Legal Challenges of Cross-Border Environmental Harm: State Responsibility and the Development of International Environmental Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65310/f006gs30Kata Kunci:
Cross-Border Harm, Due Diligence, Environmental Law, State Responsibility, Transboundary Pollution.Abstrak
Cross-border environmental harm presents legal difficulties when cumulative environmental injury involves multiple contributors, overlapping obligations, and uncertain causal relationships. Existing scholarship addresses prevention, attribution, and remedies extensively but provides insufficient methodological integration across conventional transboundary pollution and global environmental harm. This study examines the interaction between primary environmental obligations and the secondary rules of State responsibility. A normative-doctrinal approach evaluates treaties, International Law Commission instruments, and selected international jurisprudence through September 2026, applying structured legal interpretation and comparative analysis. Particular attention is given to the 2024 ITLOS and 2025 Inter-American Court and ICJ climate advisory opinions. The findings establish that the no-harm principle and due diligence remain complementary preventive obligations, while contemporary jurisprudence clarifies their application to cumulative environmental risks. Attribution of State conduct must be distinguished from scientific causation, legal causation, and allocation of compensable injury. Concurrent environmental and human-rights obligations do not automatically establish jurisdiction, procedural standing, or proportional liability. The study develops a four-stage doctrinal framework separating primary obligations, breach and conduct attribution, causal contribution and allocation, and invocation of responsibility and remedies. This framework provides a systematic method for evaluating complex environmental responsibility while distinguishing established legal requirements from unresolved questions of collective causation and reparation
Unduhan
Referensi
Alam, S., & Nurhidayah, L. (2017). The international law on transboundary haze pollution: What can we learn from the Southeast Asia region? Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 26(3), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12221
Allain, J., & Prihandono, I. (2026). Guarantees of non-repetition and the future of transboundary harm: Lessons flowing from the Montara oil spill. Transnational Environmental Law, 15(1), 115–141. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102525100162
Bellinkx, V., Casalin, D., Erdem Türkelli, G., Scholtz, W., & Vandenhole, W. (2022). Addressing climate change through international human rights law: From (extra)territoriality to common concern of humankind. Transnational Environmental Law, 11(1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S204710252100011X
Bhat, I. H. (2023). A critical review of legal challenges and opportunities in transboundary environmental impact assessment. Central University of Kashmir Law Review, 3, 108–138. https://doi.org/10.66498/CUKLR.3.2023.108-138
Borràs-Pentinat, S. (2025). The IACtHR climate emergency advisory opinion: A legal analysis of the State obligations. Environmental Policy and Law. https://doi.org/10.1177/18785395251403470
Buser, A. (2023). National climate litigation and the international rule of law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 36(3), 593–615. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156522000772
Craik, N. (2020). The duty to cooperate in the customary law of environmental impact assessment. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(1), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589319000459
Damanik, Y. A. P., Sudibya, D. P. S., Wicaksono, S. S., Abidah, S. Q., Masyhar, A., Wulandari, C., Wilson, J. A., & Rahman, A. N. (2024). Who pays for climate loss and damage? State obligations under international law explained. Indonesian Journal of Environmental Law and Sustainable Development, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.15294/ijel.v3i2.40214
Duvic-Paoli, L.-A., & Gervasi, M. (2023). Harm to the global commons on trial: The role of the prevention principle in international climate adjudication. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 32(2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12486
Foster, C. E. (2024). Due regard for future generations? The no harm rule and sovereignty in the advisory opinions on climate change. Transnational Environmental Law. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102524000207
Foster, C. E. (2025). The 2025 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on obligations of States in respect of climate change. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 74(4), 775–809. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589325101292
Fraser, J., & Henderson, L. (2022). The human rights turn in climate change litigation and responsibilities of legal professionals. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights. https://doi.org/10.1177/09240519221085342
Gemalmaz, M. S. (2023). Transformation from soft law to hard law of international environmental protection: Process, basic concepts and principles—Part II. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, 73, 1–95. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2023.73.0001
Guo, J., & Xiao, L. (2025). ITLOS’ jurisdictional decision in the climate change advisory opinion: Observations and implications. Asia Pacific Law Review, 33(2), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2025.2493700
Heri, C. (2024). Justice in the liminal: The Council of Europe and the right to a healthy environment. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 73(2), 319–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589324000071
Hormio, S. (2023). Collective responsibility for climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 14, e830. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.830
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2017). The environment and human rights, advisory opinion OC-23/17.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2025). Climate emergency and human rights, advisory opinion OC-32/25 of 29 May 2025.
International Court of Justice. (1949). Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), merits, judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949.
International Court of Justice. (1996). Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, advisory opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996.
International Court of Justice. (1997). Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997.
International Court of Justice. (2010). Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010.
International Court of Justice. (2015). Certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2015.
International Court of Justice. (2025). Obligations of States in respect of climate change, advisory opinion of 23 July 2025.
