Environmental law

Law Articles
Jurisprudence
Law and legal systems
Legal profession
Types of Law
Administrative law
Antitrust law
Aviation law
Blue law
Business law
Civil law
Common law
Comparative law
Conflict of laws
Constitutional law
Contract law
Criminal law
Environmental law
Family law
Intellectual property law
International criminal law
International law
Labor law
Maritime law
Military law
Obscenity law
Procedural law
Property law
Tax law
Tort law
Trust law

Environmental law is a body of law—a system of complex and interlocking statutes, common law, treaties, conventions, regulations and policies—that seeks to protect the natural environment, which may be affected, impacted, or endangered by human activities. Environmental law may regulate policy locally, statewide (or in the province), nationally, and internationally.

International environmental law refers the body of international law that concerns the protection of the global environment.

Environmental law is one of several methods of protecting the enviroment. Other avenues include environmental education and using economic incentives (ecotourism, debt exchange). Utilizing religious traditions and humanity's spiritual dimension is another useful avenue for effecting environmental protection.

As with each method of protecting the environment, environmental law has its shortcomings. For one, laws and regulations can lack effectiveness due to the difficulty of law enforcement. For example, the Pantanal—an immense wetland located in South America—is protected by many environmental regulations; however there is very poor enforcement of those regulations. In addition, environmental laws and regulations often are reactionary measures to undesirable consequences that have already occurred. We are now seeing a lot of environmental regulations worldwide protecting wetlands. However, this is after about 50% of the wetlands already have been destroyed worldwide.

When attempting to understand the boundaries of environmental law one finds no clear limit. Environmental law tends to be interdisciplinary and includes fields such as economics, political science, ecology, human rights, and so forth. Among the issues that it deals with are sustainable development, biodiversity, pollution, and endangered species.

Interational environmental law changed greatly with the Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Environment. (See: http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=97) This Conference led to new thinking on how to reduce damages and better preserve the environment through law.

Major topics

Some of the major topics cited by the American Society for Environmental Law that have been addressed by international conventions in recent decades include:

• Sustainable development (The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development http://www.unep.org/documents/default.asp?documentid=78),

• Biodiversity (Convention on Biological Diversity http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp,

• Transfrontier pollution (Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Pollution http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/,

• Marine pollution (Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter http://www.londonconvention.org/,

• Endangered species (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species(CITES) http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml

• Hazardous materials and activities (Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal http://www.basel.int/text/text.html

• Cultural preservation (Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural & Natural Heritage, http://whc.unesco.org/world_he.htm),

• Desertification (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, http://www.unccd.int/),

• Uses of the seas (United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) linked from http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm), and

• Climate change (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php).

Key principles

Environmental law is shaped by a number of key principles. Some of the major ones (most refering exclusively to international environmental law) are described below.

1. The Precautionary Principle. The precautionary principle is the idea that if the consequences of an action are unknown, but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible negative consequences, then it is better to avoid that action. The principle can be applied in an active sense, through the concept of "preventative anticipation" or a willingness to take action in advance of scientific proof of evidence of the need for the proposed action on the grounds that further delay will prove ultimately most costly to society and nature, and, in the longer term, selfish and unfair to future generations. In practice, the principle is most often applied in the context of the impact of human civilization or new technology on the environment, as the environment is a complex system where the consequences of some kinds of actions are often unpredictable.
2. Sustainable development. Sustainable development is a process of developing land, cities, businesses, communities, and so forth that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (according to the Brundtland Report, a 1987 report from the United Nations). One of the factors which it must overcome is environmental degradation, but it must do so while not forgoing the needs of economic development as well as social equity and justice.
3. Polluter pays principle. The polluter pays principle is a principle The idea that the entity that pollutes the natural environment pays for its cleanup and consequences. It is regarded as a regional custom because of the strong support it has received in most countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Community (EC) countries. International environmental law itself mentions little about the principle, but an example of it can be found in the preamble of the Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (See: http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH1000.txt.)
4. The Principle to Not Cause Harm. This principle developed from the Corfu Channel Case where it established that nations have an obligation to not take actions or create circumstances that will harm other nations.
5. The Principle of State Responsibility. This principle is based on the concept that states have liability for damage to other states that they may cause.
6. The Principle of Intergenerational Equity. This principle is referred to in a number of treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and further proposed in refinement by environmental scholars. It basically holds that the natural resources are the common property of all the people of a nation, including future generations, and all (including future generations) have a right to the benefits of those resources. The state is responsible to see that they are propertly conserved for that purpose. (See: http://www.defenders.org/bio-co05.html.)

