My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11122
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11122
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:16:12 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:44:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8271.300
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - General Information and Publications-Reports
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/3000
Title
OPINION - Colorado River Salinity Problem - Submitted to His Excellency - Honorable Antonio Carillo Flores - Ambassador of Mexico
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />46 <br /> <br />= <br />"'" <br />en <br />~ <br /> <br />general principle, and, indeed, this principle, as such <br />has not been questioned by Oanada. . . . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />No case of air pollution dealt with by an interna- <br />tional tribunal has been brought to the attention of the <br />'t'ribunalnor does the 't'ribunal know pf ,any sueh case. <br />The nearest analogy is that of water pollution. But, <br />here also, no decision of an international tribunal has <br />been cited or has been found. <br /> <br />There are, however, as regards, both air pollution <br />and water pollution, certain decisions of the Supreme <br />Oourt of the United States which may legitimately be <br />taken as a guide in this field of international law, for <br />it is reasonable to follow by analogy, in international <br />,cases, precedents established by that court in dealing <br />with controversies between States of the Union or with <br />other con troversics conccrning the quasi -sovereign <br />rights of sueh States, where no contrary rule prevails <br />in international law and no reason for rejectmg such <br />precedents can be adduced from the limitations of <br />sovereignty inherent in the Oonstitution of the United <br />States." <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Based upon the American authorities discussed in its <br />decision, the Tribunal concluded that "under the principles <br />of international law, as well as the law of the United <br />States, no State has the right to use or permit the use of <br />its territory in such a manner as to cause injnry by fumes <br />in or to the territory of another or the properties or <br />persons therein, when the case is of serious consequence <br />and the injury is established by clear and convincing <br />evidence.' >72 The smelter was thus required to refrain <br />from causing such injury in the future. <br /> <br />Though the Trail Smelter decision deals with the <br />question of air pollution rather than with pollution of <br /> <br />71 ld. at 1963.64. <br /> <br />72 ld. at 1965. The tribunal -answered Question No.2 as follows: "So <br />long as the present conditions ill the Columbia River Valley prevail, the Trail <br />Smelter shall be required to refrain from causing any damage through fumes <br />in the State of Washington. . .." ld. at 1966. <br /> <br />._,-_.~--~.._---< ,- "'----"~-"~...,'~_.".,.-- -~~---~".......--,.----:""'~.,..." <br /> <br />I, <br />t <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.