| Allen L. Springer | Int'l. Environmental Policy- Exam 1- 1996 | |||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
| Instructions Be sure to put your name on every exam booklet used. Please skip every other line or leave some space at the end of your answers to make room for your corrections and my comments. You may answer the questions in any order you wish, but be sure to put the number of each question next to your answer. Please write legibly and using complete sentences! However, your answers/arguments need not be long. In some cases, a single carefully-written sentence will be sufficient to make each point. The approximate point score for each question is indicated in parentheses at the start of each. The total number of points on the exam is 38-1/2. 1) (4 points) You are the representative of the Spanish Foreign Ministry. What are the four strongest legal arguments you could use to try to counter the Canadian position justifying its actions in the 1995 dispute over turbot? (1 point for each) 2) (5-1/2 points) Explain what is meant by an “umbrella convention.” Give three reasons why Lawrence Susskind (“Weakness of the Existing Treaty-Making System”) disapproves of the use of umbrella conventions and explain whether you gnerally agree or disagree with him by looking specifically at one such convention encountered thus far in the course. [1 point for definition of “umbrella” conventions; 1 point for each of 3 reasons Susskind dislikes them; 1/2 point for naming an example of an umbrella convention, 1 point for brief arguments analyzing whether he is right or wrong in context of that convention] 3) (2 points) You are an environmental activist; it is the summer of 1972. Describe two ways in you might be disappointed by the outcome of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. [1 point each] 4) (5-1/2 points) You are the representative of the French Foreign Ministry after the Sandoz spill. What are the four strongest points you could make in a legal argument designed to hold the state of Switzerland responsible for paying compensation to those injured in the accident? What, in fact, was the legal outcome of spill? [1 point for each of 4 legal points; 1/2 point for identifying the best case to support your argument if tied effectively to answer; 1 point for describing actual outcome] 5) (5 points) Environmental disasters have played an important role in helping to develop international environmental law, but often in quite different ways. Describe how two different types of accidents (not including the Sandoz spill) led to quite different changes in the law in their respective areas. [1/2 point for identifying each example; 1 point for describing each of 2 changes encouraged by each accident; be clear about how approach taken after each accident was different) 6) (5-1/2 points) You are the representative of the United States State Department; it is 1990. Right after the decision in Her Majesty the Queen v. the EPA , Canada makes a formal international claim. It protests the court’s decision as a violation of the principle of “equal access.” Canada further demands both the shutdown of all industrial sources of sulphur dioxide in the U.S. and and compensation for all past acid rain damage suffered by Canada. While the U.S. support the principle of equal access, it does not want to do what Canada suggests. Explain fully how you would respond. [1 point for each of 5 arguments; 1/2 point for another case to support your arugment if tied effectively to answer] 7) (4 points) Assess the overall legal significance of the Parana River negotiations. Were they consistent with the ILA’s Helsinki Rules, especially concerning the principle of equitable utilization, and the ruling in the Lake Lanoux case? [No point for yes or no; 1 point for explanation of equitable utilization, 1 point for argument linking negotiations to Helsinki Rules; 1 point for each of 2 arguments comparing negotiations to standards of Lake Lanoux case] 8) (4 points) If the 1974 international claim brought by Australia and New Zealand against French testing in the South Pacific had ultimately been fully successful on the merits, what would have been the three most important contributions made to international environmental law? What, in fact, was the legal outcome of the case? [1 point for each of 3 contributions; 1 point for actual legal outcome] 9) (3 points) In two cases we have encountered thus far, the respective courts effectively each held a parent company liable for the environmental damage caused by its overseas subsidiary. Howerver, the circumstances in each case were different as was the stated (or implied) logic used by each court to justify its action. Clearly identify each case and explain how they differed in this respect. [1/2 point for each case; 1 point for explanation of ruling of each court.] |
||||||||||||||||
|
Allen L. Springer- aspringe@polar.bowdoin.edu Department of Government and Legal Studies Bowdoin College Brunswick, ME 04011-8498 Tel: 207-729-8502 Fax:- 207-725-3168 |
||||||||||||||||