No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 September 2024
The outbreak and continuation of armed hostilities can sometimes cause harm to bordering States not directly involved in the hostilities. This has occurred in many military operations conducted during the last few decades. The scope of the provisions relating to the protection of the environment during armed conflict appears to be strictly limited to the territory in which the operations are taking place. It is therefore important to determine the extent to which a belligerent State at the origin of acts that have had devastating consequences on the territory of one or more States not involved in the conflict can be held internationally responsible for those acts based on the principle of international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, which is still under discussion. The argument put forward in this article is based on the hypothesis that this principle is at least implicitly recognized when it comes to environmental damage caused in the context of an armed conflict. In our view, this is grounded both in the principle of the inviolability of neutral States and in the no-harm principle, whereby a State cannot use its territory in a way that is harmful to other States not involved in the armed conflict. These principles are based on the notions of fault and risk.
The advice, opinions and statements contained in this article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICRC. The ICRC does not necessarily represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided in this article.
1 Trail Smelter Case, in Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. 2, p. 1965.
2 Starting in the early 1970s, the steady deterioration in the natural environment gave rise to widespread awareness of people's destructive impact on nature. See Bouvier, Antoine, “Protection of the Natural Environment in Time of Armed Conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 31, No. 285, 1991, p. 567CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 See Mingashang, Ivon, “L’évaluation critique du cadre juridique applicable à l'impératif de la lutte contre les manipulations climatopiques en temps de guerre”, in Dormoy, Daniel and Kuyu, Camille (eds), Droit(s) et Changements Climatiques, Les éditions du Net, Paris, 2020Google Scholar.
4 Roberts, Adam, “Environmental Destruction in the 1991 Gulf War”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 32, No. 291, 1992, p. 538CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Paul Fauteux, “La guerre du Golfe, la Convention ENMOD et la Conférence d'examen”, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Newsletter, No. 18, July 1992, p. 32.
6 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Environmental Impact of the war in Yugoslavia on South-East Europe: Report of the Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities, Doc. 8925, 10 January 2001, available at: https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=9143&lang=EN# (all internet references were accessed in September 2024).
7 Ibid.
8 See d'Argent, Pierre, Les réparations de guerre en droit international public: La responsabilité internationale des États à l’épreuve de la guerre, Bruylant, Brussels, 2002Google Scholar.
9 See Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów, Judgment (Claim for Indemnity), Series A., No. 1, 78 September 1927; Alabama Claims, in Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. 1, p. 1871.
10 PCIJ, Lotus Case, Judgment, Series A, No. 10, 7 September 1927, p. 18.
11 See Cumin, David, Manuel de droit de guerre, 2nd ed., Bruylant, Brussels, 2020, p. 301Google Scholar; Bannelier, Karine Mollard, La protection de l'environnement en temps de conflit armé, Pedone, Paris, 2001, pp. 316 ffGoogle Scholar.
12 Éric David, Principes de droit des conflits armés, 6th ed., Bruylant, Brussels, 2019, pp. 884 ff.; see also Greenwood, Christopher, “State Responsibility and Civil Liability for Environmental Damage Caused by Military Operations”, International Law Studies, Vol. 69, 1996, p. 401Google Scholar.
13 See Anouchka, Didier, Le dommage écologique pur en droit international, new online ed., Geneva Graduate Institute Publications, 2013Google Scholar.
14 Caubet, Christian G., “Le droit international en quête d'une responsabilité pour les dommages résultant d'activités qu'il n'interdit pas”, Annuaire Français de Droit International, Vol. 29, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Awalou, Ouedraogo, “L’évolution du concept de faute dans la théorie de la responsabilité internationale des États”, Revue Québécoise de Droit International, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2008, p. 149Google Scholar.
16 Take, for example, the rules of military necessity and proportionality, which require the strategic importance of the targeted military objective to be weighed up against the potential margin for error relative to other elements in the vicinity.
17 “Treaty rules” refers to all customary principles codified in conventions. A good number of humanitarian principles that are based on customary practice are now codified.
18 See Alexis Marie, Le silence de l’État comme manifestation de sa volonté, Pedone, Paris, 2018; Marc Nihoul, “Le silence est-il roi lorsqu'il faut acceptation?”, in Pierre D'Argent, David Renders and Marc Verdussen (eds), Les visages de l’État: Liber amicorum Yves Lejeune, Bruylant, 2017, Brussels, pp. 591 ff.
