovereign rights. It is not absolute sovereignty. And it is actually conditioned by what we call as precautionary step. The state while exercising its sovereignty. It is naturally should be in its control to see that the sovereignty and nature and environment and the species are not harmed. And it should be protected. And the state of Canada was asked to pay compensation in the year 1937. And that is how the case came up. It is what we call as the trials melter arbitration. Now, you think of this most of you, what was decided in 1937? Today has become a customary rule of international law. And this was a decision of the court. Sorry, the court of arbitration. Since it was a decision of the court of arbitration, international community felt that this decision is a genuine decision. And by adopting this decision, there will be a natural growth of environmental law one. The second one is they will be able to force other states who are recalcitrant, not to commit and perpetrated acts of this kind in the future. Now, this is one important case that came up. Now, thereafter, when the United Nations came to be established, another case came in. And this case is popularly called as the Corfu Channel case of 1949. Now, you may ask me what exactly are the facts of the Corfu Channel case? I shall describe the facts of the case in three or four sentences. Now, the Corfu Channel is an international channel. It is an international state situated by the coast of the state of Albania. Albania is a developing state and it is not a very rich country, a poor country then. Now, what has happened was under the existing rules of international law, it is the duty of a littoral state to permit the navigating vessels to take their voyage during peacetime. So, it is in this case for the first time the international code of justice defined what exactly is an international state, which I shall tell you a little later. The international, what has happened was on May 15th of 1946, two British vessels along with the two accessories were passing through the Corfu Channel. So, under the existing rules of international law on law of the sea, it is the duty of the coastal state to give freedom of passage to ships of all nations during peacetime. Now, the state of Albania instead of giving passage to ships, especially the British ships, what it had done was it had taken a few coastal rocket batteries. And having taken these coastal rocket batteries, kept it on the coast and having kept it on the coast, it fired on the vessels which were taking its navigation. There were damage to the British vessels, many while it was navigating, it was hit by what we call as the fire. Then what has happened was the state of Great Britain did not bother. Then three months later, there were four British warships which were passing through the Corfu Channel. And when they were passing through the Corfu Channel, they were struck with the mines. They were struck with the mines for the simple reason because these mines were put by the state of Albania. See, Albania being a small developing state had no business to do this. And it put mines in an area wherein passage to ships of all nations must be given under the concept of the freedom of the seas. Now, when it was struck with the mines, the vessels, two of them were completely destroyed. And the state of Great Britain at that time happened to be a great naval power, a great naval power at that time. And it could not tolerate and digest this 21 days later, the ships of the Royal Navy came to the spot. And having come to the spot of the coast of Albania, in their strait, they started carrying on mine-sipping operations. All of the mines which were put intentionally by the state of Albania in its, remember, waterway was swept away and cleaned by the state of Great Britain without the consent of the state of Albania. Remember, when it was swept and cleaned by the state of Great Britain through her ships, without the consent of the state of Albania, remember there was a hue and cry. The state of Albania realized the pulse of the problem and the gravity of the situation and goes before the Security Council. The Security Council is an organ which is, remember, established only to maintain international peace and security. When it went there, the state of Great Britain just questioned it being a permanent member. What we are doing? In an area wherein passage should be given, you are actually firing from your coastal batteries. In an area of passage must be given during peace time, you are putting mines. What else is left for a bigger state like the state of England? We have cleaned operations. Then when the compromise was not possible, the matter was referred to the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice, having heard both the parties, gave a beautiful judgment. Now the point is, what did it say from the point of the coast of, in the state of Albania? Now having heard the argument from the state of Albania, it pointed out, under the existing customary rules of international law, freedom of passage must be given to ships of all nations during peace time. Now only during the peace time, the vessels wanted to take its voyage. In any case, it is not a war time. Now instead of giving passage to ships of all nations, you have put mines and fired earlier through your coastal rocket batteries. This is a clear violation of international law, fundamental point. From the second count, the Security Council is appointed under the Charter of United Nations only to maintain international peace and security. Now when you have an organ to see peace and security is restored and maintained and honoured and respected and implemented, how a state, remember, go to the spot and carry on sweeping the mines which are put by the state of Albania. You do not have any sovereign right to go to the territory of another state. And having gone to the territory of another state, that is the state of Albania, you cannot perform acts of sovereignty. And that is a clear violation. And since it is a clear violation, you should apologize that in future we will not do it. But for the acts and the laws that was perpetrated by the state of Albania, the state of Albania was asked to pay compensation for the laws that has been caused to British vessels. Now the pointed issue is what exactly you learn? Fundamental point is, see, when there is a passage, the other states which take the use of the passage will have a sovereign right to make use of the passage. And under no circumstances, the literal state of the territorial state is supposed to disturb the passage. This is one. Thereafter, in the event of certain happenings, damages and other things, it is the duty of a state to invoke the protection of the Security Council and not to act unilaterally. First thing is freedom of passage in an international ocean that was recognized, honored and respected. The second one is it said, what is a straight in international law? When it took the meaning of a straight in international law, it said a straight is a passage between two portions of land. A straight is a passage between