WSP11122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

47 waters, the tribunal relied upon prineiples derived from cases dealing with water pollution. The decision in our view provides support for the proposition that under international law a state may not artificially pollute or increase the level of pollution of an international river where the consequences are serious and where .injury can be clearly established. 2. Ouasi.lnlernalional Decisions .. l, ~ r I) Since federal states possess attributes of sovereignty, decisions in cases involving interstate disputes are con- sidered as guides in the field of international law." In cases dealing with interstate river disputes, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that it regards itself as a kind of international tribunal and applies international law.74 In several cases the Supreme Court of the United States has indicated that an injured state may enjoin the pollu- tion of interstate waters. In Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208 (1901), the State of Missouri filed an original bill in the Supreme Court against the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago to prevent the discharge of filth and sewage into the Mississippi River, the bill alleging that the Sanitary District threatened to gather into an artificial channel the sewage and filth of the city of Chicago and empty such channel into the Des Plaines River which empties into the Illinois River and which latter river flows into the Mississippi River above St. Louis. On objections as to sufficieney of the bill, the Court held the allegations to be sufficient to entitle the State of Missouri to the relief requested. Upon consideration of the evidence the Supreme Court later held that the allega- tions of the State of Missouri had not been supported by . 78 E.g., Trial Smelter Decision, supra. 74 North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S. 365, 372~73 (1923); Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125, 146.47 (1902). .---~""""""""- ---'-.:......-;_.-----~'~~'-'~',..,.~'''!- . !\ I l'_, '