19 Put forward in 1899 by the diplomat Friedrich Von Martens, this principle was included in the preambles of Hague Conventions II and IV on the laws and customs of war on land. Under this principle, in cases not included in the provisions adopted by contracting parties, “populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience”. See Catherine Le Bris, L'humanité saisie par le droit international public, LGDJ, Paris, 2012, p. 125. The Principles on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts use the Martens Clause to provide grounds for the applicability of the principles of IHL to the protection of the environment in the event of war. See UNGA Res. 77/104, “Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts”, 7 December 2022 (PERAC Principles), Principle 12.
20 Isabelle Fouchard, “Principe de précaution et conflits armés: L'apport du droit international humanitaire”, in Luca d'Ambrosio, G. Giudicelli-Delage and Stefano Manacorda (eds), Dynamiques normatives du principe de précaution et métamorphoses de la responsabilité́ juridique, Mare & Martin, Paris, 2018, pp. 58 ff.
21 The protection of the environment is provided for in the following treaties: the ENMOD Convention, Articles 35 and 55 of AP I, and conventions on weapons to be used in military hostilities.
22 Yves Sandoz, “La notion d'objectif militaire”, in Vincent Chetail (ed.), Permanence et mutations du droit des conflits armés, Bruylant, Brussels, 2013, pp. 389 ff.
23 See Alexandre Kiss, “Les protocoles additionnels aux conventions de Genève de 1977 et la protection de biens de l'environnement”, in Christophe Swinarksi (ed.), Etudes et essais sur le droit international humanitaire et sur les principes de la Croix-rouge en l'honneur de Jean Pictet, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1984.
24 Françoise Bouchet-Saulnier, Dictionnaire pratique du droit humanitaire, La Découverte, Paris, 2013, pp. 377 ff.
25 See É. David, above note 12, p. 300 ff.
26 This relates to the issue of the survival or suspension of treaties in times of war. The then United Nations Secretary-General was unambiguous on this point, stating: “International environmental agreements and relevant rules of customary law may continue to be applicable in times of armed conflict to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the applicable law of armed conflict.” Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/49/323, 19 August 1994, point 5.
27 Institute of International Law, “The Application of International Humanitarian Law and Fundamental Human Rights, in Armed Conflicts in which Non-State Entities are Parties”, Fourteenth Commission, 1999.
28 Dietrich Schindler, “Transformation in the Law of Neutrality since 1945”, in Astrid J. M. Delissen and Gerard J. Tanja (eds), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1991, p. 370.
29 See Karine Bannelier-Christakis, “L'utopie de la ‘guerre verte’: Insuffisances et lacunes du régime de protection de l'environnement en temps de guerre”, in V. Chetail (ed.), above note 22, p. 395.
30 Elmar Rauch, “Le concept de nécessité militaire dans le droit de la guerre”, Revue de Droit Pénal Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre, Vol. 19, 1980.
31 Ronald Dworkin, Prendre les droits au sérieux, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1995, p. 515 (original English version: Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1977.
32 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict, Geneva, 2022, pp. 80 ff.
33 See Stéphane Solassol, “Les déclarations interprétatives françaises au premier Protocole additionnel aux Conventions de Genève de 1949 relatives à la conduite des hostilités”, Cahiers de la Recherche sur les Droits Fondamentaux, Vol. 2, 2003, p. 121.
34 É. David, above note 12, p. 300.
35 Asma Mahai-Batel. “La diplomatie humanitaire et le droit international humanitaire: De l'empirisme à une diplomatie de catalyse ?”, doctoral thesis, Universitey of Côte d'Azur, 2019, p. 134.
36 C. Le Bris, above note 19, p. 125.
37 See PERAC Principles, above note 19, Principle 14.
38 See F. Bouchet-Saulnier, above note 24, pp. 622 ff.
39 See ICRC, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, Geneva, 2011, p. 57.
40 For insight into this legal notion, see Helga E. Bories-Sawala, “Dommage collatéral ou condition nécessaire à la colonisation? Les épidémies et leur impact sur les Premières Nations dans les manuels d'histoire du Québec”, Revue des Sciences de l’Éducation, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2020.
