Search

Метою статті є дослідження теоретико-правових засад поводження з відходами за законодавством Європейського Союзу, принципів діяльності ЄС у сфері поводження з відходами та напрямків попередження виникнення відходів. Наукова новизна. У зв’язку з незадовільним станом виконання в Україні зобов’язань у сфері адаптації вітчизняного законодавства до законодавства ЄС у сфері поводження з відходами актуальним є ґрунтовне дослідження системи класифікації відходів та принципів діяльності ЄС у сфері поводження з відходами.Висновки. Головним завданням державної політики щодо управління відходами є максимально можливе зменшення негативного впливу речовин та матеріалів, що втратили своє споживче значення, на навколишнє середовище та здоров’я людини. Цей напрям державної політики є дуже важливим через вкрай негативні наслідки, оскільки відходи становлять загрозу для здоров’я людини та завдають шкоду навколишньому природному середовищу в зв’язку з їх токсичністю, можливістю забруднення повітря, води та ґрунту. Нами проаналізовано систему класифікації відходів в ЄС з погляду на їх хімічні, фізичні, економічні властивості. На сьогодні ця система класифікації складається з 20 глав, 110 підкатегорій, 839 видів відходів, 405 видів відходів, класифікованих як небезпечні. Основною метою впровадження класифікації відходів є розроблення типових систем управління не для кожного виду відходів окремо, а в межах певної категорії, крім випадків, передбачених законодавством ЄС. Основними стратегічними цілями в галузі поводження з відходами в Європейському Союзі є: зменшення утворення відходів шляхом запобігання їх виробленню в технологічному процесі виробництва; використання відходів у виробничих процесах; виділення окремих фракцій із загального потоку відходів для подальшого їх використання як вторинних матеріальних та енергетичних ресурсів; скорочення відходів, розміщених на звалищах; інтеграція методів поводження з відходами на основі використання найкращих доступних технологій.У правовій системі ЄС, поряд із загальними принципами (принцип забруднювач платить, принцип охорони життя та здоров’я, принцип запобігання та профілактики, принцип планування, принцип сталого розвитку), існують спеціальні, які складають основу правового регулювання у певних сферах суспільного життя (принцип близькості, принцип застосування ієрархії поводження з відходами, принцип відповідальності виробника, принцип селективного збору). Новацією є те, що вищезгадані принципи передбачають підготовку до повторного використання та переробки. Ці дві групи процесів підпадають під поняття відновлення, зумовленого бажанням запобігти утворенню нових відходів та використовувати вже існуючі відходи як ресурс.

Summary Economic development is increasingly impacting biodiversity, leading to a rise in biodiversity offset policies globally that aim to compensate for biodiversity losses. Many developments generating offsets create long-term, irreversible losses of biodiversity and, therefore, require biodiversity gains from offsets to be retained over the long term to have any hope of achieving “no net loss” (NNL) of biodiversity. This raises important ecological and institutional challenges that current offset mechanisms, built for politico-economic systems with short-term policy horizons, do not sufficiently consider. We explore this issue and discuss several responses to the problem ranging from incremental changes for improving on-ground management, through to major governance shifts required to support the long-term social-ecological resilience of offset sites. We argue that without these changes, at best, NNL policies participate in temporarily reducing permanent biodiversity loss. At worst, they participate in a false promise, distracting institutions from the transformative changes needed to reverse biodiversity depletion.

The government needs to restructure the institutions that are responsible for prosecution and the calculation of appropriate compensation to avoid the time-consuming and complicated process of calculating losses and need to establish a loss adjuster agency. The Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs is expected to be the coordinator, coordinating other agencies based on a marine data base and a method of calculating compensation for all existing resources. It is necessary to create a special procedural law system for environmental compensation considering the application of the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle and strict liability in cases of tanker oil pollution which have special characteristics given the civil responsibility and liability for Protection & Indemnity (P&I) insurance. Keywords: Compensation, oil pollution, tankers, legal system.