two portions of land connecting two parts of the high seas. That is what the International Court of Justice said. Now this is the second instance which I just intend to bring it to a kind attention. Now the third development happened to be a case. A case that came before the Court of Arbitration between the state of France as well as the state of Spain. Now what you may ask me, what exactly is the problem in this case? Now, first and foremost, there is river Carol. River Carol takes its origin in the state of the territory of the state of France. Having taken its origin in the territory of the state of France, remember it moves southwards towards the state of Spain. Now what has happened was, the state of France wanted to slightly alter the navigational course of the concerned river. And it wanted to alter the navigational course of the concerned river, river Carol, the state of Spain objected to it. And it said, remember southern riparians will always get affected by this. See most of the civilizations, most of them have taken its birth and reached its zenith only during the river banks. Take the Indus Valley civilization or take the Euphrates and Tigris civilization or you take the Nile civilization. All of them, all of them have taken place in areas of this river banks. So in such a situation, remember you can't disturb the course of the river because the inhabitants living in the course of river, living in such areas have developed a civilization of their own and they need water. They need precious water and they have cultivated biodiversity and this could not be interfered with the explanation that was pointed out in this concerned case. Now the name of the case happened to be Lake Lenox arbitration. So this was Lake Lenox arbitration. When it came before the court of arbitration, the court pointed out under no circumstances without the consent or the lower riparian. Without protecting and giving some kind of assurance to the protection, you cannot change the course of the river. Now today we speak about public trust doctrine and public trust doctrine had its origin in the state of Germany. And you might be knowing the MC Mehta versus Kamal Nath. What has happened there? And when they do just to satisfy certain multinational companies, the one of the chief minister wanted to change the river of the course. And the Supreme Court of India said nothing doing it cannot be done. You cannot change the course of the river because it is natural. Who are you to do it? And civilizations have come. Cultures have been developed. People are united there. And why you are disturbing this? This was the judgment which was given in this country in Kamal Nath versus MC Mehta versus Kamal Nath in 1996 by the Supreme Court of India. Now the fourth important case happened to be the case relating to nuclear test cases. Now what exactly are the facts relating to these nuclear test cases? Now when I speak about the nuclear test cases, remember the state of France wanted to explore underground nuclear weapons in the Pacific. When it wanted to explore and remember a few of the nuclear weapons were tested and they were fired under now. Now when they were fired underground, remember two states came before the International Court of Justice in 1974. Having come before the International Court of Justice in 1974, it has three phases, 1974, 1991, 1994 and 1997. I shall explain all of them. So in 1974 when it exploded nuclear weapons, Australia and New Zealand came before the court. Having come before the court of law, they just pointed out we come here as the representatives of the global commons. And we are representative to the global commons because freedom of navigation is given to ships of all nations. If there are 193 nations who are members in added nations today, all of them, all their ships are entitled to take their navigation. Because of the explosion of nuclear weapons, because of the activities which are inherently danger to the security, the sovereignty and to the environment of another state. The radioactive deposits have come to the coast of Australia and New Zealand. Since the radioactive deposits have come to the coast of Australia and New Zealand, naturally remember our people are threatened. And as the representatives of our state, as the elected government of our state, as well as the representatives of the global commons, we have come here and we need justice. And they requested the International Court of Justice, remember to issue provisional measures and stop the explosion of nuclear weapons. And notices were issued to the state of France. When notices were issued to the state of France, remember the state of France came before the court. Having appeared before the court, it said we will not carry on new activities of this nature in future than intended. Now in 1990, 1991, what has happened was there was an apprehension of fear. Apprehension of fear for both the state of New Zealand as well as the state of Australia. That the state of France is going to explode, remember, thermonuclear weapons in the Pacific. Now at this juncture, the state of New Zealand come before the court of law. Having appeared before the court of law, it requests the International Court of Justice to issue a notice to the state of France. And the notice said, you cannot explore any nuclear weapons unless an environmental impact assessment is conducted. What is important is an international environmental impact assessment. Based on the report, you can think of doing it. And even there also in situations of this type, the International Court of Justice should not, remember, permit the explosion of nuclear weapons in the Pacific because ultimately the life of the citizens, the environment of the waters to the sea are more important than anything else. Now the International Court of Justice has known to everybody in this case they heard the argument and they said, we don't have jurisdiction in this case. Now that is fine. Seven judges said we don't have jurisdiction. But then there were three judges who gave dissenting opinion. And who are these three judges who gave dissenting opinion? One happened to be Justice Palmer. Judge Palmer of the International Court of Justice, he went to the extent of pointing out, look to the development of international law from Stockholm Conference to the Rio Declaration of 1992. The judgment was written in 1992 after that. And all these developments in the area of environmental law go to prove that these principles which are enshrined and declared and accepted by the community of nations have become customary rules of international law. And these rules are to be obeyed by the concerned state. And one such principle is that the state while exercising its sovereign rights under no circumstances, it can harm the environment of another state because there are also people, areas also that should be civilized and it should be environment friendly. This cannot be accepted. That is what Justice Palmer in his judgment pointed out. Now Justice Vera Mantri of the State of Sri Lanka, representing the State of Sri Lanka in the International Court