According to our outline of the strategic ‘entry-points’, the suitability of a legal instrument required to cope with the global challenges of environmental law and politics may be evaluated using a few key criteria: Firstly, whether they are suitable to incentivise States to deepen their cooperation to implement and enforce environmental laws. Secondly, whether they are likely to succeed in influencing companies to prevent environmental damage. In this regard, one way to approach this is to effectively induce influential non-State actors to orientate their (self-)regulatory capacities towards the goals of environmental policy. The third and final key criterion is whether the legal instruments used can empower agents, who autonomously pursue environmental objectives (for example, because these agents are affected by environmental problems), in dynamics of norm-production ‘bottom up’.
2.4.1 The Economic Functionality of Liability Law
First, liability is seen to establish autonomous incentives for potential tortfeasors to prevent environmental damage: From a legal perspective, the primary function of delict and torts law is often seen in the compensation for losses that already have occurred.
93 Economic theories of law, in contrast, emphasise the preventive function of liability. Liability accordingly is intended to provide incentives for potentially liable parties to avoid creating risks for others and society. From this viewpoint, liability can be considered as a strategy of internalisation: Ideally, environmental liability law would induce economic actors to calculate the external environmental consequences of their behaviour as an internal cost related to their activities, in effect, treating it as another production cost.
94 This internalisation is supposed to result in a deterrent effect with respect to the hazardous behaviour of self-interested ‘rational’ actors; rules, which stipulate the compensation for damage, are considered to deter unjustified harmful conduct.
95 Where companies anticipate the possibility of a liability case being brought against them, this may encourage more environmentally responsible investments.
96 As indicated above, there are good reasons to criticise a narrow focus on ‘rational’ actors as the behaviour of human agents is not exclusively determined by cost-benefit analyses. Nevertheless, within the context of the global economic system, the idea that the vast majority of enterprises will at least predominantly base their actions on calculations of the premise of gain versus loss is very much plausible.
The deterrent effect of liability pursues the same objective as the prevention principle
and is in line with the rationale of the polluter pays principle in environmental law, which rests upon the assumption that polluters, when they are allowed to pass on the costs of environmentally detrimental behaviour to others and therefore keep these costs out of their calculations, have little incentive to avoid hazardous behaviour.
100
Second, liability is considered to be able to cope with dispersed information and thereby to process complexity: As highlighted above, the complexity related to environmental
problems and the difficulties to determine responsibilities, causal factors and effects of environmental damage
are important features of global environmental law and governance.
101 The availability of information about risks regarding damage and appropriate precautionary measures necessarily varies between actors. Economic theories of (liability-) law
102 propose criteria for “rational choices” between regulatory instruments of which differences in knowledge or ‘information asymmetries’,
103 about risky activities between public authorities and private parties are considered to be major determinants of the “desirability of liability [versus state-centred] regulation”.
104 Under certain circumstances, e.g. when there is a lack of information about the contributions of various polluters, about the intensity of risky activities, the probability of damage occurring or the magnitude of damage should it occur, the internalisation
of external effects by means of State-centred regulation may fail.
105 The chances to find an optimal standard to cope with environmental risks then may be better when the case is subject to a liability regime, as it incentivises the would-be injurer to use his own, potentially superior information to take all efficient precautionary measures to reduce risks.
106
Third, environmental
liability may be seen to establish a decentralised mechanism of enforcement of standards
: Liability law can also be considered to take the rationale of regulatory decentralisation
107 one step further as it concedes the enforcement of relevant obligations to affected parties who can take legal action against infringements of their rights before courts. The over-exploitation of common environmental goods is frequently attributed to the fact that a large proportion of the resulting damage to the rights and entitlements of individuals or the public remains uncompensated.
108 State-centred practices of control and enforcement of public environmental law are traditionally criticised for not being able to ensure that infringements are sanctioned effectively and adequately.
109
In certain cases, environmental liability is considered to be able to mitigate or resolve this situation due to its decentralised enforcement mechanisms. This is seen in the fact that aside from State-centred approaches to environmental law or concepts of ‘co-regulation’, liability law relies on enforcement by injured parties on-site who, in their own self-interest, will claim compensation for their losses. In addition, just like the injurer, victims may well be better informed than the relevant public authorities, about who is causing harm and its extent. For that reason, they are seen as appropriate enforcement agents, suggesting the suitability of liability for effective regulation.
110 Liability law may thus be seen to consistently retrace the transnational complexity of environmental risks or damage, not only because it counts on the decentralisation of implementation of environmental policies, but also by leaving enforcement to injured parties instead of State
authorities that sometimes might have limited resources for control and regulatory oversight at their disposal.