41 Martial Baudot, Etienne Delcroix, Benoit Guiot, Briec le Gouvello and Matthieu Osada, “Une illustration de la guerre de l'information: Le conflit entre Israël et le Hezbollah de l'été 2006”, École de Guerre Économique, February 2007, p. 17.
42 United Nations, “Liban: La marée noire a atteint les côtes syriennes”, UN News, 6 August 2006, available at: https://news.un.org/fr/story/2006/08/95802.
43 François Dubuisson, “La guerre du Liban de l’été 2006 et le droit de la légitime défense”, Revue Belge de Droit International, Vol. 2006, No. 2, 2006, pp. 533 ff.
44 Y. Sandoz, above note 22, p. 444.
45 K. Bannelier-Christakis, above note 29, p. 394.
46 See Jean D'Aspremont and Jerome De Hemptinne, Droit international humanitaire, Pedone, Paris, 2012, p. 271.
47 Mireille Couston and Geraldine Ruiz, “Le droit de la Haye à l’épreuve des espaces aériens et extra-atmosphériques”, in V. Chetail (ed.), above note 22, pp. 305 ff.
48 F. Bouchet-Saulnier, above note 24, p. 422 ff.
49 See J. D'Aspremont and J. de Hemptine, above note 46, p. 271.
50 Ibid.
51 É. David, above note 12, p. 33.
52 The many treaty instruments on which IHL is based are the result of the codification of many of the principles that once guided the conduct of military hostilities. Since time immemorial, a number of State practices have been underpinned by the application of certain general principles of law and have acquired customary force. This is particularly true of practices resulting from the application of the principles of prevention and neutrality in times of war. See Christian Tshiamala Banungana, “De l'exercice par la Cour pénale internationale de sa compétence repressive dans le contexte du développement de l'ordre écologique international”, doctoral thesis, Law Department, University of Kinshasa, August 2021, pp. 196 ff.
53 See D. Cumin, above note 11, p. 148.
54 ICRC, ICRC Prevention Policy, Geneva, 2010, pp. 11 ff.
55 É. David, above note 12, p. 33.
56 D. Cumin, above note 11, pp. 133 ff.
57 D. Schindler, above note 28, p. 370.
58 Pitt Cobbett, Leading Cases on International Law: War and Neutrality, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1924, p. 402.
59 ICJ, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, 6 November 2003, ICJ Reports 2003.
60 This is the argument put forward in Liesbeth. Lijnzaad and Gerard J. Tanja, “Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict: The Iraq–Kuwait War”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 2, 1993, pp. 172–173.
61 This is the position expressed in William R. Hearn, “The International Legal Regime Regulating Nuclear Deterrence and Warfare”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 61, 1990, p. 247.
62 K. Mollard Bannelier, above note 11, pp. 323 ff.
63 Nauru, Written Statements, Request for an Advisory Opinion by the World Health Organization (Legality of the Use by the State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict) Filed with the ICJ, 15 June 1995, p. 35.
64 These types of definition do not allow us to envisage an enumerative indication of the elements with a view to elucidating the meaning of the concept or idea. They thus ensure a broader scope that would be limited in the case of a detailed list. Colombia's proposal in the context of the Working Group on the Elements of Aggression has sufficiently explained the content of a generic definition. See Working Group on the Elements of Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the ICC, Proposal Submitted by Colombia, PCNICC/2000/WGCA/DP.2, 17 March 2000, p. 2. For a full understanding of the issue, see also Christian Tshiamala Banungana. “Vers l'intégration de l’écocide dans le Statut de Rome”, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 59, 2022, pp. 261–265.
65 See Mélanie Samson, “Interprétation large et libérale et interprétation contextuelle: Convergence ou divergence?”, Les Cahiers de Droit, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2008.
66 European Court of Human Rights, Kress v. France, 7 June 2001, para. 70.
67 Vincent Chetail, “Droit international général et droit international humanitaire: Retour aux sources”, in V. Chetail (ed.), above note 22, pp. 31 ff.
68 Malaysia, Written Statements, Request for an Advisory Opinion by the World Health Organization (Legality of the Use by the State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict) Filed with the ICJ, 19 June 1995, para. 5.6.
69 K. Mollard Bannelier, above note 11, pp. 323 ff.
70 Ibid., p. 329.
71 Paul Fauteux, “L'utilisation de l'environnement comme instrument de guerre au Koweït occupé”, in Brigitte Stern (ed.), Les aspects juridiques de la crise et de la guerre du Golfe, Montchrestien, Paris, 1991, p. 240.