of Justice, he pointed out, principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration is more important to us today. Principle 21 simply points out states are empowered to do anything because they are sovereign. Although they are sovereign and empowered to do anything, when they exercise any kind of activity, they are not supposed to damage the environment or endure the environment of another state. If that is being done, remember, they are answerable. And even if private subjects conduct these activities, the act of the private subjects will be attributed and imputed to the concerned state. This is what Vera Mantri has pointed out. Then there was another person, Justice Koroma. Justice Koroma of the International Court of Justice, he pointed out, in future, all activities which are carried out by a state which is considered as dangerous must undergo the test of EIA, Environment Impact Assessment. No act will be permitted to carry on unless and until what we call as the environment impact assessment takes place there. That is where, remember, the growth of international environmental law came to be established in 1994 in the decision. Then we come to again, 1996. In the year 1996, again, a petition came before the Court of Law between these parties. And when the petition came before these parties, the court simply pointed out, environment is not an abstraction. Environment is not an abstraction. It is a living space. And in this living space, lots of cultures and vegetations and biodiversity always flourish. And the people of the respective countries nourish this and nobody has the right to harm. The environment of another state was the expression that was given by the International Court of Justice in the third phase of the nuclear test cases. Then another important case that came up before the International Court of Justice happened to be Gebaccio-Nagmaros Dam case. Gebaccio-Nagmaros Dam case. Now it is in this case, Slovakia and Hungary are parties. Now you may ask me what exactly are the facts of this case. The state of Hungary objected to the state of Slovakia for the construction of certain hydroelectric projects by the state of Slovakia. Slovakia being an upper-viparion wanted to have certain hydroelectric projects. And when these hydroelectric projects were conducted, they did not have an environment impact assessment report. Without the environment impact assessment report, other slower riparian states is wanted to have it. And immediately the state of Hungary goes to the International Court of Justice. Having gone before the International Court of Justice, it cannot be accepted. Now these hydroelectric projects are going to cause damage to the environment. It will cause damage to the biodiversity. And it will lead to the depletion of waters for the lower side, lower riparians. And it should not be permitted. The court asked the state of Slovakia to explain. Now the state of Slovakia at that time, remember, submitted the documents. And having submitted the documents, clearly it intended to prove before the International Court of Justice, no such incident and action has been perpetrated by the state of Slovakia. And the matter came to an end. Now there are two or three other important cases which I just wanted to bring into your case, very important. Now one such case happened to be the southern bluefin tuna case. Now the southern bluefin tuna case happened to be addition of the law of the sea tribunal. Under the conventional law of the sea, you have the law of the sea tribunal which is being constituted. And the law of the sea tribunal sits into Hamburg in Germany and listens to the parties and delivers the judgment. Now in this case, in the southern bluefin tuna case, what has happened was the state of Japan as well as the state of New Zealand. They were the parties. Now the state of New Zealand wanted to speak much about what we call about the conservation of the living resources. And conservation of living resources is very much essential before exhausting the living resources. Now you cannot exhaust the living resources and rare species. If the rare species are depleted and exhausted, what will you have then? Many such things have taken place and many assessments have been done on this count. When it said, first and foremost, you should have an EIA. And having an EIA is conducted, the state party should facilitate and come together to conserve the resources, develop the resources, multiply the resources, especially the fishery resources. And then once it is conserved, the states get the natural power to exhaust these resources was the expression that was pointed out. I shall come with a glass of water. So in the southern bluefin tuna case, the law of the sea tribunal at Hamburg pointed out, conservation of the resources in the sea, as well as in the oceans is a fundamental principle. And before conserving the resources, remember you have to take what we call as the development of sands and its application in the area. When once that is being done, it is allowed. So before the exhaustion of what we call as before using the resources, conservation is a fundamental principle was the judgment of the law of the strait sea tribunal. Now the second case happened to be the mox plant case. Now what is this mox plant case? It was a decision, it was a fight between the state of Ireland as well as the state of United Kingdom. Now the state of United Kingdom had established mox plant in the Irish waters, in the Irish sea. The mox plant was actually established, remember for actually purifying certain nuclear material. And when it wanted to purify certain nuclear material, the state of Ireland pointed out, now you are just saying we are just recycling the plutonium that is being used there. And when it is recycled, especially the plutonium will have, remember hydra-headed difficulties and it will spread and it will pollute the sea part of the sea of the Ireland. So in circumstances such as this, it asked, please show us the EIA report which is conducted by you. Unless you have conducted environment impact assessment, you cannot just pollute the Irish coast. Where afterwards the state of England and the state of Ireland compromised the matter and to a certain extent the activities were stopped. Now the other one, the third case happened to be the, what we call as the Straits of Jahor case. The Straits of Jahor case happened to be a case which was decided to be the law of the street tribunal in 2003. Now in this case what has happened was there was a dispute between the state of Malaysia as well as the state of Singapore. And the state of Singapore and the state of Malaysia had a dispute regarding their straits and the waters relating to the straits between the two states. And in 1966 the matter was settled once for all. When the matter was settled once for all the state of, what we call the state of Singapore wanted to make use of their waters. When it wanted to make use of their waters, remember again there was some dispute between the state of Malaysia as well as the state of Singapore. Now this time they said that when the