State liability for international environmental degradation: an economic perspective
No clear trend is emerging in how liability is assigned in cases of transfrontier pollution, but there are four identifiable political and economic principles that are used: (1) nations are held responsible for the internal and external costs of waste-discharge control, but not for the remaining damages once controls are agreed upon; (2) states pay the remaining as well as the control costs; (3) the affected state or victim pays (VP) the polluter for the cost of controls; and (4) an autonomous international agency regulates common property resources (CPRs). The full-costing (FC) principle seems to be efficient in bilateral and multilateral cases if there is a viable mechanism for identifying who pays the costs and for setting the penalties. A special international environmental insurance fund is reasonable in the case of CPRs. An international agency to hasten the flow of information and negotiations can resolve many of the conflicting interests in VP cases. Whichever principles are followed, states should reconcile their internal and external principles. 20 references. (DCK)
- OSTI ID:
- 6715882
- Journal Information:
- Nat. Resour. J.; (United States), Vol. 20:3
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Unilateral transfrontier pollution: the role of economic interdependence
Supporting the President's Arms Control and Nonproliferation Agenda: Transparency and Verification for Nuclear Arms Reductions