8. The Principle of Differentiated Responsibilities - This concept is found in the Climate Change Convention Article 3. The concept provides for those with more resources to take more responsibility than those with less capability.

1. Exclusive Economic Zone - All States will have an exclusive economic zone that they will govern up to 200 miles in the ocean from their land border. This zone is to be managed with environmental sensitivity to other States. Provisions for this law are found in the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. http://www.hri.org/docs/LOS/part5-1.html

2. Right to Development - Each State will have the right to development as an inalienable right and a right of self determination as stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development http://hei.unige.ch/humanrts/instree/s3drd.htm

3. Common Heritage of Humankind - The Moon Treaty provides that exploration and the use of the moon shall be available for all humankind as a common heritage. http://www.greaterearth.org/laws/moon_try.htm

The Convention on Biological Diversity in its preamble also provides for this same principle where it states “Affirming that the conservation of biological diversity is a common concern of humankind,” http://www.greaterearth.org/laws/moon_try.htm

9. The Principle of a Duty to Assess Environmental Impacts - This principle has applied to World Heritage sites and has been developed within individual countries such at the United States National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act. The basic concept is to assess potential impacts before actions are taken that may adversely affect the environment.

10. Principle of the Duty to Cooperate - This principle requires nations to cooperate in addressing environmental issues. This is both part of the U.N. Charter Article 1.3 and is also found in the Moon Treaty as well. See: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm

12. The Principe for Equal Right To Access Justice - This principle provides anyone injured from another’s damage to environment the right to bring an action for justice to an appropriate Court. This principle is found in the Nordic Environmental Protection Convention. See: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/texts/acrc/Nordic.txt.html

There have been many important cases in the area of international environmental law. Important cases have included the various nuclear testing cases such as between New Zealand and France before the International Court of Justice.

Groups active in the area include the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide(E-LAW) and the Centre for International Environmental Law

International environmental lawyers often receive specialized training in the form of an LL.M. degree after having a first law degree — often in another country from where they got their first law degree. Notable programs include the LL.M. in Environmental Law Program at the University of Oregon and the Stetson University College of Law Environmental Moot Court. (See: http://www.law.stetson.edu/environmental

Existing environmental law principles as well the development of new concepts as are increasingly applied to issues related to Sustainable Development, Environmental Degradation described further below.

Sustainable Development

Sustainable developmentis one of key the issues addressed by international environmental law.

Sustainable development is a process of developing (land, cities, business, communities, etc.) that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" according to the Brundtland Report also called “Our Common Future”, a 1987 report from the United Nations.

One of the factors which sustainable development seeks to overcome is environmental degradation while not forgoing the needs of economic development as well as social equity and justice.

Several United Nations texts, most recently the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, refer to the "interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars" of sustainable development as economic development, social development, and environmental protection.

For some, the issue is considered to be closely tied to economic growth and the need to find ways to expand the economy in the long term without using up natural capital for current growth at the cost of long term growth. For others, the concept of growth itself is problematic, as the resources of the Earth are finite.

The 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy has the objective of enabling all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations.

Many people reject the term sustainable development as an overall term in favor of sustainability, and reserve sustainable development only for specific development activities such as energy development.

One of the key difficulties with the concept of sustainable development is that as population increases it becomes by definition more difficult to sustain the same quality of life with the same amount of resources that may have been sustaining with a smaller population.

Environmental degradation

Environmental degradation is also a key concept for environmental law.

Environmental degradation refers to the diminishment of a local ecosystem or the biosphere as a whole due to human activity. Environmental degradation occurs when nature's resources (such as trees, habitat, earth, water, air) are being consumed faster than nature can replenish them. An unsustainable situation occurs when natural capital (the sum total of nature's resources), is used up faster than it can be replenished. Sustainability requires that human activity, at a minimum, only uses nature's resources to the point where they can be replenished naturally:

Consumption of renewable resources	State of environment	Sustainability
More than nature's ability to replenish	Environmental degradation	Not sustainable
Equal to nature's ability to replenish	Environmental equilibrium	Sustainable growth
Less than nature's ability to replenish	Environmental renewal	Sustainable growth

The long term final result of environmental degradation will be local environments that are no longer able to sustain human populations.