matter went to the law of the street tribunal it said ultimately only through consent and through negotiation. Each one of you should be in a position to make use of the waters provided under the previous judgment to the maximum extent that is how the matter came to an end. Now the last case which I just wanted to discuss here happened to be the Pulp Milks case. Now the Pulp Milks case happened to be a case which was decided by the International Court of Justice in 2010. Now the River Urugwe actually divides the boundaries between the state of Urugwe as well as the state of Argentina. In the mouth of the river remember there was lot of recreation activities that was going on and the water which was very pure available. And there was lot of biodevastation in the mouth of the river. There was lot of fishery resources as well. Now the state of Urugwe immediately wanted to construct two what we call as Pulp Milks in the mouth of the river Urugwe. When it wanted to construct two Pulp Milks in the mouth of the river the state of Argentina came before the International Court of Justice. And went to the extent of pointing out if these two Pulp Milks were allowed to be constructed it is going to cost damage. First is on the environment and then all recreational activities which are taking place now will be stopped. Fishery resources will come to an end once and once for all. Then there afterwards all the biodevastation which is nearby will be removed by the mills which are being established once it starts functioning. Now International Court of Justice gave a notice to the state of Urugwe. Any other notice that is being given the state of Urugwe appeared before the court and having appeared before the court. Now although what is being stated there are two. We have taken all precautionary measures under no circumstances. We have remember intention to harm the environment of any state because it is part of our environment. Since it is part of our environment we do not intend to precipitate the issue by doing certain things which will go against our own people. Then later the matter was compromised. Now similar situation kept in the Kishen Ganga order dispute between the state of Pakistan as well as the state of India. It went to the Court of Arbitration. Now you might be knowing two rivers of Biaz and Satellites. One passes through the state of Pakistan and then comes to India and the other one takes its origin in India then goes to the state of Pakistan. Now one day it was the lower riparians as well as the upper riparians always should act cautiously. Not only should they act cautiously because of their act and conduct it should not harm the environment. And pollute the waters which are going downstream was the expression that is being pointed out. Now most important principle which I just wanted to tell you is which is called as the no harm rule. The principle of no harm rule has been accepted by the International Court of Justice as well as by the Court of Arbitration in all these cases. This is the fundamental point. Now having discussed these about ten cases I just intend to speak to you. Whether these ten cases and the principle on which it is decided have become part of control or part of customary rule of international law or not. Now first thing is all these cases are decided on certain fundamental principles. Today these fundamental principles are accepted as rule of law either in international declarations or in international conventions or through customary practice by states. Now first thing we will take up a few conventions. Now whenever we take up few conventions one convention happened to be liability of nuclear operators. Now in the vessel. Now there are several vessels which carry on and when they carry on they take nuclear material. And when they take nuclear material in the event of a damage what exactly is the liability is the first proposition that is being discussed. In the nuclear damage convention there are mainly two conventions I shall just tell you. One convention was adopted in Vienna and other one was adopted in Paris. The nuclear liability convention related to the ship owners adopted in the year 1969. Sorry it is adopted in 1960 1960 and in the state of Paris it is called as the Paris Convention on Nuclear Liability. Now the Paris Convention on Nuclear Liability adopted in the year 1960 points out the concerned owner of the vessel is answerable in the event of a nuclear damage. Now if the owner is not in a position to make any damage the concerned operating state. Now the state which operates the concerned vessel is remember answerable to pay the compensation in such damages and afterwards this convention was refined and it was adopted at Vienna in the year 1963. So the Vienna Convention always points out in all nuclear damage conventions the operating vessel and the owner who controls the vessel should be in a position to pay compensation or else the compensation may be recovered from him. This is what is indicates. Now there afterwards what we call as liability for oil pollution convention of 1969. And this was adopted in Brussels and similar convention was adopted again in London in the year 1973. Now remember one incident has taken place and this incident is popularly known as the Tory Kenyan incident. Now the Tory Kenyan incident happened to be an incident relating to a Liberian oil tanker and the Liberian oil tanker was taking millions of tons of oil and it was taking its voyage. And when it was passing through the coast of the London it ran aground and the oil which was present in the vessel was released. Now scholars go to the extent of pointing out the oil that was released in the coast of Canada had its devastating effect even in the coast of England had its effect in the state of Canada itself. That means what? Where is Canada? Where is United Kingdom? The oil that was released in the state of Canada, sorry in the state of United Kingdom had its effect in the state of Canada. That is what is being pointed out. So at that time the state of Canada was not in a position to accept this immediately the state of Canada in 1967 passed what we call as the Architect Pollution Prevention Act. And in this legislation they said any vessel which comes to the coast of Canada within 100 miles we will and releases oil damages and pollutes environment will book the vessel and the owner as well. That is where remember that afterwards in the state of Canada adopted a convention of this nature. Most of the states followed suit and had their own conventions to prevent oil pollution in their respective coasts. Now then we go to what we call as come to the year 1972. In the year 1972, prior to the year 1972 the World Commission on Environment and Development had prepared a questionnaire. And this questionnaire which was prepared by it was sent to almost all the states. The questionnaire was very simple it just wanted to know how much of forest cover they have today. How much of forest cover they had when they got independence or 50 years ago. Why the forest cover has disappeared and why there is a loss of forest cover. Then