Piercing the state veil in pursuit of environmental justice

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511576027.015

14 - Piercing the state veil in pursuit of environmental justice

from Part III - State sovereignty and state borders

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2009

Jonas Ebbesson

Edited by

Jonas Ebbesson and

Phoebe Okowa

Show author details

Jonas Ebbesson: Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Phoebe Okowa: Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Environmental law and justice across state borders

State borders do not mark out correctly who is concerned by decisions, acts and omissions – whether by public authorities or private entities – that affect health and the environment. Nor do state borders adequately define how far pursuits for justice should go in such cases. Rather, basic legal conceptions of state sovereignty and responsibility, jurisdiction and civil liability are challenged by transboundary effects on health and the environment and by transboundary corporate structures; and these features trigger particular concerns of procedural, distributive and corrective justice across state borders.

Situations of transboundary effects on health and the environment range from local settings, where only two neighbouring countries are involved, to global contexts; and they pertain to pollution, use of natural resources, stress on ecosystems, and trade in hazardous goods and wastes. These transboundary features reflect the current paradigm of international environmental law, which is primarily focused on inter-state concerns. Yet, as I will argue, it is not sufficient to consider these cases as inter-state only. From a justice viewpoint, it should be considered which interests are taken into account and who is capable of participating in decision-making and challenging decisions concerning activities with transboundary impact. Are they the interests only of those persons in the state of the activity or also those affected across state borders? And in which state, that of the activity or that of the harm, should justice be pursued?

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Environmental Law and Justice in Context , pp. 270 - 294

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576027.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akehurst, M., 1972–3. ‘Jurisdiction in International Law’. 46 British Yearbook of International Law145.Google Scholar

Antunes, J. E., 1994. Liability of Corporate Groups. Deventer and Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Boyle, A. E., 2006. ‘Globalising Environmental Liability: The Interplay of National and International Law’, in Winter, G. (ed.), Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 559.CrossRef Google Scholar

Briggs, A., 2002. The Choice of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cohen, J., 2005. ‘Whose Sovereignty?: Empire versus International Law’, in Barry, C. and Pogge, T. (eds.), Global Institutions and Responsibilities: Achieving Global Justice. Malden: Blackwell, 159.Google Scholar

Crook, J. R., 2005. ‘Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law (Tentative Settlement of ACTA Human Rights Suits Against Unocal)’. 99 American Journal of International Law497.Google Scholar

Ebbesson, J., 1998. ‘The Notion of Public Participation in International Environmental Law’. 8 Yearbook of International Environmental Law (1997) 51.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ebbesson, J., 2002. ‘Comparative Introduction’, in Ebbesson, J. (ed.), Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in the EU – Accès à la justice en matière d'environnement dans l'UE. The Hague, London and New York: Kluwer Law International, 1.Google Scholar

Ebbesson, J., 2003. Den nordiska miljöskyddskonventionens relevans och framtid [The Relevance and Future of the Nordic Environment Protection Convention], TemaNord 2003:522. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar

Ebbesson, J., 2006. ‘Transboundary Corporate Responsibility in Environmental Matters: Fragments and Foundations for a Future Framework’, in Winter, G. (ed.), Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change: Perspectives from Science, Sociology and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ebbesson, J., 2007. ‘Public Participation’, in Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. and Hey, E. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 681.Google Scholar

Fraser, N., 2005. ‘Reframing Justice in a Globalized World’. 36 (November–December) New Left Review69.Google Scholar

Habermas, J., 1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J., 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J., 2001. The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Hey, E., 2000. Reflections on an International Environmental Court. The Hague: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Koester, V., 2005. ‘Review of Compliance under the Aarhus Convention: A Rather Unique Compliance Mechanism’. 2 Journal of European Environmental and Planning Law31.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lowe, V., 2006. ‘Jurisdiction’, in Evans, M. (ed.), International Law, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 335.Google Scholar

Malanczuk, P., 1997/2002. Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th edn, London: Routledge.Google Scholar

McLachlan, C., and Nygh, P. (eds.), 1996. Transnational Tort Litigation: Jurisdictional Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moreno, A.-M., 2006–7. ‘Miljöskador och transnationella företag: olyckan i Aznalcóllar och dess svenska anknytning’ [Environmental Damage and Transnational Corporations: The Accident in Aznalcóllar and Its Swedish Connection]. 18 Juridisk tidskrift339.Google Scholar

Muchlinski, P., 2001. ‘Corporations in International Litigation: Problems of Jurisdiction and United Kingdom Asbestos Cases’, 50 International and Comparative Law Quarterly1.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. C., 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

,OECD, 2001a. Annual Report 2001: Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises – Global Instruments for Corporate Responsibility. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

,OECD, 2001b. Corporate Responsibility – Private Initiatives and Public Goals. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

Pogge, T., 1989. Realizing Rawls. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Rajagopal, B., 2003. International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements and Third World Resistance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rawls, J., 1972. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rawls, J., 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Sen, A., 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar

Shaw, M. H., 2003. International Law, 5th edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.