We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
The present article deals with the fate of the 1976 Chlorides and Chemical Pollutants Conventions concluded by the riparian states of the Rhine and in the case of the latter Convention also by the EEC. It further analyzes the decision of 8 January 1979 taken by the District Court of Rotterdam in the case of certain Dutch horticulturists and the Dutch Stichting ‘Reinwater’ against the French Mines Domaniales de Potasse d'Alsace.
The author pleads that the Dutch Government institute proceedings against France before the I.C.J. considering the fact that the French Government refused to ratify the 1976 Chlorides Convention and the fact that the proceedings at present taking place before the Dutch Courts will not lead to a diminuition of the salt-load of the Rhine.
1. Luxembourg is connected with the Rhine through the Moselle. When we speak hereinafter of ‘the riparian states of the Rhine’ Luxembourg will be included unless the contrary is indicated.
2. In: 16 ILM p. 265. also in: Trb. (Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden) 1977, no. 33.Google Scholar
3. 16 ILM p. 242, also in Trb. 1977, no. 32.
4. Trb. 1977, no. 31.
5. Trb. 1963, no. 104.
6. In: Doc IV/670/72/E of the EEC Commission or 8 ILM p. 229 (unofficial English text). See also Trb. 1969, no. 101 (official French and Dutch texts).
7. In: Reports of Cases before the Court 1976, 8 (Case 21/76); also in Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1977, no. 494 pp. 1637–1641.Google Scholar
8. Decision of 12 May 1975, Handelskwekerij G.J. Bier B.V. and the Stichting ‘Reinwater’ v. Mines de Potasse d'Alsace S.A. See for a summary of the case 7 NYIL (1976) pp. 344–345 and with a note by Verheul, J.P. 22 NILR pp. 203–206.Google Scholar
9. Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1979, no. 113 pp. 313–320.Google Scholar Handelskwekerij G.J. Bier and Stichting ‘Reinwater’ v. Mines de Potasse d'Alsace was joined with a second case, to wit: Handelskwekerij Firma Gebr. Strik B.V. and Handelskwekerij Jac Valstar B.V. v. Mines de Potasse d'Alsace S.A.
10. See pp. 78–81, 83 et seq. of author's article cited supra p. 172.
11. Supra n. 2.
12. Art. 2.
13. Art. 7. The cost of the injection of the first 20 kg/sec chloride ions was 132 million French francs.
14. See Annex II for figures about the national contributions to the salt load of the Rhine.
15. See p. 85 of author's article cited supra p. 172 and also the statements made by the Dutch Minister of Transport and Water Management report in NRC Handehblad of 4 12 1976 p. 11.Google Scholar
16. Art. 2(3).
17. Art. 7(3).
18. Art. 6.
19. Art. 3.
20. See Verhandlungen des Deutschen Bundestages, 8th election period, 16th session, 3 03 1977 p. 889.Google Scholar
21. See NRC Handehblad of 12 02 1977 p. 11Google Scholar; ibidem of 1 June 1977 p. 11; ibidem of 4 June 1977, Supplement p. 2.
23. Probably under Art. 9 of the 1958 Agreement between Czechoslovakia and Poland concerning the use of water resources in frontier waters, in: 538 UNTS p. 89.
24. The Polish Committee for the Protection on Human Environment, Water Economy Research Institute, Polish Experience concerning Protection of Waters against Salinity, Warsaw, 1971 pp. 1, 2, 7, 17.Google Scholar
25. Verhandlungen des Deutschen Bundestages, 7th election period, 56th session of 17 10 1973 p. 3242.Google Scholar
26. In: 12 ILM p. 16.
27. Art. 7 of the Treaty jo Art. II para. 9 of the Supplementary Protocol.
28. Verhandlungen des Deutschen Bundestages, 8th election period, 1979Google Scholar, printed doc. no. 8/3080.
29. See with regard to the Colorado river salinity controversy Hundley, N., Dividing the Waters, A Century of Controversy between the U.S. and Mexico (Berkeley/Los Angeles- Univ. of Cal. Press, 1966), pp. 172–188Google Scholar; idem“The Colorado Waters Dispute”, in: 42 Foreign Affairs, p. 494 et seq. (1964)Google Scholar; Piper, D.C., “A Justiciable Controversy concerning Water Rights”, in: 56 AJIL (1962) pp. 1019–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. 3 UNTS p. 314.
31. 776 UNTSp. 116.
32. TIAS no. 7404.
33. 12 ILM p. 1105.