Allocation of information: As previously mentioned, liability law is considered a well-suited means of legal governance for environmental issues when information about regulatory problems and solutions are complex and dispersed. According to this rationale, ‘top-down’ or State-centred modes of regulation
113 have to be considered as the option of choice if the State,—e.g. due to publicly funded research—has superior information about the issues and circumstances likely to rise in certain activities. Setting environmental standards in regulation may then, according to advocates of an economic theory of law, be seen as means to pass on information about the environmental technology required. Hence, there are undeniable ‘economies of scale’ advantages in statutory standards, e.g. regulation in public environmental law.
114
The allocation and availability of information also provide, according to economic theorists, arguments for the desirability of rules of strict liability instead of fault-based liability: Under the approach of strict liability—i.e. if injurers have to pay for damage caused regardless of whether there was a breach of standards and regardless of their fault—actors disposing of superior information can be motivated to better assess the true costs of reducing risk and the true benefits in terms of expected savings from the anticipated reduction in damage caused.
115 Strict liability thus is supposed to strengthen incentives to invest in damage prevention rather than dispute the existence of fault after damage has occurred.
116
If liability is established using a fault-based liability regime whereby injurers are held responsible for harm only if their level of care falls short of a standard of
‘due care’, the situation becomes more demanding: those causing injury would, in principle, be led to exercise the appropriate level of care under the condition that the courts in cases involving damage can acquire sufficient information by learning about the relevant incident, to be able to determine the adequate level of due care, and the parties anticipate this.
117 On the one hand, these premises emphasise the functional role of legal and factual conditions for the effective pursuit of claims, particularly regarding rules of evidence. On the other hand, it indicates that fault-based liability may lead to appropriate results only in contexts where rules and standards regarding the level of due care are discernible for a court as any determination of fault presupposes the existence of rules that have been violated.
118
The chance that injurers may not face the threat of lawsuits for harm done: Obstacles to effective access to justice
clearly imply that liability may not result in the desired incentives to reduce risk.
119 If lawsuits to compensate damages have little chance of success, liability loses its deterrent effect. State-centred regulation may be better-suited to ensure standards of care. Impediments to the effective pursuit of liability claims prominently will concern legal conditions of such claims. Economic theories of law thus frame the legal conditions of liability claims as aspects of the deterrent effect of liability law: First of all, fundamental obstacles to effective internalisation
of negative externalities by means of environmental liability may arise, if environmental damage
cannot be apprehended as a violation of rights protected by tort law. Environmental damage may impair public goods and then does not, or at least not directly or traceably affect individual interests and goods such as the health or the property of a person.
120
Second, it may be difficult to proof that an activity or omission of a defendant has caused environmental damage in a complex chain of events. This question
is a crucial issue in many of the cases relevant for this book: It may be hard to prove causation associated with environmental damage that evolves as an effect of the cumulative actions of many contributing polluters or as a consequence of a complicated interplay of natural events potentially triggered or worsened by certain activities.
121 In such cases, administrative instruments may be better-suited deal with environmental damage.
122
Scholars looking at the preconditions of functional liability law highlight further reasons which may inhibit liability suits being brought: Injurers may escape liability when harm is thinly spread among a number of victims and there is insufficient incentive for each individual to bring a suit.
123 Furthermore, time-lags between human action and environmental damage
may be very long;
124 in such cases, much of the necessary evidence may be either lost or unobtainable or the injurer could have gone out of business.
125
With respect to lawsuits between private actors, questions about the forum, i.e. jurisdiction of national courts, and conflict of laws are of crucial relevance for the effectiveness of environmental liability. National or supranational rules regarding the authority of national courts to decide about transboundary or global effects of the activities of corporations, their suppliers or subsidiaries, determine if a lawsuit can be successfully realised.
126 The same is true for conflict of laws which stipulates the applicability of national law for legal disputes: The environmental regulations in the home State of a corporation may be more demanding than the corresponding rules abroad. If the weaker rules available are used to determine the liability for environmental damage, the chances that corporations escape meaningful liability for environmental harm done are high.
The magnitude of hazards: If compensation for damage that could potentially arise from a given activity is so high that it would exceed the wealth of the individual operator, rules stipulating strict liability are, in principle,
127 considered not to incentivise operators sufficiently to limit the risks of the activities they engage in. The reason is that the costs of due care are directly related to the magnitude of the expected damage. If the expected damage is much greater than the individual wealth of the operator, the operator supposedly will only take the care necessary to avoid risks equal to his wealth, which can be lower than the care required to minimise the risk.
