Why Directors Are Accountable To Their Shareholders.International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law. There was a need for commonly accepted legal rules concerning the international liability for injurious consequences of acts not prohibited by international law, he said. International
The question of international liability for injurious consequences had been on the Commission's agenda since 1978; a working group had been established to examine all aspects of the topic. That need stemmed from dangers and risks to which humanity was exposed as a consequence of the industrial activities not prohibited by international law. Liability Liability is limited by both international conventions and by national legislation, so that beyond the limit (normally covered by insurance) the state can accept responsibility as insurer of last resort, as in all other aspects of industrial society. The concept of international liability was stated in very general terms with no definition of the word "harm". It involves international conventions, national legislation channeling liability to the operators, and pooling of insurance capacity in more than twenty countries. To this end, experiences from the US liability system and German compensation rules for ecological damages were particularly enlightening. Damage A further problem relates to the extent to which states can be heldresponsible for damage resulting from activities of private parties. The establishment of the breach of a primary norm ofinternational law by the source state is the pre-condition for the right of theaffected state to be compensated for the damage suffered. The concept of stateresponsibility does not foresee any duty to compensate for damage due toactivities which are not prohibited by international law. The source state cannot avoid this consequence even if it isprepared to repair the damage which has occurred. a general obligation of due diligence or the condition ofsignificance of damage, see R. The Project of the International Law CommissionThis dilemma, which cannot satisfactorily be solved within the traditional system of international law, laid the foundation10 for the International Law Commission's project on the codification and progressive development of the rules of international liability for damage caused by activities not prohibited by international law. Agreement had to include the duties of prevention prior to and compensation after possible future damage. At the same time, all of them are suffering similar risks of potential future damage created elsewhere. From this point of view, codification of international law in the field of liability for environmental damage is only one element within a general regulation which also comprises the elements of prevention and minimization of damage. The necessary consequence was a certain 'negotiability' of the obligation to repair damage in cases where the states concerned had not agreed on a specific regime before damage occurred. Japan is not party to any international liability convention but its law generally conforms to them. Russia is not party to any international liability convention and nor does it have any domestic laws on nuclear liability. China is not party to any international liability convention and has only a 1986 interim domestic law on nuclear liability, though this corresponds with international conventions except that the liability limit is only about US$ 36 million. |