34. Cf., Art. 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in: 8 ILM p. 679.Google Scholar
35. See supra p. 175.
36. Trb. 1977, no. 34.
37. Writers who maintain that pollution of the waters of international watercourses is not permitted when this causes substantial harm to other states or people or property therein but do not further indicate when the harm is to be considered substantial nor add any other conditions are, e.g., Schultess, K., Das internationale Wasserrecht (Zürich/Leipzig: Rascher, 1916) pp. 45–46Google Scholar; Thalmann, H., Grundprinzipien des modernen zwischenstaatlichen Nachbarrechts, pp. 151–152Google Scholar; de Aréchaga, E. Jiménez, “International legal rules governing uses of waters from international watercourses”, in: 2 Inter-American Law Review (1960) p. 332Google Scholar; Wengler, W., Völkerrecht, Band II (Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 1964) pp. 1000–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar; de Bystricky, R., “La pollution des eaux de surface du point de vue international”, in: 13 Revue Droit Contemporain (1966) pp. 74–77Google Scholar; and van Hoogstraten, S. and Lammers, J.G., Volkenrechtelijke en nationaalrechtelijke aspecten van grensoverschrijdende vervuiling, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht no. 77a (1978) p. 13.Google Scholar
Despax, , La pollution des eaux et ses problèmes juridiques, XVIGoogle ScholarAnnales de La Faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de Toulouse (Paris, Librairies Techniques, 1968) p. 154Google Scholar, denies the need to take the interests of the interfering state into account in the determination of the substantiality of the harm or interference.
Other writers are prepared to take to a limited extent the interests of the polluting state into account in the determination of the admissibility of the use causing the pollution, e.g., Dintelmann, K., Die Verunreinigung internationaler Binnengewässer insbesondere in West Europa aus der Sicht des Völkerrechts (Köln/Berlin/Bonn/München: C. Heymann Verlag, 1965) p. 117Google Scholar et seq.; van Panhuys, H.F., “Rijnvervuiling en het volkenrecht”, in: Waterschapsbelangen of 12 01 1972 pp. 6, 7, 9Google Scholar; see also the second part of this article in: Waterschapsbelangen of 26 01 1972 pp. 26–28Google Scholar; Wildhaber, L., “Die Öldestillerieanlage Sennwald und das Völkerrecht der grenzüberschreitenden Luftverschmutzung”, in: 31 Annuaire suisse de droit international (1975) pp. 102, 119.Google Scholar
Reference must further be made to the arbitral decision in the Trail Smelter Affaire, 3 RIAA p. 1965; Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment in: UN Doc A/CONF. 48/14; G.A. Resolutions nos. 2994, 2995, 2996 and OECD Recommendation C (1974) 224 on Principles concerning Transfrontier Pollution, Title B.
38. See pp. 102–103 of author's article cited supra p. 172.
39. ICJ Yearbook 1973–1974 p. 49.Google Scholar
40. Staatsblad 1930, no. 215. The Netherlands and France are further both party to the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 26 September 1928, in: Staatsblad 1930, no. 378; see also Trb. 1966, no. 239.
41. See Arts. 1 to 6. The reference in the Treaty to the Permanent Court of International Justice does not constitute a problem as Art. 37 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that “whenever a treaty or convention in force provides for reference of a matter to … the Permanent Court of International Justice, the matter shall as between the parties to the present Statute, be referred to the International Court of Justice”.
42. See the Annex II referred to in n. 14 supra.
43. See infra p. 185.
44. See infra p. 186.
45. See also the decision of the US Supreme Court in State of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company and Ducktown Sulphur, Copper and Iron Company (Limited) involving a case of interstate air pollution in which the Court stressed that Georgia “in its capacity of a quasi-sovereign” had “an interest independent of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its domain” (206 US 230, 237 (1907)).Google Scholar
46. See on this question of the necessity of exhausting local remedies van Hoogstraten, S. and Lammers, J.G., op. cit., supra n. 37 pp. 24–27.Google Scholar
47. See supra n. 3.
48. See for these Annex I and II substances infra p. 184.
49. Art. 1.
50. Art. 5(1).
51. Art. 3(1), (2) and (4).
52. Art. 3(3).
53. Art. 5(3).
54. Art. 6.
55. Ibidem.
56. Art. 2.
57. Art. 7(2).
58. These “families” or “groups” are: (1) organohologenic compounds and substances that can give rise to such compounds, (2) organophosphoric compounds, (3) organostannic compounds, (4) substances proven to be carcinogenic, (5) mercury and mercury compounds, (6) cadmium and cadmium compounds, and (7) persistent mineral oils and persistent petroleum hydrocarbons.