United Nations Environment Programme:

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the U.N. organization most focused on the issues sustainable development and environmental degradation.

UNEP”s mission is:

To provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations.

UNEP was responsible for both the Earth Summit in Brazil in 1992 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa in 2002.

The UNEP position on sustainabile development is: The intensified and unsustainable demand for land, water marine and coastal resources resulting from the expansion of agriculture and uncontrolled urbanisation lead to increased degradation of natural ecosystems and erode the life supporting systems that uphold human civilization. Caring for natural resources and promoting their sustainable use is an essential response of the world community to ensure its own survival and well being. (source: Sustainable Management and Use of Natural Resources)

UNEP is one of the few United Nations programs with its headquarters in Africa, symbolic of its understanding of the relationship of poverty to the issues of sustainable development and environmental degradation.

The intensified and unsustainable demand for land, water marine and coastal resources resulting from the expansion of agriculture and uncontrolled urbanisation lead to increased degradation of natural ecosystems and erode the life supporting systems that uphold human civilization. Caring for natural resources and promoting their sustainable use is an essential response of the world community to ensure its own survival and well being. (source: Sustainable Management and Use of Natural Resources)

Precautionary principle

The precautionary principle, a phrase first used in English circa 1988, is the idea that if the consequences of an action are unknown, but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible negative consequences, then it is better to avoid that action. The principle can alternately be applied in an active sense, through the concept of "preventative anticipation" [1], or a willingness to take action in advance of scientific proof of evidence of the need for the proposed action on the grounds that further delay will prove ultimately most costly to society and nature, and, in the longer term, selfish and unfair to future generations. In practice the principle is most often applied in the context of the impact of human civilization or new technology on the environment, as the environment is a complex system where the consequences of some kinds of actions are often unpredictable.

The formal concept evolved out of the German socio-legal tradition that was created in the zenith of German Democratic Socialism in the 1930s, centering on the concept of good household management. [2] In German the concept is Vorsorgeprinzip, which translates into English as precaution principle. The concept includes risk prevention, cost effectiveness, ethical responsibilities towards maintaining the integrity of natural systems, and the fallibility of human understanding. It can also be interpreted as the transfer of more generally applied precaution in daily life (e.g. buying insurance, using seat belts or consulting experts before decisions) to larger political arenas. Operating a large military apparatus for example also is the practical application of precaution against hypothetical threats.

The substance of the precautionary principle is not really new. The essence of the principle is captured in cautionary aphorisms such as 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure', 'Better safe than sorry', and 'Look before you leap'.[3] The precautionary principle may be interpreted as a generalization of the ancient medical principle, associated with Hippocrates, of "first, do no harm".[4] It may also be compared with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof often used in criminal law, which may be seen as the application of the precautionary principle to the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty" (because society sees convicting the innocent as far worse than acquitting the guilty).

In economics, the precautionary principle has been analysed in terms of the effect on rational decision-making of the interaction of irreversibility and uncertainty. Authors such as Epstein (1980) and Arrow and Fischer (1974) show that irreversibility of possible future consequences creates a quasi-option effect which should induce a risk-neutral society to favor current decisions that allow for more flexibility in the future. Gollier et al (2000) conclude that "more scientific uncertainty as to the distribution of a future risk — that is, a larger variability of beliefs — should induce Society to take stronger prevention measures today."

The application of the precautionary principle is hampered by the wide range of interpretations placed on it. One study identified 14 different formulations of the principle in treaties and nontreaty declarations.[5] The range of interpretation may be characterised as running from the need to show that an action is "probably" safe, to showing that it is "definitely" safe. An analogy can be drawn with standards of proof used in law: from the "balance of probabilities" standard often used in civil law, to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof often used in criminal law. The distinction with a "beyond all doubt" level of proof, as sometimes demanded by environmental activists in relation to environmental issues, is clear.

This variation in the burden of proof on whether to proceed with an action, however, interacts with varying perspectives on the validity and manner of trading off the action's costs and benefits, particularly when they fall on different groups. This introduces an ethical dimension - for example on the impact on future generations - which falls outside the domain of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment and in the domain of politics.

The World Charter for Nature, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982, was the first international endorsement of the precautionary principle. The principle was implemented in an international treaty as early as the 1987 Montreal Protocol, and among other international treaties and declarations [6] is reflected in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development).