International Law Commission. (2001). Draft articles on prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities, with commentaries.
International Law Commission. (2001). Draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, with commentaries.
International Law Commission. (2006). Draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities.
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. (2011). Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area, advisory opinion.
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. (2024). Request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, advisory opinion of 21 May 2024.
Jackson, M., & Paddeu, F. (2026). Erga omnes and erga omnes partes obligations in the International Court of Justice’s climate change advisory opinion. Journal of Environmental Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqag007
Klerk, B. E. (2025). The ITLOS advisory opinion on climate change: Revisiting the relationship between the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Paris Agreement. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12588
Lorteau, S. (2023). The potential of international ‘State-as-polluter’ litigation. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 32(2), 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12492
Mayer, B. (2022a). Attribution science and the fate of climate litigation. Global Policy, 13(5), 831–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13153
Mayer, B. (2022b). The judicial assessment of States’ action on climate change mitigation. Leiden Journal of International Law, 35(4), 801–824. https://doi.org/10.1017/S092215652200036X
Mayer, B. (2024). The ‘highest possible ambition’ on climate change mitigation as a legal standard. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 73(2), 285–317. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589324000010
Mayer, B. (2025). Request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law. American Journal of International Law, 119(1), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2024.63
Mayer, B., & van Asselt, H. (2023). The rise of international climate litigation. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 32(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12515
McCluskey, S. (2022). Calibrating States’ emissions reduction due diligence obligations with reference to the right to life. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 31(3), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12457
McDonald, N. (2019). The role of due diligence in international law. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 68(4), 1041–1054. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589319000344
McIntyre, O. (2020). State responsibility in international law for transboundary water-related harm: The emergence of a new ecosystems-based paradigm? Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 29, 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12362
Otto, F. E. L., Minnerop, P., Raju, E., Harrington, L. J., Stuart-Smith, R. F., Boyd, E., James, R., Jones, R. G., & Lauta, K. C. (2022). Causality and the fate of climate litigation: The role of the social superstructure narrative. Global Policy, 13, 736–750. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13113
Peel, J. (2026). Situating the ICJ’s advisory opinion in the wider ecosystem of international climate litigation. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 35(2), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.70037
Rajamani, L. (2024). Interpreting the Paris Agreement in its normative environment. Current Legal Problems, 77(1), 167–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuae011
Ritz, V. (2023). Towards a methodology for specifying States’ mitigation obligations in line with the equity principle and best available science. Transnational Environmental Law, 12(1), 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102521000327
Robinson, N. A. (2025). Affixing State responsibility for harm to Earth’s climate system. Environmental Policy and Law, 54(4–6), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/18785395251319178
Roeben, V., & Guo, J. (2026). The result-oriented due diligence obligation in the ITLOS climate change advisory opinion: Developments and implications. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 35(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.70041
Savaresi, A. (2024). Climate change litigation: The role of international law. Cambridge International Law Journal, 13(2), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.4337/cilj.2024.02.06
Schmalenbach, K. (2023). States responsibility and liability for transboundary environmental harm. In P. Gailhofer, D. Krebs, A. Proelss, K. Schmalenbach, & R. Verheyen (Eds.), Corporate liability for transboundary environmental harm (pp. 43–84). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13264-3_3
Suedi, Y. (2022). Litigating climate change before the Committee on the Rights of the Child in Sacchi v. Argentina et al.: Breaking new ground? Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 40(4), 549–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131.2022.2160093
Tanaka, Y. (2023). Shared State responsibility for land-based marine plastic pollution. Transnational Environmental Law, 12(2), 244–269. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102522000462
Teshome, R. G. (2026). Extraterritorial human rights obligations of States for transboundary climate harm: New developments and unanswered questions. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 44(3), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/09240519261455672
Tietjen, B., & Gopalakrishnan, T. (2023). Loss and damage funding in the UN climate negotiations: From dialogue to reality. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 65, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2023.2180268
Tigre, M. A., & Wewerinke-Singh, M. (2023). Beyond the North–South divide: Litigation’s role in resolving climate change loss and damage claims. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12517
Toussaint, P. (2024). Loss and damage, climate victims, and international climate law: Looking back, looking forward. Transnational Environmental Law, 13(1), 134–159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102523000237
United Nations General Assembly. (2022). The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, A/RES/76/300.
United Nations General Assembly. (2023). Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, A/RES/77/276.
United Nations. (1972). Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Declaration).
United Nations. (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
United Nations. (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
United Nations. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement.
Vanhala, L. (2023). Putting the constructive ambiguity of climate change loss and damage into practice: The early work of the UNFCCC WIM ExCom. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 32(3), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12508
Voigt, C. (2023). The power of the Paris Agreement in international climate litigation. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 32(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12514
Wewerinke-Singh, M. (2026). Differentiation through due diligence: Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in the ICJ’s 2025 climate advisory opinion. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 35(2), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.70072