72 See Gérard F. Fitzgerald, “Le Canada et le développement du droit international: La contribution de l'Affaire de la fonderie de Trail à la formation du nouveau droit de la pollution atmosphérique transfrontière”, Études Internationales, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1980.
73 Trailer Smelter Case, above note 1, p. 1965.
74 The Arkansas Water Diversion case, cited in Jacques Ballenegger, La pollution en droit international, Vaudoise, Lausanne, 1975, pp. 53, 55.
75 An examination of State practice indicates that this obligation is a customary norm. See Olivier Corten and Annemie Schaus, “La responsabilité internationale des États-Unis pour les dommages causés par les précipitations acides sur le territoire canadien”, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 27, 1989, pp. 242–244.
76 Island of Palmas Case, in Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. 2, p. 839.
77 ICJ, Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania), Judgment, 9 April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 22.
78 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996 (Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion), para. 29.
79 Ibid.
80 ICJ, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, 20 April 2010, para. 203.
81 ICJ, Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, 16 December 2015.
82 Ibid., paras 101–105.
83 K. Mollard Bannelier, above note 11, pp. 323 ff.
84 Categorizing an otherwise lawful behaviour as dangerous means that the risk of those dangers occurring needs to be anticipated. Along these lines, Robert Ago stated that “[b]eing obliged to accept the possible risks arising from the exercise of an activity which is itself lawful and being obliged to face the consequences – which are not necessarily limited to compensation – of the breach of a legal obligation, are two different matters”. See Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Twenty-Sixth Session, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part 1, 1974, p. 273, para. 109.
85 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, above note 78, paras 28–30.
86 Ibid., para. 27.
87 United States, Written Statements, Request for an Advisory Opinion by the UN General Assembly (Legality of the Use by the State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict) Filed with the ICJ, 20 June 1995, p. 19.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
90 See PERAC Principles, above note 19, Principle 21.
91 Ibid.
92 K. Bannelier-Christakis, above note 29, pp. 389 ff.
93 K. Mollard Bannelier, above note 11, p. 316.
94 For a more in-depth analysis, see Marie Lemey, L'abus de droit en droit international public, LGDJ, Paris, 2021, p. 477.
95 Samantha Besson, La due diligence en droit international, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, 2021, pp. 242 ff.
96 See Helene Tran, Les obligations de vigilance des États parties à la Convention des droits de l'homme, Bruylant, Brussels, 2013, p. 2.
97 Tiphaine Demaria, “Obligations de comportement et obligations de résultat dans la jurisprudence de la Cour internationale de Justice”, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 58, 2021, pp. 369 ff.
98 Nguyen Quoc Dinh, Patrick Daillier, Matthias Forteau, Alina Miron and Alain Pellet, Droit international public, LGDJ, Paris, 2022, pp. 1095 ff.
99 Alain Laquieze, “Sanction”, in Denis Alland and Stephane Rials (eds.), Dictionnaire de la culture juridique, PUF, Paris, 2003, pp. 1381 ff.
100 See O. Awalou, above note 15, pp. 149 ff.
101 É. David, above note 12, p. 851 ff.
102 Jean Monnier, “Développement du droit international humanitaire et droit de la neutralité”, in Quatre études du droit international humanitaire, Institut Henry-Dunant, Geneva, 1985, p. 5.
103 É. David, above note 12, p. 846.
104 Nils Melzer and Etienne Kuster (eds), International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction, ICRC, Geneva, 2019, pp. 282–283.
105 D. Schindler, above note 28, p. 370.
106 See I. Mingashang, above note 3.
107 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, above note 6.
108 Jean Pierre Beurrier, Droit international de l'environnement, Pedone, Paris, 2017, p. 239.
109 Alain Pellet, “Le nouveau projet de la C.D.I. sur la responsabilité de l’État pour fait internationalement illicite: Requiem pour le crime?”, in Man's Inhumanity to Man: Festschrift Antonio Cassese, Kluwer, The Hague, 2002, pp. 655 ff.
110 International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law: Comments and Observations Received from Governments, UN Doc. A/CN.4/481 and Add.1, 1997.
