Ius Commune and Transboundary Environmental Pollution
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X9500200301 |
| Date | 01 September 1995 |
| Published date | 01 September 1995 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
Ius
Commune
and
Transboundary
Environmental
Pollution
Attention is increasingly being focused on the transboundary character of environmental
pollution. One of the questions raised in this context is whether a Ius
Commune
of
environmental standards could prevent transboundary pollution and, more generally,
how the law should react to this phenomenon of transboundary environmental crime.
This problem has various aspects, some of which have already been discussed in this
Journal; others are addressed in this issue. Lavrysen's article, included in this issue,
shows that in answering these questions attention should be paid to the underlying
economic reasons for the transport of the pollution problem. Lavrysen reveals that the
main reason why massive shipments of waste from the Netherlands to Belgium occurred
in the 1980's, was that the costs of disposal of waste were much lower in Belgium than
in the Netherlands. Even when a formal prohibition on the import of foreign waste was
installed, waste streams continued for a long time through illegal channels. One might
be tempted to suggest that the financial conditions for waste disposal should simply be
harmonized in order to remove the incentives for transporting waste. However, location
specific circumstances in the various regions (e.g. hydrogeological conditions) differ in
important aspects, which means that specific regions are better suited for the disposal
of certain wastes than others. Moreover, economies of scale require a specialization of,
for instance, incineration techniques.
It
would be highly inefficient if it were required
that, for example, every Member State possessed highly sophisticated incineration
equipment for treating nuclear waste. Therefore, notwithstanding the proximity
principle, transport of waste will remain inevitable. This point is also established in
Regulation 259/93 on Transfrontier shipment of waste, 1which is discussed by
Lavrysen. That regulation does not institute a principle prohibition on the transport of
waste, but simply regulates the conditions under which such a transport could occur in
order to avoid the catastrophes that took place in the Belgian town of Mellery, as a
consequence of an uncontrolled transport.
Do these differences between Member States as far as e.g. hydrogeological conditions
are concerned, mean that it would be useless to harmonize environmental law? Certainly
1. [1993] o.r. L30/1.
MJ 2 (1995) 215
To continue reading
Request your trial