Research that analyzes the legal protection of consumers and environment against the practice of planned obsolescence. It seeks to analyze which legal mechanisms can be used to combat planned obsolescence due to its impact on the generation of solid waste. Therefore, the methodology used is applied research, exploratory in relation to legal phenomena, deductive reasoning is predominantly used, without this signifying the exclusion of inductive reasoning. Bibliographic, legislative, jurisprudential and doctrinal techniques are used as research techniques, predominantly using bibliography. It conceptualizes planned obsolescence by correlating it to the contemporary way of life, analyzing the protection of consumers and the environment against this practice, both in Brazil and in countries such as France and Spain, when the lack of specific legislation is observed in Brazil. Thus, it concludes that the fight against planned obsolescence is not regulated in Brazil and that it has much to contribute to avoid the generation of solid waste. It points to the need to define the criteria for the useful life of a product, the application of extended civil liability to suppliers based on the polluter pays principle, the adoption of measures to the National Policy on Climate Change regarding Carbon Credits, the need to legislative measures under national jurisdiction to regulate the fight against planned programmed in the National Policy on Consumer Relations and the National Policy for Waste Management.

El principio quien contamina paga fue introducido por la OCDE en 1972 como uno de los principios guías relacionados con los aspectos económicos de las políticas medioambientales. También se encuentra presente en el Tratado de la Comunidad Económica Europea y a nivel internacional se consagró en la Declaración de Río de Janeiro sobre Medio ambiente y desarrollo Sostenible, y –de forma más exhaustiva- en el Convenio sobre el derecho de los usos de los cursos de agua internacionales para fines distintos de la navegación de 21 de mayo de 1997. Pero la legislación europea medioambiental se encuentra en continuo addatamento, surgiendo interrogantes respecto de este principio que ameritan respuestas basadas en la revisión de las reglas a las que se ha sometido el medio ambiente y su interpretación según la jurisprudencia emanada del Tribunal de Luxemburgo. Así, el medio ambiente en el marco europeo es un ejemplo de transversalidad a la hora de su protección, encontrándose en un punto crítico coyuntural por su naturaleza global. Y las cosas se vuelven mucho más complicadas desde una perspectiva legal por las posibles interacciones entre el cambio climático con otros campos del derecho internacional. No obstante, el principio quien contamina paga ha sido el desencadenante de los primeros pasos hacia la creación de una teoría de la responsabilidad ambiental.

The sea potentially fulfills the interest of sea transformation; for example, the transportation of tankers. The Indonesian sea is included in the seas with the dense traffic of tankers causing the risk of oil pollution due to tanker accidents. For example, the three case of oil contamination caused by tanker accidents occurred in the Cilacap Sea, which is the largest oil refinery in Indonesia. This study aimed to find the value of justice for oil pollution losses due totanker accidents considering that Indonesia ratified the International Convention on the civil Liability 1992, along with its supplementary protocol. The international law principles (polluter pays principle, precautionary principle, and strict liability) for oil tanker losses caused by tankers have been applied to the national legal system. There were still overlapping authorities and the conflicts of authorities among the institutes in the period before 2015 before the establishment of the Coordinating Ministry of Marine Affairs.After the periodization of 2015 with the formation of the Coordinating Ministry of Marine Affairs, it is expected to resolve the loss of oil pollution as a result of tanker accidents using the rights method of calculating the loss of natural resources, taking into account the willingness to pay and the willing to accept between the insurance and victims.

Nowadays, there are some marine pollution cases caused by oil spill from vessels. These cases give a significant impact on marine environment and threatening human’s life. Therefore, law enforcement is needed.One of the principles that can be used in solving this problem is Polluter-Pays principles. This principle found in the 16th principle of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development on 2002. The requirement of the principle is cost of pollution should be borne by the person responsible for causing the pollution. National authorities should endeavor to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments. This article aims to find out the implementation of polluter pays principles in Indonesia, especially in study of oil spill. Polluter pays principle can be used as one of solution in helping country overcome the loses oil spill cases within Indonesian waters. One of the challenges is Indonesia need a specific instrument used as a mechanism for calculating the loss or damage that should be paid by the polluters.

