Trail smelter arbitration case pdf

Trail smelter arbitration case pdf
2 Trail Smelter Arbitration| (United States v. Canada) , 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (includes Convention for Settlement of Difficulties Arising from Operation of Smelter at Trail , …
17 For background see Kuhn, “The Trail Smelter Arbitration – United States and Canada” (1938) 32 American Journal ofInternational Law 785; Bleicher, “An over­ view ofinternational environmental regulation” (1972) 2 Ecology Law Quarterly 19.
Smelter principles.5 This chapter explores one of the arbitration’s least considered facets – – the decisional process itself. Hampered by a lack of scientific evidence, the Trail
This Tribunal is constituted under, and its powers are derived from and limited by, the Convention between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada signed at Ottawa, April 15, 1935, duly ratified by the two parties, and ratifications exchanged at Ottawa, August 3, 1935 (hereinafter termed “the Convention”).
An early case was the Trail Smelter Arbitration5 of 1938 between the United States and Canada, concerning the pollution of the Columbia River by sulphides; on the
In 1935 a Canadian based corporation (defendant) owned a smelter plant which emitted hazardous fumes (sulfur dioxide) that caused damage to plant life, forest trees, soil, and crop yields accross the border in Washington State in the United States (plaintiff). The United States took Canada to court. The same year a Convention established an
The first international case supportive of one state’s claim against another contiguous state for environmental damage, was the 1941, Trail Smelter Arbital Decision (Bratspies & Miller, 2006
The Trail Smelter case came up with the issue of “duty” of states to “prevent transboundary harm” and invoking the “polluter pays” principle. Firstly we move on to the ‘Transboundary Harm’ issue. ‘Transboundary Harm proceeds in three parts. Part One examines the historical foundations of the case, its influence on international environmental law, and the smelter’s
In the 1930s, a privately owned smelting plant in Trail, Canada was the focus of the most famous case in international environmental law: the Trail Smelter Arbitration. But the subject of that landmark case has not gone away. Over the last seventy years, the Trail smelter dumped millions of tons of mercury, arsenic, and toxic waste into the Columbia River. The dumping’s effects have been felt
TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION CASE( UNITED STATES VS CANADA) 1941, U.N. Rep. Int’L Arb. AWARDS 1905 (1949) INTRODUCTION:- The Trail Smelter Case1 arose in the field of late…

In 1995 the Trail Smelter Arbitration case was brought before the ICSID Arbitral Tribunal. The choice of The choice of arbitration for the settlement of a dispute between a state and …
Alison Caless 5 several case law, such as the Island of Palmas case and Trial Smelter case, as well as in treaty practice, that territorial sovereignty includes the obligation to protect the rights of
Trail Smelter Arbitration. 3. and has been repeatedly embodied in later treaties, conventions, and international decisions. The United States brought an action against Canada for sulfur dioxide emissions produced by a smelter in Trail, British Columbia, which damaged private timber and agricultural property in Washington State. The International Joint Commission, established by the Boundary
Proposed outline for Trail Smelter dispute Section One Historical context for dispute This section will provide background information about the smelter’s history, the importance of the smelter to the town of Trail in terms of number of families employed, businesses reliant on the smelter …
The Trail Smelter arbitration arose as a result of smoke and fumes emitted by a smelter owned and operated by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada in Trail, B.C. and causing damage in the state of Washington.
In 1935 a Canadian based corporation (defendant) owned a smelter plant which emitted hazardous fumes (sulfur dioxide) that caused damage to plant life, forest trees, soil, and crop yields accross the border in Washington State in the United States (plaintiff).
1. Trail Smelter Arbitration Case – Download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online. case digest
arbitration case, primarily state-to-state, but also including commercial disputes with geopolitical dimensions. Each chapter will be written by a different author; all with a strong background in international law and arbitration. The intention is that the articles should convey to the reader not only the legal basis of the case but also a sense of the atmosphere and specifics surrounding the

