We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
When Law Is Silent: How to Compensate for the Harm to the Health or Property in the Absence of a Particular Harm-Doer?
Summary
This legal analysis examined how existing international law frameworks handle compensation for environmental harm caused by diffuse or unattributable sources, such as microplastic pollution, where no single party can be held liable under conventional rules. The paper proposed mechanisms to fill these legal gaps in the absence of a specific liability regime.
Abstract Legal rules aimed at compensation for the harm caused by a particular state, individual, or legal entity (for example, oil pollution of the sea due to a tanker accident) are well studied and constantly used in scientific literature and international law practice. Meanwhile, every year, the number of cases of harm when the particular guilty party cannot be established grows; this is why it is almost impossible to compensate for the harm caused. Such cases include collisions of satellites causing space debris; the consequences of climate change for agriculture, forestry, and the health of citizens; and the pollution of the World Ocean with plastic debris, ballast water, and abandoned nets. There are more such cases at the national level. After studying acts of international environmental law, national legislation, and several examples from judicial practice, we show that compensation for the harm caused to life, health, or property in the absence of a particular harm-doer is difficult or impossible to prove. This is why actions that can prevent subjectless environmental harm are taken at the national level in certain countries by developing measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change, licensing space activities, and taking preventive measures against the formation of plastic debris and its pollution of the seas, etc. This trend should be continued, and the experience gained by certain states should be used in developing new acts of international environmental law. This will ensure the next step towards preventing environmental harm where it is impossible to establish the doer’s name.
Sign in to start a discussion.
More Papers Like This
Liability and Compensation for Marine Plastic Pollution: Conceptual Issues and Possible Ways Forward
This paper reviews international legal frameworks for holding polluters liable for marine plastic pollution, finding that existing liability mechanisms are largely inadequate. Stronger international legal tools would create financial incentives for companies to reduce plastic waste before it reaches the ocean.
An Examination of Evolving Concerns, Obstacles, and Prospects in Relation to Pollution in the Marine Environment
This review examines international and national regulatory frameworks for marine pollution, finding that laws are often reactive — triggered only after environmental disasters — and inadequate for addressing diffuse threats like microplastic contamination. The authors argue that current legal tools need modernization and stronger enforcement to keep pace with emerging pollutants. This is relevant context for understanding why microplastic regulation lags far behind scientific evidence of harm.
Liability Framework for Microplastic Pollution in Marine Ecosystems
This legal analysis argues that current international treaties — including UNCLOS, MARPOL, and the Basel Convention — are too fragmented and vague to hold anyone accountable for microplastic pollution in the ocean. The authors identify critical gaps around attribution, lifecycle governance, and monitoring standards, and call for a binding global liability framework built around extended producer responsibility and uniform scientific standards. Without clearer rules about who is responsible and what they must do, widespread marine microplastic contamination is likely to continue unchecked.
Liability Framework for Microplastic Pollution in Marine Ecosystems
This legal analysis argues that current international treaties — including UNCLOS, MARPOL, and the Basel Convention — are too fragmented and vague to hold anyone accountable for microplastic pollution in the ocean. The authors identify critical gaps around attribution, lifecycle governance, and monitoring standards, and call for a binding global liability framework built around extended producer responsibility and uniform scientific standards. Without clearer rules about who is responsible and what they must do, widespread marine microplastic contamination is likely to continue unchecked.
Responsibility and Allocation for Environmental Damage Caused by Marine Plastic
Despite its title referencing marine plastic pollution and environmental damage, this paper is primarily a legal analysis of international treaty negotiations over plastic pollution responsibility — not a scientific study of microplastic pollution itself. It examines how national interests and industrial lobbying have stalled the International Plastics Convention and discusses frameworks for allocating environmental liability, and is not directly relevant to microplastic science or human health impacts.