Tort, regulation and environmental liability (original) (raw)
Related papers
Liability for Environmental Harm in Europe: Towards a Harmonised Regime?
Hitotsubashi journal of law and politics, 2016
During the 1980s, the question of liability for environmental harm emerged as a critical question in various legal systems, as well as at supranational level. A trend emerged aimed at the re-evaluation of civil liability as an instrument for the prevention of damage arising from pollution activities potentially dangerous to mankind and the environment. In particular, it is important to remember that since the beginning of the ΚΌ80s attention paid to environmental Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics 44 (2016), pp.43-65. C Hitotsubashi University
Environmental Liability- EU and comparative law regime
The legal system has a crucial preventive and corrective role to play regarding environmental damage. To this end, together with measures adopted in other legal areas such as administrative, criminal or civil law, both public and private international law are also a source of solutions for dealing with environmental liability in cases that go beyond purely domestic matters. This entry is written from the private international law perspective and primarily focuses on how the jurisdiction and the law applicable to environmental damage cases are determined in the European context. After briefly presenting the jurisdictional issues (art 5(3) of the Brussels Convention (Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [1986] OJ C 298/1, (consolidated version) [1998] OJ C 27/1); the Brussels I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, [2001] OJ L 12/1); and art 7(2) Brussels I Regulation (recast) (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), [2012] OJ L 351/1), it covers the most relevant features of national conflict of law rules existing in this sector before the application of the Rome II Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament an of the
2018
The European Commission purposely triggered a wide debate in the spring of 1993 when it issued its Green Paper on Repairing Damage to the Environment.1 The intensity of the discussions was heightened by the fact that the Green Paper's release occurred just a few days after a competing institution, the Council of Europe, adopted its Convention on Civil Liability Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment. 2 As a result of the adoption of the Convention, the European Union (EU) must make a decision: It must either adopt the Convention's principles or develop its own legislation. In any event, the EU must act soon or risk being labelled incapable of implementing its own policy, the "Fifth Environmental Action Program." Approved in 1992, this program expressly envisioned the extension of civil liability to all types of pollution as the ultimate instrument of Europe's environmental policy.'
Regulatory Strategies in Environmental Liability
2009
This paper analyses the possibilities of private law in remedying environmental damage. The preventive role of tort law is discussed as well as its relationship to regulation. Attention is also paid to the necessity to combine liability and regulation and to the environmental liability directive. Conditions for the insurability of environmental harm are discussed and attention is paid to alternative compensation mechanisms for environmental harm such as environmental damage insurance and compensation funds. Also, arguments in favour of harmonization of environmental liability are critically discussed.
Remedies and Remediation: Foundations Issues in Environmental Liability
The Modern Law Review, 1995
An emerging debate Issues of environmental 'liability', concerned principally with attribution of the costs of pollution, have begun to take a central role in discussions of environmental policy. But among the many questions raised, some of the most fundamental have received less emphasis than they deserve. One of these fundamental questions is the very meaning to be attached to the 'costs' of pollution. On this issue, the European Commission has focused on 'restoration' of the environment, and in doing so has understood the 'costs of pollution' to extend to the costs of remedying damage where this is considered appropriate. As such, the costs of environmental restoration are included within the range of costs which can be recovered through the mechanisms of civil liability. If this is the case, however, it is important to consider how (if at all) such restoration might be linked with the compensation function with which civil liability, including liability at common law, has generally been associated. The UK Government has taken a rather different, more cautious, approach both to restoration as an element in 'environmental costs,' and to the role of civil liability. A broader question can therefore be identified, concerning the connection between existing liability structures and the new interest in environmental restoration or (to use the term employed in relevant UK documents) 'remediation. ' Some of the differences between the EC and UK approaches in this respect are reflected in the subject-matter on which their policy-making discussions have recently focused. The European Commission has set out to take a broad approach to environmental damage: a Commission Green Paper on Remedying Environmental Damage was published in 1993,' which referred both to high profile single instances of accidental pollution (such as oil spillages) and to the more widespread problem of non-accidental activities, which cause gradual and pervasive pollution. The latter category includes damage caused by emissions *Lecturer in Law, University of Southampton. Much of the initial research for this article was carried out during a period spent as Visiting Scholar at the University of Toronto in Autumn 1994. My thanks are due to the Dean and the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto; and to the University of Southampton for making the visit possible. I would also like to thank Tim Jewel1 for his invaluable and unstintingly generous help. 1 COM(93) 47 final: referred to here as 'the Green Paper.'