Trail Smelter Case Study

Our existence depends on how well we plan and implement policy through international cooperation. As our population continues to increase in the twenty-first century, it will provide us with the clue about how government makes sustainable plans about our future generations. Our present generation continues to consume more resources than what is presently in production, thus increasing the consumption level which has created water shortages, forest depletion for urbanization, more energy consumption, and food crisis, diseases and many more environmental problems. As the result of this, an evolution of transboundary effects are occurring. Our needs are changing to focus on environmental pollution and natural resource management, soil erosion,

According to Gerald F. Hess, author of “The Trail Smelter, the Columbia River, and the Extraterritorial Application of CERCLA”, writes “the Trail Smelter emitted between 100 and 700 tons of sulphur dioxide per day.3 Beginning in 1925, Washington farmers located near the border with British Columbia began complaining to Consolidated Mining about emissions from the smelter.4 In 1928, the United States and Canada agreed to refer the dispute to the International Joint Commission (IJC).5 In 1931, the IJC issued its final report, recommending that Canada pay the United States US$350,000 in compensation for damages caused by emissions from the Trail Smelter and that Consolidated Mining install devices to reduce its sulphur dioxide emissions”(Hess, 2005). This example strengthened international environmental laws and brought new developments to managing pollution across national borders. It is important to note that the establishment of an international tribunal environmental agreement by the both countries was a unique

Such agreement provides both a theoretical and policy framework that promotes international environmental law. I believe that there were more pragmatic approaches to solve this problem from a culture and legal perspective. However, the establishment of an international environmental dispute tribunal created a new norm to legally resolve transboundary environmental problems. For example, Hess writes “In 1935, the countries signed and ratified a convention that referred the Trail Smelter dispute to an arbitral tribunal.9 in its interim decision in 1938, the tribunal concluded that the emissions from the Trail Smelter had harmed crops and trees in Washington and awarded the United States US$78,000 in compensation. In its final decision in 1941, the tribunal held that the Trail Smelter should avoid air emissions that harm Washington, that a detailed pollution control regime should be implemented at the smelter, and that Canada would be responsible for paying damages for harm in the United States from future smelter emissions”(Hess, 2005). It is important to note that international environmental law plays a leading role in environmental management worldwide, thus instituting and executing proper