On 2 February 2000, the European Commission adopted a communication on the precautionary principle,[7] in which it defined this concept and explained how it intended to apply it. It is also defined in Article III-233 of the draft Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe [8]:

Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.

In this context, harmonisation measures answering environmental protection requirements shall include, where appropriate, a safeguard clause allowing Member States to take provisional steps, for non economic environmental reasons, subject to a procedure of inspection by the Union.

Saunders (2000) argues that in some instances, notably World Trade Organization policy, there is in effect an "anti-precautionary principle", under which the burden of proof is on society to quickly show that a new product is dangerous, rather than on the innovator to show that it is safe.

Environment/health

Template:Cleanup-date An oft-cited early modern application of the principle was John Snow's 1854 removal of the handle of a water pump in Broad Street, London, in order to prevent a cholera outbreak from the infected well. (At the time, the science on the spread of cholera through contaminated water was not yet conclusive.) However an alternative view is that Dr Snow was absolutely sure about the infected water and an empirical experiment proved him right. Some might argue that the precautionary principle would advocate not having any water pumps at all until society could be abolutely sure that no contaminents could be transmitted in that way.

The German Duke of Wuerttemberg and Teck had as early as 1778 banned the use of lead pipes for drinking water, 200 years before the scientifically grounded WHO guidelines on the toxicity of lead.[9] The application of the principle can be seen in the public policy of requiring pharmaceutical companies to carry out clinical trials to show that new medications are safe, as well as effective.

Fields typically concerned by the precautionary principle are the possibility of:

• Persistent or acute pollution (asbestos...)
• Extinction of species
• Introduction of new and potentially harmful products into the environment, threatening biodiversity (genetically modified organisms (GMO))
• Threats to public health, due to new diseases and techniques (e.g., AIDS transmitted through blood transfusion)
• Food safety (e.g., Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, concerns about genetically modified food)
• High energy physics and possibly catastrophic experiments
• Other new biosafety issues (e.g., artificial life, new molecules)

The precautionary principle is often applied to biological fields because changes cannot be easily contained; they affect everyone. The principle has less relevance to contained fields such as aeronautics, where the few people undergoing risk have given informed consent (e.g., a test pilot).

Application of the principle modifies the status of innovation and risk assessment: it is not the risk that must be avoided or amended, but a potential risk that must be prevented. Thus, in the case of regulation of scientific research, there may be a third party beyond the scientist and the regulator: the consumer. On the one hand, consumer reactions and fears that do not rely on scientific facts are often considered irrational or purely emotional, and so are not considered in final decisions; on the other, however, many countries choose to consider consumer points of view and media reporting, making politicians, experts and journalists answerable to other actors (e.g. consumer associations, juridical authorities).

In an analysis concerning application of the precautionary principle to nanotechnology, Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder posit that there are two forms of the principle, which they call the "strict form" and the "active form". The former "requires inaction when action might pose a risk", while the latter means "choosing less risky alternatives when they are available, and [...] taking responsibility for potential risks." This refinement offers the possibility of clearer communication and closer understanding between proponents and opponents. Further clarification of the content of the precautionary principle is needed — in and out of the WTO system — in particular on the subject of multilateral agreements on environmental issues.

Change of laws controlling societal norms

Associate justice Martha Sosman's dissent [10]in the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that mandated legalization of same sex marriage is an example of the Precautionary principle as applied to changes in culturally significant social policy. She describes the myriad societal structures that rest on the institution of marriage, and points out the uncertainty of how they will be affected by this re-definition. The disagreement of the majority illustrates the difficulty of reaching agreement on the value of competing perspectives.

Criticisms

Template:Cleanup-date Proponents argue that in such situations, rational decision-making requires caution, in a generalisation of a maxim (falsely attributed to the Hippocratic oath, as pointed out by Phoenix and Treder)[11], of "first, do no harm". Critics may argue that such a principle, while correctly applied by a doctor who may have a significant effect an individual patient's life or death, should not be applied to broader policy making that can limit freedom and personal choice.