how many types of species were alive 100 years ago and how many of them have disappeared and extinct. And what how many what we call as the water lines we have like the several conventions which are they have lakes rivers waters and other estuaries you have in your territory. And how many of them were raised to the ground for purpose of building constructing buildings etc etc. And it was a wonderful question to know the environment of all states. Most of the states remember repair wrote the answer and having written the answer it came to the Commission of World Commission of Environment and Development. And remember when they started seeing this it was a shock. It was a shock to such an extent. Now one of the instance I just intend to speak to you. At that time there were as many as 8.7 million of millions of species in the world 8.7 million species in the world. And of the 8.7 million species in the world 8.1% was actually in the state of India which is very considerable considering the area which is only 2.4 of the world surface in this country in India. Now there immediately they wanted to have a conference to save the environment. And that is where notices or invitations were sent to all states and 117 states came and participated. And it was what we call the Stockholm Conference on Human Environment began. For 15 days remember they discussed threadbare all issues relating to water resources resources sea resources pollution biodiversity environment and all all matters degradation of environment conservation of environment. What is required to be done all of them are discussed and adopted the Stockholm Declaration. Now I just intend to speak to you what exactly are the principles which are ensigned in the Stockholm Declaration. Now the first one is if you take into consideration principle 2. Now principle 2 of the Stockholm Declaration points out resources must be safeguarded. Now for the present as well as the future generations. They said all the resources which are found in the human environment of the world within the states are to be safeguarded and protected. Rare species are to be protected come what may know it is here remember for example for the first time the concept of sustainable development came into work. Now the other principle happened to be it pointed out in principle 6 that remember notification by states in the event of harm is very much essential. What do you mean by this? Now in the event of harm that is being caused while exercising the sovereignty by a state it should intimate to the neighboring states who are going to be the victims and the losers. So notification early notification came in as part of it in the principle 6 of the Stockholm Declaration of Human Environment. Then in the principle 7 it spoke about the pollution of the seas states as well as the United Nations should take for the member positive steps to prevent the pollution of the seas. That is what defined fundamental principle that was initiated. Then principles 20 spoke about what we call as the scientific research at the national and international level. What is important is research has to take place and the research when it is conducted it should be scientific and it should be only to protect the human environment not only for the present generation as well for the future generation that was it indicated. But most important of all principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration is important to us. Now principle 21 what did you say? Now states have the sovereign rights to do what they want. But while exercising their sovereign rights they are not supposed to endure and cause damage to the environment of other states. Now today principle 21 has become a customary rule of international law. It is accepted by the community of nations. Now when the Stockholm Declaration was adopted the principle 21 came to remember be discussed by lots of international scholars. Now one such international law scholar happened to be Professor Louis B. Sohn of the Harvard Law School. Louis B. Sohn of the Harvard Law School pointed out that the 26 principles which are accepted by the community of nations are based on discussion. And these 26 principles are accepted without dissent. And they are the common convictions of all states. Since they are the common convictions of all states, all states must accept it and carry forward. They are the common convictions based on the charter principles. The Charter of United Nations has laid down certain principles. Based on those principles these 21 principles are adopted and it is binding and it has to be accepted and carried out. And see that all states remember act according to these principles was the message that was given by various scholars in the area of international law. Now after the Stockholm Declaration what exactly the other development should have taken place. Now when we take up the other development happened to be it was in the year 1982. An important charter was adopted. This is called the World Charter for Nature. Now the World Charter for Nature was adopted by 111 states at one go. And the only one state which have stayed promoting that is the state of United States. The World Charter for Nature simply points out nature is precious. And it is very much essential for each and every state for the growth as well as the growth of civilization and culture. And the human environment and the species around them and the forest and its conservation along with the conservation of biological diversity is the need of the world. Now when it stated it pointed out the loss of biological diversity in each state takes place because of the pollution of the seas. And the loss of wetlands. There are so many of wetlands in each country and today all of them have disappeared barring the state of Canada. Only in the state of Canada today you have 28 wetlands now covering about 180,000 square kilometers. And in other states two in the state of Switzerland but that is also 20 kilometers each. In all states they have disappeared although we have 40 wetlands throughout the world as of today. Now it is the duty to conserve the wetlands. And this is being stated under the Ramsar Convention which was adopted on February 2, 1971 and it came into force in the year 1975. Now in this convention they implied that wetlands are the ones which will protect our precious resources and species. Under no circumstances it should be allowed to be destroyed because of the construction of new buildings, removing the vegetation. Now this is what they pointed out in cases of this kind. Now other important development that has taken place happened to be in this the World Charter for Nature. Conservation is responsible because it is required because the pollution of the seas should be limited and should be eliminated as far as possible. And if the pollution of the seas is not stopped or put to an end remember what is happening is at least 15 million square kilometers every day disappear. Every year they disappear from the earth's surface. And remember then there will be either they disappear or what is happening is