Water and international law science and evidence in




The Globalisation and Harmonisation of Environmental Law

of international environmental disputes, problems of jurisdiction, and the major treaties, protocols, or other agreements that provide authority to use arbitration for environmental disputes.
known as the Trail Smelter Arbitration, became a landmark decision in international environmental law. 2 In that case, a specially appointed arbitral I Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v.
The Trail smelter was “one of the best and largest equipped smelting plants on this continent” (Trail Smelter Arbitration, 1938). The town of Trail was booming as populations rose. As a result there was an animosity between Northport and Trail that originated in the contrasting and uneven economic development occurring on either side of the boundary line.
Abstract. After critical analysis of the leading international reference case, the 1941 US-Canadian Trail Smelter Arbitration, an alternative legal approach to transfrontier air pollution problems is outlined and illustrated by recent European experience.
Trail Smelter arbitration The Trail Smelter arbitration of 1938 and 1941 was a landmark decision about a dispute over environmental degradation between the United States and Canada. This was the first decision to recognize international liability for damages caused to another nation, even when no existing treaty created an obligation to
Using the Trail Smelter arbitration, one of the most cited cases in international environmental law, this book explores the changing nature of state responses to transboundary harm. Taking a critical approach, the book examines the arbitration’s influence on international law generally and international environ-mental law specifically. In particular, the book explores whether there are
TRANSBOUNDARY HARM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW LESSONS FROM THE TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION Download Transboundary Harm In International Law Lessons From The Trail Smelter Arbitration ebook PDF or Read Online books in PDF, EPUB, and Mobi Format.
Trail smelter arbitration Trail Smelter in 1929 This case, known commonly as the “Trail smelter arbitration”, is a landmark in environmental law, as it helped to establish the “polluter pays” principle for transnational pollution issues. Manhattan Project.


manfred lachs space law moot court competition 2015 team no. 3 in the international court of justice at the peace palace, the hague case concerning planetary defense
A summary and case brief of Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada), including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents. Canada), including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents.
State Responsibility and the Development of Int’l Environmental Law Case: The Trail Smelter Case (1905, UN) Summary: There was a smelter in Canada, and US alleged that…


The1941Trail Smelter dispute began with the transboundary pollution caused by a smelter in Canada that affected the U.S. state of Washington. An international tribunal found that Canada had a duty to prevent damage to the United States that emanated from within Canadian borders. The Trail Smelter case outlined principles of preventing
Using the Trail Smelter Arbitration, one of the most cited cases in international environmental law, this book explores the changing nature of state responses to transboundary harm. Taking a critical approach, the book examines the arbitration’s influence on international law generally, and international environmental law specifically. In particular, the book explores whether there are lessons
Following on from the Trail Smelter Arbitration, the obligation to cause no harm to other territories was enshrined in the Stockholm Declaration 1972 (Principle 21) and the Rio Declaration 1992 (Principle 2).
(United States v. Canada) ( 1938 and 1941 ) 3 R.I.A.A. 1905. As a result of smelting operations of a Canadian company at Trail, in British Columbia, Canada, sulphur dioxide
THE TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION CASE( UNITED STATES VS CANADA) 1941, U.N. Rep. Int’L Arb. AWARDS 1905 (1949) INTRODUCTION:-The Trail Smelter Case1 arose in the field of late 1950’s and came up with the issue of International Environmental Law.
Trail Smelter Arbitration (US v. Canada) International decisions, in various matters, from the Alabama case onward, and also earlier ones, are based on the same general principle, and, indeed, this principle, as such, has not been questioned by Canada. But the
Trail Smelter arbitration and etched the name of this tiny Canadian town into the annals of international law. 1 Nestled in an alcove along the shores of the remote but majestic Columbia River, Trail seems an unlikely setting for a case
Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada) Brief Fact Summary. The United States (P) sought damages from Canada by suing them to court and also prayed …



UNCITRAL Arbitration Proceedings Quantum proceedings

Arbitration International, Volume 20, Issue 4, 1 December 2004, The Trail Smelter case 24 concerned liability for toxic fumes released by a smelting factory in British Columbia across the border into Washington State. The tribunal found not only that Canada was liable for the damage inflicted upon US territory but also that ‘the Trail Smelter shall refrain from causing damage in the
The question of state responsibility and liability for nuclear damage raises specific questions which must be examined in the general framework of international legal rules related to …
This arbitration concerned the use of the waters of Lake Lanoux, in the Pyrenees. The French Government proposed to carry out certain works for the utilization of the waters of the lake and the Spanish Government feared that these works would adversely affect Spanish rights and interests, contrary to the Treaty of Bayonne of May 26, 1866
the Trail Smelter case tend to outshine the procedural ones, to underestimate the worth of the procedural issues in the Trail Smelter dispute would be a mistake. The unique nature of the procedural resolution to the Trail Smelter dispute raises the issue of how a similar dispute would
TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION CASE( UNITED STATES VS CANADA) 1941, U.N. Rep. Int’L Arb. AWARDS 1905 (1949) INTRODUCTION:The Trail Smelter Case1 arose in the field of late 1950’s and came up with the issue of
The customary law duty to prevent significant transboundary harm and harm to the global commons (‘no-harm’ rule) has developed considerably since it was first enunciated in the 1938/1941 Trail Smelter arbitration. This article reflects on this development and analyses what implications the 2015 Certain Activities case has for existing
States.4 The arbitral tribunal in that case determined that the government of Canada had to pay compensation for damage that the smelter had caused, primarily, to land along the Columbia River valley in the US.It found that “under the principles of international law, as well as of the law of the
Trail Smelter Arbitration Case Digest – Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free.