59. See NRC Handelsblad of 28 06 1978 p. 15Google Scholar and ibidem of 11 June 1980 p. 3.
60. These additional “families” or “groups” include (1) about 20 metalloids and metals with their compounds, (2) biocides and their derivatives not appearing in Annex I, (3) substances having a detrimental effect on the taste and/or smell of products for human consumption derived from the water medium, (4) toxic or persistent organosilicon compounds, (5) inorganic phosphorus and elementary phosphorous compounds, (6) non-persistent mineral oils and non-persistent petroleum hydrocarbons, (7) cyanides, (8) fluorides, (9) substances exercising an unfavourable influence on the oxygen balance, particulary ammonia and nitrites.
61. This in implementation of the EEC Council Directive of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community in: OJ (Official Journal of the European Communities) L 129 of 18 05 1976Google Scholar, also in: 15 ILM p. 1113.
62. OJ C 169 of 6 July 1979.
63. OJ C 146 of 12 June 1979.
64. OJ L 194 of 25 July 1975.
65. OJ L 31 of 5 February 1976.
66. OJ L 222 of 14 August 1978.
67. See pp. 81–82, 88–89 of this author's article cited supra p. 172.
68. See, e.g., Verhandlungen des Deutschen Bundestages, 7th election period, printed doc. no. 7/893; ibidem 7th election period, printed doc. no. 7/3871 p. 33 et seq.; ibidem 8th election period, 16th session, 3 March 1977 p. 907; and ibidem 8th election period, 189th session, 29 November 1979 pp. 14879–14882.
69. See supra n. 8.
70. See supra n. 7.
71. See supra n. 9.
72. The District Court did not mention other possible bases for instituting such proceedings, see supra p. 180.
73. See on this application, e.g., Brinkhorst, L.J. and Lammers, J.G., “The Impact of International Law, including European Community Law on the Netherlands' Legal Order”, in: Introduction to Dutch Law for Foreign Lawyers, Chorus, Fokkema, Hondius, and Lisser, , eds. (Deventer: Kluwer, 1978) pp. 561–584.Google Scholar
74. Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law (published in 1927, reprinted Weesp: Archon Books, 1970) p. 71.Google Scholar
75. 3 RIAA pp. 1911–1937 and 1938–1981.
76. In particular the Tribunal's well-known statement ibidem p. 1965: “(T)hat under the principles of international law, as well as of the law of the United States, no state has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious consequence and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence”.
77. In: Oppenheim, , International Law, Vol. I, 8th ed., 1955Google Scholar, revised by Lauterpacht, pp. 346–347.Google Scholar
78. PCIJ Series A no. 17 p. 29.Google Scholar
79. It is, of course, possible that the courts would not apply the international agreement because it lacked direct effect in the Dutch legal order. In that case international responsibility would, however, arise for the Netherlands as the agreement was not properly executed.
80. As is done by the German courts; see Kegel, G., Internationales Privatrecht, 3rd ed. (München: Beck, 1971) pp. 265–268.Google Scholar
81. As is done by English and Canadian courts when the instance of transfrontier environmental interference is considered as a foreign tort. See Phillips, v. Eyre, (1870), L.R. 6 Q.B. 1Google Scholar, and Boys v. Chaplin (1971) A.C. 356. See on those cases also Cheshire, and North, , Private International Law, 10th ed. (London: Butterworths, 1979) p. 263 et seq.Google Scholar
82. See supra p. 178.
83. See supra n. 37.
84. The District Court appointed as experts: W.B. van der Molen, professor of agro-hydrology at the agricultural university of Wageningen, the Netherlands; A. Ruellan, professor-director of the Laboratoire de Sciences du Sol, Ecole nationale supérieure agronomique de Rennes, France; and A. van der Beken, professor of hydrology of the Free University of Brussels, Belgium.
85. See supra n. 6.
86. Art. 34.
87. Arts. 34(2) jo 27(1).
88. See NRC Handelsblad of 26 10 1977 p. 1Google Scholar; 36. Bericht der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Rheinwasserwerke E.V., Physikalisch-chemische Untersuchungen pp. 10–30Google Scholar; Rijncommissie Waterleidingbedrijven, Jaarverslag '79, Deel A: de Rijn pp. 30–38.Google Scholar