desertification. They become deserts and this should be avoided as far as possible. And to that extent the World Charter for Nature is very important for us. Now there is one principle which was adopted in this. This is what we call as the principle 21 D. 21 D speaks about what we call as the no harm road. The no harm road states have sovereign rights. But then while accessing sovereignty they are not supposed to harm the environment of another state that is being spoken in principle 21 D. Now the other one is in 1974 itself there was a declaration that was adopted by the international community. And this declaration which was adopted by the international community happened to be the doctrine of economic rights and duties of states. The doctrine of economic rights and duties of states in article 30 points out. Remember states have the rights to do what they want just because they have the rights what they want. They cannot harm the environment and the species of other states was established in this doctrine of economic rights and duties of states and it has to be remembered by everybody. Now with which we go to the year 1985. It was in the year 1985 Madame Brutland submitted its report and the report is popular known as our common future. In our common future I just intend to briefly tell you article 10 is very important to us. Article 10 actually speaks about the no harm road. States have the sovereign right to do what they want but they cannot harm the environment of another state. Now it is in this what we call as our common future the report that was submitted by Madame Brutland. She harped on what we call as intergenerational equity. States and the individual have the right to make use of the resources. When they make the resources and when they make use of it they should see that it should be used and it should be made available to the generations they come after us. So our future generations the generations which come after us also should be in a position to remember enjoy these resources and they should not be shown photos. When we are young we have enjoyed see this and they cannot get satisfied with this. They also should be remember have some resources so that they can pass on to the next generation which come after them. This is what is being stated in the Brutland report of 1985 on sustainable development. Then we go to the year 1986. We go to the year 1986 remember one incident has taken place that is in the state of Georgia over the rest while Soviet Russia. Another what has happened was when the Soviet Russia was split after Glassnaut and Costa Rica. What has happened is many of the states have separated and they became independent. And there were many warships in the state of Soviet Russia and these nuclear ships carrying nuclear heads were not used at all. And they were kept in the port of Georgia and they were releasing noxious films. Not only noxious films were related it was infected with radiation and the infection and the release of what we call as the radiation had a far-reaching effect on neighboring states as well. Now when this was taking place especially this had an effect on the Scandinavian countries like Denmark, Norway and many others. And these countries went to the extent of objecting to this. Now there was no maintenance of these ships after the split of the state of Soviet Russia and these vessels were kept in the port of Georgia. And there was no maintenance of these ships and these nuclear vessels actually releasing hazards which is deadly and which will have a fundamental effect on our environment. And several things came up at that time and afterwards the atomic energy agency issued what we call as a notification. And this notification which is like convention went to the extent of pointing out in the event of such possibilities. In the event of harm that is being caused due to nuclear accidents or in the result of a nuclear what we call as radiation. It is the duty of the concerned state from where it originates to give a warning to other states what we call as the early notification. So that was issued early notification means the other state should come to know of these things risk and so that they will be in a position to take their protective measures by themselves. That is what is the effect of early notification which was issued in the year 1986. Now then in the year 1985 and 87 where came the Vienna Convention of the ozone layer of 1985. And this convention remember after two years was given a protocol protocol to the Vienna Convention of 1985 it was adopted at Montreal. Now these two conventions go to the extent of pointing out when the chloroforocarbons are to be removed to see that the ozone layer does not affect anybody anywhere under the sun. They went to the extent of pointing out when such activities take place they are not supposed to cause harm to the environment of other states. If environment harm is caused to other states naturally there will be absolute liability and strict liability they will have to pay damages. That is the fundamental point that was spoken under these two conventions and they said went to the extent of pointing out. In order to prevent this they are supposed to adopt new technology and the technologically advanced states are supposed to lend the technology for the wardens of the release of chloroforocarbons. That is the point which we wanted to discuss. Now having discussed this we come to the year 1992. In order to celebrate the 20th year of the Stockholm Declaration remember the members of international community wanted to have a conference. This is called the Rio Conference that has taken place in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro. Now the object is remember only to discuss threadbare the most of the issues. What action has been initiated after 1972? 20 years hence what exactly is the status of environment and afterwards what steps are to be followed. Now remember having discussed for almost 10 days on the matter there were as many as 178 countries that participated. Not only 178 countries participated there were as many as remember more than 1000 NGOs and others also took part in this. Now they adopted what we call as a declaration. The Rio Declaration consists of 27 principles and these 27 principles speak of what we call as the present day and international environmental law. Now you may be interested to know what exactly are the present day international environmental law which is being accepted and practiced by the Rio Declaration. Now I just wanted to speak about principle 2 which is most important to us. Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration points out it verbatim repeats what we call as principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration. States have the rights to do what they want but then while exercising their rights they are not supposed to harm the sovereignty and sovereign rights and environment of other states. So when a state makes use of the planned utilization of its resources, when it uses the planned utilization of the natural resources under no circumstances should it cause damage to the environment of other states is one of the fundamental principles. Then it is pointed out the precautionary principle. Now when I speak about the precautionary principle remember all states are supposed to act with the caution and precaution. And when I speak about the caution because first and foremost you should think should we undertake and if we undertake what exactly is the liability, what exactly is the difficulties. Will it have any difficulties and impact on other states? These are the questions which have to be ascertained. That is where it said any EIA is most important. Without an EIA you cannot go ahead with it. Now the fundamental principle is first is to anticipate. Could there be a problem in the event of carrying out a particular project? Then afterwards remember even if there is a damage then could it be prevented? And if it is not prevented then remember you have to attack and stop. That is how it is being answered in this. Now the third principle is adoption of new technology. All the states under the EIA declaration were requested to go for new technology. Maybe even for the release of a fluorocarbon. And in a resolution they said all the developed countries should have technology should lend their technology. And remember they should lend their technology at a reasonable rates. Ultimately the environment in which we live should be free and free from pollution and other things. Then they thought of adopting the sustainable development principle. Which was discussed as I mentioned to you in principle two of the first declaration Stockholm declaration. But again they repeated it. Now this sustainable declaration remember carried with inter-generation liquidity. And afterwards remember the same principle has been applied even by the courts in India. Now think of state of Himachal Pradesh versus Ganeshwood works. Therein the Supreme Court of India pointed out first and when environmental issues come in. First is you think of the state laws. Then think of the national laws. Then think of the sustainable development. Then fourth one think about the inter-generational equity. All of them are to be respected by it. That is how international law is being enforced even at the municipal level at the state level. Then technology forcing deadlines. See technology is very much essential. But then technology forcing deadlines. Today the concerned industries were asked this is how you should be in a position to reduce pollution. You may be having several brands of cars. But then at least one or two of them should be in a position to use other than petrol or diesel. That is why all the cars which are being manufactured today in this country also have. Remember gases or other such one. Lithium whatever it is being accepted under the present day law. Then principle of absolute liability. In the event of harm they said in a few cases it will be absolute liability. In a few cases it is strict liability. Now for example you take this way there are states developed states rich states. They don't have they have not established what we call as the dumping yard. But then hazardous waste produced by them naturally shipped and exported to some other countries. And these countries are developing countries. Some of them are least developing countries. They do not have an access to technology and it is being dumped there. And afterwards it spreads dangerous diseases which is yet to be examined by certain what we call as scientists in the world. And all of them all of them have to be stopped. That is why they said prior informed consent is very much essential. Without prior informed consent about the nature of the chemical. About the nature of the waste. And when it is not accepted you cannot send it. And if it is sent it can be sent back to the concerned country which it supports back. These are certain rules of international environmental law. Which are being remember today which is enforced. Then afterwards after this we go to discuss a few other developments as well. Now in 1980 1992 there were two other conventions which were adopted. One happened to be the Convention on Climate Change 1992. And the second one happened to be the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Convention on Climate Change remember came into force. But then again it is reopened and 28th meeting has been went on in the UAE on December 1st and 2nd. Now you may ask me what is this climate change? Now climate is changing and due to this remember there will be disruption and disappearance of rain. And certain climate in a state or in states or in the portion of the globe. And in order to avoid that we should see that nature is conserved. Forestry is protected and biological diversity is saved. And areas of biological diversity is increased by each state. And what steps should be taken for this? The Convention on Climate Change was signed in the year 2015 and it came into force in 2016. Now I shall just intend to speak to you one of the two important things. One of the major decisions is the Convention on Climate Change which came into force in 1916 requested all the state to switch over from fossil fuel to alternative sources of renewable energy. So from fossil fuel which produces coal you should shift over slowly and slowly to other renewable sources like wind energy or other biomass or other what we call as hydroelectric projects or activities from their energies being released. Now the state of India made huge commitments in 2016. It went to the extent of pointing out we will be using as much as $300 billion until 2030 to overcome this especially to replace fossil fuel energy. Now what has happened was after the discussion that has taken place remember 118 states on December 2nd passed a resolution saying that they should be in a position to eliminate the release of what we call as carbon dioxide and other emissions on Mother Earth. The only way is to put an end to the use of coal that is produced through fossil fuels. Now the state of India as well as the state of China went to the extent of pointing out we cannot become a party to this resolution. We cannot become a party to this resolution because we have already committed in our what we call as fire plants and allocate the resources for only remember for solar energy itself we are spending $300 billion and if you make remember another commitment there is no money and another commitment is not remember $2-3 billion it is $900 billion. A state like India being a developing country cannot commit $900 billion was the explanation that was presented by the state of India by its experts. Now these are all genuine already the state of India has committed to produce 100 gigawatts of what we call as solar energy and this will go on increasing by 2030 and another 60 gigawatts for what we call as wind energy another 10 gigawatts for biofuel through bioenergy and another 5% from the what we call a hydroelectric energy that is being had to reduce to overcome what we call as fossil fuel effect and additional commitments cannot be taken was the answer that was given by the state of India when we speak of this. Now