Shrimp Turtle Case

 WON a state can claim an interest over the conservation of natural resources outside its
territory? (NO)
o Under Art. XX(g) the revised guidelines and as applied by the United States, as (i) it
related to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources as set out in Art. XX(g) and
(ii) it now met the conditions of the chapeau of Art. XX when applied in a manner that
no longer constituted a means of arbitrary discrimination. This was because the United
States had made serious, good faith efforts to negotiate an international agreement and
the new measure allowed “sufficient flexibility” by requiring that other Members'
programmes simply be “comparable in effectiveness” to the US programme, as opposed
to the previous standard that they be “essentially the same”. In this regard, the
Appellate Body rejected Malaysia's contention and agreed with the Panel that the
United States had only an obligation to make best efforts to negotiate an international
agreement regarding the protection of sea turtles, not an obligation to actually conclude
such an agreement because all that was required of the United States to avoid “arbitrary
or unjustifiable discrimination” under the chapeau was to provide all exporting
countries “similar opportunities to negotiate” an international agreement. The
Appellate Body noted that “so long as such comparable efforts are made, it is more
likely that 'arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination' will be avoided between countries
where an importing Member concludes an agreement with one group of countries, but
fails to do so with another group of countries”.
 WTO is a self-contained panel and does not normally consider IEL in the making its decisions.
Only in the preambular phrase of the WTO considers the environment in the resolution of cases
before it.

Mox plant case

 The precautionary principle is not applicable because Ireland failed to prove the irreparable
damage that could be caused with the operation of the Mox plant in UK (which recycles
plotuniom).

CASE CONCERNING LAND RECLAMATION BY SINGAPORE IN AND AROUND THE STRAITS OF JOHOR
(MALAYSIA v. SINGAPORE)

 Provides practices for international cooperation such as but not limited to the negotiation in
good faith.
 The precautionary principle is not applied because the party alleging the irreparable damage is
not proved.
Gabcokovo-Nagymaros Case

 Precisely what periods of time may be involved in the observance of the duties to consult and
negotiate, and what period of notice of termination should be given, are matters which
necessarily Vary according to the requirements of the particular case. In principle, therefore, it is
for the parties in each case to determine the length of those periods by consultation and
negotiation in good faith.
 A succession of States does not as such affect: (a) obligations relating to the use of any territory,
or to restrictions upon its use, established by a treaty for the benefit of a group of States or of
al1 States and considered as attaching to that territory; (h) rights established by a treaty for the
benefit of a group of States or of al1 States and relating to the use of any territory, or to
restrictions upon its use, and considered as attaching to that territory."
 In its Commentary on the Draft Articles on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, adopted at
its twenty-sixth session, the International Law Commission identified "treaties of a territorial
character" as having been regarded both in traditional doctrine and in modern opinion as
unaffected by a succession of States. The Court observes that Article 12, in providing only,
without reference to the treaty itself, that rights and obligations of a territorial character
established by a treaty are unaffected by a succession of States, appears to lend support to the
position of Hungary rather than of Slovakia. However the Court concludes that this formulation
was devised rather to take account of the fact that, in many cases, treaties which had
established boundaries or territorial régimes were no longer in force (ibid, pp. 26-37). Those
that remained in force would nonetheless bind a successor State.
 Throughout the ages, mankind has, for economic and other reasons, constantly interfered with
nature. In the past, this was often done without consideration of the effects upon the
environment. Owing to new scientific insights and to a growing awareness of the risks for
mankind - for present and future generations - of pursuit of such interventions at an
unconsidered and unabated pace, new norms and standards have been developed, set forth in a
great number of instruments during the last two decades. Such new norms have to be taken
into consideration, and such new standards given proper weight, not only when States
contemplate new activities but also when continuing with activities begun in the past. This need
to reconcile economic development with protection of the environment is aptly expressed in the
concept of sustainable development.

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

 The International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that there is no source of law,
customary or treaty, that explicitly prohibits the possession or even use of nuclear weapons. The
only requirement being that their use must be in conformity with the law on self-defence and
principles of international humanitarian law.
 In the application of weapons, the principle of proportionality must be considered.
 In the context of the ILH, the weapon must be able to determine combatant and non-
combatant.
  The technology must not inflict unnecessary harms unto its targets.
 The Court observes that the protection of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights
does not cease in times of war, except by operation of Article 4 of the Covenant whereby certain
provisions may be derogated from in a time of national emergency. Respect for the right to life
is not, however, such a provision. In principle, the right not arbitrarily to be deprived of one's life
applies also in hostilities. The test of what is an arbitrary deprivation of life, however, then falls
to be determined by the applicable lex specialis, namely, the law applicable in armed conflict
which is designed to regulate the conduct of hostilities. Thus whether a particular loss of life,
through the use of a certain weapon in warfare, is to be considered an arbitrary deprivation of
life contrary to Article 6 of the Covenant, can only be decided by reference to the law applicable
in armed conflict and not deduced from the terms of the Covenant itself (para 25).
 The Court recognizes that the environment is under daily threat and that the use of nuclear
weapons could constitute a catastrophe for the environment. The Court also recognizes that the
environment is not an abstraction but represents the living space, the quality of life and the very
health of human beings, including generations unborn. The existence of the general obligation
of States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control respect the environment
of other States or of areas beyond national control is now part of the corpus of international law
relating to the environment. (para 29)

Pulp Mill Case

 In the view of the Court, the obligation to inform CARU allows for the initiation of co-operation
between the Parties which is necessary in order to fulfil the obligation of prevention. This first
procedural stage results in the 1975 Statute not being applied to activities which would appear
to cause damage only to the State in whose territory they are carried out.
 In the field of environmental protection, vigilance and prevention are required on account of the
often irreversible character of damage to the environment and of the limitations inherent in the
very mechanism of reparation of this type of damage”
 Due diligence does not only involve in the adaption of the preventive law but also the its
enforcement.
 In this sense, the obligation to protect and preserve, under Article 41 (a) of the Statute, has to
be interpreted in accordance with a practice, which in recent years has gained so much
acceptance among States that it may now be considered a requirement under general
international law to undertake an environmental impact assessment where there is a risk that
the proposed industrial activity may have a significant adverse impact in a transboundary
context, in particular, on a shared resource. Moreover, due diligence, and the duty of vigilance
and prevention which it implies, would not be considered to have been exercised, if a party
planning works liable to affect the régime of the river or the quality of its waters did not
undertake an environmental impact assessment on the potential effects of such works. (para
204)
 The Court is of the view that no legal obligation to consult the affected populations arises for the
Parties from the instruments invoked by Argentina. (para 216)