This situation is considered to be different for fault-based liability: Under a regime of fault-based liability, taking due care means an operator can avoid having to pay compensation to a victim. An operator will still have an incentive to take the care required by the legal system as long as the costs of taking care are less than the operator’s wealth.
128 Assuming that the State has sufficient information about the risks, State-centred instruments, if effectively enforced, may be able to solve this problem and induce the potential injurer to comply with the regulatory standard, irrespective of his wealth.
129
Regulation of legal activities (e.g. emissions): According to economic models of ‘rational’ incentives for action, State-centred regulation as well as fault-based liability can be suboptimal modes of regulatory action if the goal is the reduction of legal but hazardous activities. For example, obligations to install smoke scrubbers in a factory will not reduce its level of emissions. As a result, prohibitive or prescriptive rules may not create incentives to moderate the level of activity sufficiently. In contrast, under a strict liability regime or the introduction of environmental taxes, operators pay for harm done, which is more likely to lead to them moderating their level of activity.
130 This traditional assessment of course may change, if valid standards prescribe a specific mitigation
pathway for hazardous activities, as has been assumed with regard to obligations to reduce CO2 emissions. Courts could then draw upon such standards as primary norms to determine a standard of
care.
131
Cost efficiency: Finally, liability regimes seem to have an advantage concerning the costs of effective regulation: Contrary to the costs related to operating ‘top-down’ regimes, especially regarding subsequent control and enforcement by public authorities, the administrative costs of the court system are only incurred if damage has actually occurred. A main advantage of tort law is seen to be that many accidents that would otherwise happen are prevented because of the deterrent effect of functional liability standards. In cases involving safety regulations, the costs of passing the regulation and of constantly enforcing it are always there, whether there are accidents or not.
132
2.4.2 Transnational Focus of Liability Law
Fault-based liability assumes fault or negligence if, despite the predictability and avoidability of damage, no appropriate precautionary measures were taken. To determine the appropriate level of care, civil
courts refer to objective standards, such as ‘reasonable care’ (“im Verkehr erforderliche Sorgfalt”) in German delict, or ‘the reasonable man’ in British common law.
133 Given this kind of reconstruction of an objective standard of
care by the courts, norms from various sources can serve as primary norms which determine the relevant obligations to prevent risks or to omit hazardous behaviour.
134 State legislation, social norms of different origin, such as entrepreneurial self-regulation, industry standards or best practices, thereby may be applied to define fault and, in turn, are ‘translated’ into binding due diligence norms.
135
While this adaptability of liability law towards primary norms of different origin will be analysed in more detail in the course of this book, at first glance it seems to hold some potential. First of all, it indicates that strategies of ‘top-down’ regulation and ‘decentralised’ liability law are not mutually exclusive but can complement and mutually reinforce each other. A judge deciding on liability arising from environmental damage
may accept a finding of negligence as soon as a public regulatory standard has been breached. Hence, public law not only passes on information to the parties regarding the efficient standard of
care but also provides information to any judge who has to evaluate the behaviour of the injurer in a liability case.
136 Second, liability cases and the relevant case law can, as Faure notes with respect to the legal situation in European States, provide for a kind of ‘fine-tuning’ of rather abstract and general State-centred regulations. This is particularly relevant with respect to permits or licences which lay down the conditions under which potentially detrimental or hazardous behaviour is allowed. Following such a regulatory standard does not necessarily exclude a finding of liability. The basic idea is that an administrative authority when granting a licence and setting permit conditions, cannot take into account the possible harm the licenced activity may cause to all possible third parties. Under such conditions, liability is supposed to give the potential injurer incentives to take all the necessary precautions, even if this requires more than just following the minimum required to obtain a licence.
137 Third, the relationship between primary norms as well as standards and secondary liability norms is of particular interest when the necessity of globally effective measures is taken into account. The interdependency of primary norms, which define environmental standards and the secondary norms, which determine the liability of actors who infringe those standards illustrates that national jurisdiction or legislation do not necessarily conflict with a policy aimed at globally harmonising standards: Judgements of national courts and evolving case law concerning the liability of international corporations may refer to international standards, to soft law or private self-regulation, all of which define the technical or scientific state-of-the-art of certain operations. As Glinski sets out, such norms and standards may then lead to an evolution of national tort law when civil
courts have to determine the obligations of transnationally active companies and corporations. At the same time, the national doctrines of tort law have to further specify, what such non-binding rules imply for legal obligations and thereby may contribute to a further development of transnational or international norms, e.g. concerning businesses’ due diligence.
