 wastes prohibited by the 1972 London Convention74 is liable whether the existence of damage has been proven or not. It is also irrelevant whether there is another state that pretends to be the victim.
Another consequence of this approach is that international "commons," such as the high seas or outer space, can be better protected. In the present state of international law, no state could file a claim for damage that was suffered not by itself but only by the high seas, or for the pollution of outer space. The recognition of international liability for the violation of a treaty provision allows such an action.
Thus, international liability stresses the public-law character of international law, instead of the still dominating civil-law concepts. Would it be possible to imagine that in the field of the protection of human rights a state would be liable only if there is material damage caused to a person? A parallel evolution of our conceptions in other fields must necessarily follow. This directly leads to the implications of global change for the structures of the international legal order.
Contents - Previous - Next