1. INTRODUCTION
One of the most cited and fundamental cases for international
environmental law started as a local issue regarding two small
towns and one smelting plant. Northport is a town in Stevens
County in Washington, United States. Trail is a town in British
Columbia, Canada approximately twenty miles north of Northport
across the border.
The Trail smelter dispute illustrates the ever present battle of big
business vs. the working man and corporate power vs. grassroots
organization. It pits environmental protection against economic
profits.
Perhaps most importantly it challenged legislators to figure out
how to achieve sovereignty among two nations, one of which
requested their right to pollute for the purpose of economic
development, the other defending its right not to be harmed by a
foreign nation.
THE TRAIL SMELTER CASE
[US VS. CANADA]
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
The United States took Canada to court for violating their
sovereignty as a nation and the resulting decision of the court
established fundamental principles for international environmental
law.
During the early 20th century a Canadian smelter company was
operating in Trail, British Columbia along the Columbia River
which flows from Canada across the border to Washington State in
the United States of America.
Here a rural community of farmers existed who claimed damages
from the waste emitted by the smelter. The Canadian company
that smelted zinc and lead was emitting sulfur dioxide which
caused injury to plant life, forest trees, soil, and crop yields in
Washington State.
The United States charged Canada for these injuries and the case
was referred to the International Joint Commission, a bilateral
tribunal that oversees issues regarding the two countries.
3. ISSUE OF THE CASE
ISSUE:
Is it the responsibility of the State to protect to
other states against harmful acts by individuals
from within its jurisdiction at all times?
Yes. It is the responsibility of the State to
protect other states against harmful act by
individuals from within its jurisdiction at all times.
No state has the right to use or permit the use of
the territory in a manner as to cause injury by
fumes in or to the territory of another or the
properties or persons therein as stipulated under
the United States laws and the principles of
international law.
4. RULE OF LAW
There is an International obligation not to cause trans -
boundary environmental injuries.
States may be enjoined to take measures to prevent the
repetition of environmental injuries for which they would be
responsible.
The Trial Smelter Arbitration has certain difficulties in being
treated as a precedent for a “no harm” rule or a rule of strict
liability [as an accurate statement of International law]
US Supreme court has said that states have the right to use
resources how it wants, but has to stop when it starts to
infringing the rights of others states to use their environment.
5. APPLICATION OF LEGALITY
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
Article 6
Article 7
Article 8
Article 9
Article 10
Article 11
Article 12
Article 13
Article 14
After having communicated with each other their full powers,
found in good and due form ,they agreed upon the following
articles . It shall be discussed elaborately:
6. CONCLUSION
1]In this case Canada was held liable to the United states for the damages and injuries done
by fumes carried by the winds from a privately owned company of the Smelter in Canada and
was required to prevent such damages in future . The Smelter shall pay US $78,000 for
compensation.
2]The tribunal found it unnecessary to decide whether the question should be answered on
the basis of United States Law or the International Law, since the law followed between the
states of the United states in the manner of air pollution, is in conformity with the general
rules of International Law.
MEMBERS OF GROUP 1
PRESENTERS:
Jayasurya
Keerthana
Jayasalini
Keshav Priya
G.Jeyashree
Jegan Kumar
MONITORS:
Joshikha
Kaviya
D.Jayasree
RESEARCHERS:
Jayaprakash
Karthick Raja
Jetlin Kala
Kanimozhi
Kavitha
Jannath
SLIDE:
Janani