138 The evolution of more ambitious standards in any of these kinds of ordering may thus have a positive effect on what can be expected from corporations as regards their diligent behaviour in transnational business operations.
139 By increasing the practical relevance of such transnational standards, liability law might contribute to the emergence of a level playing field.
2.4.3 Liability Law as a Rights-based Approach to Environmental Law
The overlapping and complementary relationship between liability, as an element of the tort or delict law in national civil or common law systems, and human rights have long been highlighted by legal scholars.
140 Tort law has been identified as the most important private law enforcer of human rights and contributor to the privatisation of constitutional law: While it is still questionable whether corporations have obligations based on international human rights law, it is beyond doubt that in tort or delict law they are obliged not to infringe citizens’ rights to life, physical integrity, health, property, freedom and exercise of other rights.
141 Equivalent ties on the level of national civil law refer to a violation of tort rights brought about by environmental
damage. The parallels between human rights and tort rights and their interrelation with the environment will be of further interest in later chapters.
142
A rights-based perspective on environmental
liability not only focuses the role of victims of damage as enforcement agents of environmental standards. Liability law may, rather, be a particularly effective manifestation of a normative strategy of ‘bottom-up’ legal innovation, as outlined above.
143 On the one hand, this productive potential is a consequence of legal mechanisms of norm-concretisation and precedent. Particularly the close connection to human rights, on the other hand, may increase this potential of liability as a driver of normative development of effective environmental regulation. For example, regional and domestic ‘environmental rights
’ claims have served the purpose of pushing forward doctrinal discourses about when environmental harm constitutes a human rights issue.
144 More concretely, liability claims regarding human rights obligations of transnational companies can trigger debates about adequate standards of care, e.g. for suppliers or subsidiaries and lead to new, more demanding precedents. Given such practical developments, legal action of individuals or groups because of rights violations as consequences of environmental damage
are seen as catalysts of development for environmental norms from the ‘bottom up’.
145 The implementation of norms to improve access to justice
for victims of environmental damage can trigger such dynamics of legal innovation.
In the
Vedanta case, 2000 farmers from Zambia alleged personal injury and environmental damage
caused by discharges from a copper mine into waterways they use for drinking, bathing and agriculture. A UK High Court decision, which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court,
146 allowed the farmers to sue the British parent company of the Zambian mine operator and thereby recognised that companies potentially hold a duty of care to third parties whose rights have been infringed by a subsidiary. An already existing rule under common law that companies, under certain conditions, have due diligence obligations vis-à-vis employees of a subsidiary was thereby extended. The precedent is understood to form a model for future cases in which individuals’ rights are affected by the actions of a subsidiary. While the extent to which a parent will owe a duty of care will depend on the facts of each particular case, this model of liability can potentially extend beyond the corporate group and into the supply chain.
147
In addition to such legal dynamics, rights-based legal action is seen to exert normative pressure for the innovation and implementation of environmental
norms and standards. Legal disputes about the individual consequences of environmental damage
are prominent forums for normative conflict and public discourse about an appropriate distribution of the private gains and the individual or social costs arising from the exploitation of environmental goods. Lawsuits regarding infringements of ‘tort/delict rights’, especially in cases dealing with transboundary damage, demonstrate the global dimensions and the interdependences related to environmental damage and its effects.
148 Such conflicts, which are frequently labelled as seeking ‘environmental justice’,
149 are increasingly pushed into the public’s line of sight as NGOs and multinational corporations fight battles over environmental liability ‘in the court of the public opinion’.
150
A focus on liability according to a rights-based approach thereby might correspond to employing a strategy that aims to effectively implement environmental
standards by transnational enterprises as Co-Regulators.
151 In contrast to the economic strategies highlighted above,
152 rights-based strategies offer an alternative approach of internalisation
: Litigation strategies based on liability claims that arise as a consequence of environmental damage
and the violation of human rights form the basis for additional, normative pressure seeking to alter injurers’ practice as part of more comprehensive (political) strategies pointed at shareholders or the public.
153 This pressure exerted by liability cases can also lead to the reform of State-centred regulation: for example, scholars have described how the Bhopal incident has prompted action not only by corporations but also by governments. The latter accordingly have responded by promulgating new environmental legislation or by making existing legislation more stringent.
154 Even when cases are not successful in securing compensation
for the victims of corporate negligence, the act of bringing cases against corporations can still produce positive reform.
155