Critics of the principle argue that it is impractical, since every implementation of a technology carries some risk of negative consequences. Proponents counter that the principle is not an absolute rule, it is a conceptual tool to clarify arguments, and especially an issue of where the burden of proof lies. Someone in a debate regarding a proposal can say, I oppose this proposal on the grounds of the precautionary principle, without necessarily invoking the precautionary principle for other proposals. However, such selectivity in its use is in itself criticised, because it leaves open the possibility that it will only be used in the context of technologies that advocates of the principle typically oppose - such as nuclear fission or genetically modified organisms.

Another standard criticism of the precautionary principle is that it is only applied to new technologies, not the existing technologies that the new technology might supersede. Proponents of the principle argue that this is a misapplication of the principle, and that it should be applied to existing as well as new technologies. But it is arguably an argument for the status quo in the absence of sufficient information to guarantee that change will be for the better ("better the devil you know").

The precautionary principle, as stated, does not take into account the potential positive benefits of a technology, which may be substantial. Thus, it assumes a zero lost opportunity cost, or that there is no cost associated with doing nothing. Studies to prove safety can cost a lot of money, and if it is assumed (or can be shown) that even the most overwhelming proof of safety would be fruitless since it could be dismissed by a sufficient number of determined objectors, these studies would be viewed as a waste of money and not performed - even if the studies really would have shown that the proposal was unsafe. This leads to a further criticism: using the precautionary principle, as opposed to risk assessment or similar approaches, actually impairs safety in practice, even if one ignores any opportunity costs.

Its use is often interpreted as protectionism (such as the case of beef fed with hormones, as dealt with by the World Trade Organisation), or as Neo-luddism in the case of opposition to genetic engineering, nanotechnology, stem cell research and related therapy, or even development of wilderness areas.

Michael Crichton, in his book State of Fear, says that the precautionary principle is "self-contradictory", in that the principle itself might have irreversible and unpredictable consequences, and as such might on its own terms be the wrong course of action.

Environmental agreements

There are numerous international environmental agreements made to protect the environment in different ways. Many of these are legally binding.

Environmental agreements

There are numerous international environmental agreements made to protect the environment in different ways. Many of these are legally binding.

International environmental agreements include:

• Alpine Convention together with its nine protocols
• ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution
• Antarctic Treaty
  • Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora [12]
  • Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals [13]
  • Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources [14]
  • Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty
• Basel Convention
• Carpathian Convention Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians [15]
• Convention on Biological Diversity
• Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas
• Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
  • EMEP Protocol
  • Sulphur Protocol 1985
  • Nitrogen Oxide Protocol
  • Volatile Organic Compounds Protocol
  • Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocol 1994
  • Heavy Metals Protocol
  • POP Air Pollution Protocol
  • Multi-effect Protocol (Gothenburg protocol)
• Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats
• Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
• Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
• Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter
• Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially As Waterfowl Habitat
• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
• International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
• International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
• International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1983 (expired)
• International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1994
• Kyoto Protocol - greenhouse gas emission reductions
• Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer
• North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
• Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants.
• Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water
• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
• United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Arrow, K.J. and Fischer, A.C. (1974), "Environmental preservation, uncertainty and irreversibility", Quarterly Journal of Economics 88(2):312-319.
• Epstein, L.S. (1980), "Decision-making and the temporal resolution of uncertainty", International Economic Review 21(2):269-283.
• Christian Gollier, Bruno Jullien and Nicolas Treich (2000), "Scientific Progress and Irreversibility: An Economic Interpretation of the ‘Precautionary Principle’", Journal of Public Economics 75(2):229-253.
• Harremoës, Poul, David Gee, Malcom MacGarvin, Andy Stirling, Jane Keys, Brian Wynne, Sofia Guedes Vaz. The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century: Late Lessons from Early Warnings, Earthscan, 2002. Review, Nature, 419, Oct 2002, 433
• O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (1995), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, Earthscan Publications, London.
• Saunders, P.T. (2000), "Use and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle". Institute of Science in Society Submission to US Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) Biotech. Working Group, 13 July.

External links

• International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC)
• Environmental Law Program and LL.M., University of Oregon
• Public Interest Environmental Law Conference
• Centre for International Environmental Law
• Law, Environment and Development Journal (LEAD Journal)
• Environmental Law Centre (ELC)
• Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide(E-LAW)
• Environmental Law Net

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Environmental_law  ^history
• International_environmental_law  ^history
• Precautionary_principle  ^history
• Sustainable_development  ^history
• Polluter_pays_principle  ^history
• Environmental_agreement  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Environmental law"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.