Rereading Trail Smelter * Canadian Yearbook of

Trail Smelter arbitration speaks almost directly to this debate and offers an a lternative path, a (semi)prec autionary hy brid between risk assessment and precautionary approaches.
Whether damage caused by the Trail Smelter in the State of Washington has occurred since the first day of January, 1932, and, if so, what indemnity should be paid? In the event of the answer to the first part of the preceding question being is positive, to what extent should there be compensation?
The Trail Smelter tribunal primarily relied on cases in the United States Supreme Court between states of the American union, which precedents the tribunal believed might “legitimately be taken as a guide in
Smelter Arbitration, where a key question was whether any causal link existed between fumes emitted from the zinc smelter at Trail in British Columbia and damage to forests and farmland across the border in Washington State.

Legal Submission to the Maastricht Panel of Arbitration


SSRN-Trail Smelter Deja Vu Extraterritoriality



U.S.A./CANADA (TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION) 1909 pleted, each Agent shall present in the manner prescribed by paragraphs 1 and 2 an answer to the statement of the- …
The Trail Smelter Tribunal navigated this clash of sovereignties by articulating what have come to be known as the Trail Smelter principles: (1) the state has a duty to prevent transboundary harm, and (2) the “polluter pays” principle, which holds that the polluting state should pay compensation for the transboundary harm it has caused.
jurisdiction, and in case of lack of jurisdiction or failure to agree, as also in a case where the persons concerned will not accept the decision given, then recourse shall be had to the higher administrative authority of the Department and the Province.
–Trail Smelter Arbitration Us v. Canada (1941) The Case Concerning Gabicikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v.Slovakia) ICJ, 1997 . Sovereignty over Natural Resources • Principle 21 –“States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies
The roots of the obligation not to cause environmental harm are found in the Trail Smelter Arbitration , a dispute involving transboundary pollution from Canada into the United States in the 1920s and 1930s.

Trail Smelter’s ResearchGate


‘No-harm rule’ and climate change legalresponse.org

The Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States/Canada) would undoubtedly be characterised as a landmark case, particularly if the principal criterion for such status is …
The most famous case about transboundary pollution in public international law is known as Trail Smelter. 1 The case concerns a Canadian lead-zinc smelter in Trail, British Columbia, close to the US border with the State of Washington, causing environmental damage in the latter as a result of air pollution. Arbitration at the interstate level took place and the principles of international law
832 ISLAND OF PALMAS CASE (NETHERLANDs/u.S.A.) differences to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of one arbitrator.
The Trail Smelter Case. THE TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION CASE( UNITED STATES VS CANADA) 1941, U.N. Rep. Int’L Arb. AWARDS 1905 (1949) INTRODUCTION:The Trail Smelter Case1 arose in the field of late 1950’s and came up with the issue of
In a similarly broad fashion, the arbitrators in the Trail Smelter Case stated That the sanctity of res judicata attaches to a final decision of an international tribunal is an …
1 The Trail Smelter Arbitration is generally associated with the ad hoc arbitration implemented by the governments of the US and Canada in 1935 to settle a dispute over air pollution emanating from a Canadian smelter—located in Trail, British Columbia—that harmed agricultural and timber interests across the border in the US, in Stevens County, Washington ( Air Pollution, Transboundary
GLOBALISATION AND HARMONISATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 5 Protocol is an example of such a vague term; it defines ‗forest‘ as an area of more than 0.5–1.0 hectares with a minimum tree crown cover of 10 to 30 per
The resultant effect of from the sulfur dioxide from Trail Smelter resulted in the damage of the state of Washington between 1925 and 1937. This led to the United States (P) suit against the Canada (D) with an injunction against further air pollution by Trail Smelter.

The Trail Smelter Case Lawsuit Pleading

Canada) and the US were less peaceful.1 Likewise, the foundational case for contemporary international environmental law, the Trail Smelter Arbitration , 2 involved aspects of the Canada/US transboundary relationship with respect to the
the precedent value of the Trail Smelter Arbitration for other international pollution disputes is very limited, and even its above-quoted statement of what reads like a universal principle of international law has been dismissed
Specifically, the case, along with the 1930s arbitration from the Trail Smelter dispute and the subsequent ICJ case involving Barcelona Traction, articulated basic principles used extensively in subsequent cases and conventions dealing with the environment.
The Trail Smelter Arbitration United States v. Canada Ionathan Gusmini Shinhyeong You Canada Ionathan Gusmini Shinhyeong You Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising.
The Trail Smelter dispute was a trans-boundary pollution case involving the federal governments of both Canada and the United States, which eventually contributed to establishing the Harm principle in the environmental law of transboundary pollution.



Arbitation of Environmental Dispute that Cross National

After the Fall An Analysis of Canadian Legal Claims Bryan

VANDYKE MACRO 3/10/2008 34521 PM


Transboundary Harm in International Law Lessons from the

introduction Assets – Cambridge University Press