in addition to this there was another commitment which was assigned to the state of India and it went to the extent of pointing out India is supposed to increase 5 million square kilometer coverage of forests in this country so the forest we have today but then India was asked to again it has to be increased to 5 more million square meters this is what the commitment is all about and all of them we take into consideration something can be done but then all of them cannot be accepted by developing countries and developed world has to come forward in issuing a health process now what is this bio-diversity convention of 1992 the bio-diversity convention of 1992 came into force in 1994 the state of India passed the bio-diversity act in the year 2002 and afterwards remember past what we call as the Kartikna protocol for its implementation in 2010 then came another protocol which was adopted under the bio-diversity convention which came into force in the year 2014 now ultimately instead of giving a discussion on this I would like to say only this much now all these conventions have come into force only to see that the resources are concerned resources are to be concerned the second one is there should be sustainable use of these resources and there should be equitable sharing if you read the bio-diversity convention it speaks about three objectives one is conservation of the resources the second one is the sustainable use of the resources then there afterwards equitable sharing that is where remember for purpose of equitable sharing itself they adopted a protocol and this protocol came in Nyoga protocol which was adopted in 2010 which came into force in the year 2014 now in addition to this what I just wanted to say is the European convention of environmental law earlier has adopted in the year 1991 and it said entire Europe should adopt the precautionary principle under no circumstances they can harm the environment of other states in addition to this the international law commission when it was discussing the issues relating to state responsibility they said no harm rule should be one of the fundamental principles so this was discussed in 2000 itself so an act of states not prohibited by international law and the convention also adopted at a later stage when it was adopted they said no harm rule that is when you take up a project under no circumstances it should affect the environment of another state should be a fundamental role of international law now I shall just discuss one or two cases that came in before the courts of law now after this now the first case happened to be the cosmos case of 1954 cosmos case 1954 now what is this cosmos case Soviet Russia launched an object and this satellite which was launched by the state of Soviet Russia fell in the territory of the state of Canada having fell on the state of Canada it cost damage to the environment of the state of Canada and the state of Canada demanded compensation and when negotiation has taken place the state of Soviet Russia agreed to pay $6 million compensation this is how the no harm rule is being applied under the present day international law then what has happened was the state of United States had conducted certain nuclear explosions in the Marshall Islands when it conducted certain nuclear explosions in the Marshall Islands what has happened was remember the environment was completely disrupted and spoiled there were fishermen who were on voyage when these fishermen were on voyage remember they were infected with certain diseases which were deadly and some of them lost their lives all of them happened to be Japanese fishermen and these Japanese fishermen remember through the embassy of the state of Japan moved the state of Washington the state of United States in Washington and asked for compensation and they asked for compensation remember the state of United States paid compensation to the tune of $2 million now we have a convention that was adopted what we call as under the space treaty the space treaty was adopted in 1967 and simultaneously under the space treaty remember another convention was adopted in 1972 and this convention relating to remember the objects in the event of a particular state launching an object to the moon and other celestial bodies and in the event of harm that is being caused by that object the concerned state which has launched the object remember is to compensate the victims of the problem was for example an object is launched by the state of Soviet Russia as I indicated and it fell on the state of Canada and Canada when it asked compensation it is liable to compensate and a principle of strict liability and absolute liability both of them come into picture upon the nature of the what we accident that has taken place this is what was pointed out by them now one important case that came up happened to be a case relating to other United States now this is by a Tennessee copper company and in the Tennessee copper company what has happened was there was a dispute between two states in the state of United States now the issue is why I am finding out is it is very relevant to state of India between Tennessee corporation versus the mineral name is there and this is the case the facts of the case what has happened was when harm is caused by a member of the federation to another member of the federation they said whether they have the right to stop the taking place of such activities and in the event of harm should that state which was responsible in causing harm to the nearby state in the federation should it be answerable the court said yes not only it is entitled to maintain an action within the federal structure and in the event of a damage it is entitled to claim compensation now most of it you know the river water disputes in this country between Cauvery as well as many other states even in Andhra you have over Krishna now one state for example in the state of Europe especially in European states what was happening was now there are cloud bearing winds and these cloud bearing winds may be in the territory of another state and when they are in the territory of another state remember they can be attracted to your territory by science and technology with the result remember you may get rain and the rain which they should have got will be remember you see only drought could there be a liability yes there will be a liability provided you scientifically prove that it was in your territory and that was attracted by them and caused rain in their territory but not in ours that is what the development of international law is all about under the present day international law many things can be spoken and I have just given you a few of the instances and that will be perhaps enough for you and if you have any questions yes yes sir good evening yeah so the entire session has gone up very well yeah and I suppose that people will learn in fact a lot of people watch for this only part because it was a short notice probably people will catch up later on on the YouTube and being at weekend they will do it yeah thank you for sharing your insight sir thank you