111 Gabriella Venturini, “Les obligations de diligence dans le droit international humanitaire”, in Sarah Casella (ed.), Le standard de due diligence et la responsabilité internationale, Journée d’études franco-italienne de Mans, Société Française de Droit International, Pedone, Paris, 2018, pp. 136 ff.
112 Charles Lionel, “Environnement, incertitude et risque: Du pragmatisme aux développements contemporains”, Écologie & Politique, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2002, p. 112.
113 Affaire des biens britanniques au Maroc espagnol (Espagne c. Royaume-Uni), in Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. 2, p. 654.
114 See in particular Iran–US Claims Tribunal, Flexi-Van Leasing Inc. v. Iran, Case No. 36-222, Award Final No. 259-36-1, 11 October 1986, pp. 24–26; Patrick Daillier, Myriam Benlolo, Marie Dumée, Anne Robert and Daniel Muller, “Tribunal irano-americain des reclamations”, Annuaire Francais de Droit International, Vol. 46, 2000.
115 ICJ, Corfu Chanel, above note 77, p. 18.
116 ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, 27 June 1986, para. 164.
117 Pasquale De Sena, “La ‘due diligence’ et le lien entre le sujet et le risque qu'il faut prévenir: Quelques observations”, in S. Casella (ed.), above note 111, pp. 247 ff.
118 O. Corten and A. Schaus, above note 75, p. 246.
119 Ibid., p. 249.
120 Ibid.
121 ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, para. 430.
122 Corten, Olivier, “L'arrêt rendu par la CIJ dans l'affaire du Crime de génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Serbie): Vers un assouplissement des conditions permettant d'engager la responsabilité d'un État pour génocide?”, Annuaire Français de Droit International, Vol. 53, 2007, p. 278CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
123 É. David, above note 12, p. 851.
124 International Liability for Injurious Consequences, above note 110.
125 ICJ, Nicaragua, above note 116, para. 116.
126 ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005, ICJ Reports 2005, para. 213.
127 É. David, above note 12, p. 846.
128 ICJ, Nicaragua, above note 116, para. 116.
129 ICJ, Armed Activities, above note 126, para. 300.
130 ICJ, Genocide, above note 121, paras 161–165.
131 J. D'Aspremont and J. De Hemptinne, above note 46, p. 429.
132 See PERAC Principles, above note 19, Principle 9. See also ILC, Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising Out of Hazardous Activities, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part 2, 2006.
133 See Jean-Christophe Martin, “La pratique de la Commission d'indemnisation des Nations Unies pour l'Irak en matière de réclamations environnementales”, in Société Française pour le Droit International, Le droit international face aux enjeux environnementaux: Actes du 43eme colloque de la Société française pour le droit international, Aix-Marseille, 4–6 juin 2009, Pedone, Paris, 2010.
134 Yann Kerbrat, “Le droit international face au défi de la réparation des dommages à l'environnement: Rapport général sur le thème de la deuxième journée”, in Société Française pour le Droit International, above note 133, pp. 140 ff.
135 I. Mingashang, above note 3, p. 186.
136 See Petel, Matthias, “La nature: D'un objet d'appropriation à un sujet de droit. Réflexions pour un nouveau modèle de société”, Revue Interdisciplinaire d’Études Juridiques, Vol. 80, No. 1, 2018Google Scholar.
137 Marja Lehto, Second Report on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN Doc. A/CN.4/728, 27 March 2019, p. 70.
138 It is worth recalling the difficulties inherent in the attribution of such damage: “The damage may be due to several concurrent causes, or the state of science regarding the causal link between the wrongful act and the damage may be uncertain. These are difficulties that must be addressed as and when they arise in light of the facts of the case at hand and the evidence presented to the Court. Ultimately, it is for the Court to decide whether there is a sufficient causal nexus between the wrongful act and the injury suffered.” ICJ, Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment (Compensation), ICJ Reports 2018, p. 26, para. 34.
139 ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment (Reparations), 9 February 2022, ICJ Reports 2022, paras 345–350.
140 Ibid.
141 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, above note 6.
142 ICJ, Certain Activities and San Juan River, above note 81, p. 34.
143 PCIJ, Chorzów,above note 9, p. 48.
144 M. Lehto, above note 137, p. 70.
145 Sénéchal, Thierry, “Dédommagement, réparation, restitution: Instruments de ‘vérité’?”, Topique, Vol. 102, No. 1, 2008, pp. 30 ffGoogle Scholar.