The Russian Federation is the fourth largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. The article is a study of how these emissions are monitored in Russia. In the framework of the polluter-pays principle (ppp), the current Russian legislation on pollutants provides for payment only for methane emissions. No payments are established for any of the other greenhouse gases. The authors conclude that, at present, Russian legislation does not regulate action against climate change, although many political and legal documents are being adopted aimed at adapting to the effects of climate change. A draft statute “On State Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Absorption and on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” is analysed. Despite the fact that this draft law is strongly opposed by the affected industries, the authors conclude that the adoption of this law and the creation of a targeted national climate fund will contribute to the implementation of the ppp in Russia for the purpose of combating climate change.

This paper provides an overview of the role of oil spill liability in policy at the state, national, and international levels. The primary focus is on damages to publicly owned natural resources from oil spills and associated legislation, policy, and economics. Both US and International Law have evolved over time to provide strict liability for an ever more inclusive set of oil spill damages, including what is termed "pure environmental" damages. This represents arguably the most expansive implementation of the "Polluter Pays Principle", which makes those who pollute financially responsible for the damages. Under both US and International Law, the primary form of compensation is a set of cost-effective actions to restore environmental damages, which has been termed resource-based compensation, as opposed providing to monetary compensation to injured parties. The framework under US law for liability for publicly owned natural resource damages requires quantification of causal linkages from a spill event, to injury to natural resources, to damages to the public, to natural recovery to baseline conditions, and accelerated recovery under alternative sets of restoration programs. In principle, this is a logical framework to ensure that the public is compensated for spill-related environmental damages. However, carrying out such a program may strain the state-of-the-science at each stage, given the many limitations of our scientific understanding of complex environmental systems. Thus, assessing liability for oil spill damages is a highly challenging endeavor and enormous uncertainties exist at nearly every stage in the process. Furthermore, litigation for oil spill damages is often a high stakes game, where the parties that are principally involved in assessing damages also receive benefits from, or pay the costs of, the damage awards. Thus, the process of assessing damages cannot be viewed as an objective analysis by impartial third parties. Furthermore, this damage assessment process is costly and time consuming, and neither assessment costs nor litigation costs contribute to compensating victims or restoring environmental damages. This raises the question of whether we as a society should rethink the framework for compensation for natural resource damages in future oil spill legislation. Standardized alternatives to traditional tort law exist which may reduce the time and financial costs of litigation and may thereby expedite restoration actions. Furthermore, standardized approaches may not necessarily reduce the accuracy of damage assessments, given the great scientific uncertainties and the financial interests of the parties involved in the damage assessment process.

Since 2009, the EU ets Directive set up a general rule for the auctioning of emission allowances. It is subject to a number of exemptions. The transitional allocation of free allowances in the electricity sector, and in general the granting of free or below-market-price allowances, are caught by the tfeu prohibition on grants of state aid. However, the EU legislature and its executive—the European Commission—are empowered to grant the EU member states exemptions in order to correct market failures. At face value, such arrangements seem to run contrary to the polluter-pays principle on account that state aid subsidizes emissions of greenhouse gases instead of internalizing their costs into the price of goods and services delivered by the recipient installations. This article explores how such arrangements amount to state aid and analyses the manner in which the exemptions are consistent with the polluter-pays principle.

The disparate fates of the polluter pays principle (ppp) as an instrument of municipal environmental governance in the environmental law of China, India, and the United States illustrate how institutions and culture can shape its use. In China, essential elements of the Chinese legal tradition and an institutionalized devolution of power from the central government to local governments essentially neutralized the Chinese variant of the ppp in one important context by mobilizing certain culturally defined behavioural norms at the local level. In India, the Supreme Court has behaved in accordance with the socially revolutionary role intended for it by the framers of India’s Constitution by recognizing a maximalist conception of the ppp as part of Indian law, although other features of India’s unique legal culture and institutions have reduced the impact of this development. In the United States, the institutionalized fragmentation of the law-making process within the Federal Government has undermined even the implicit implementation of the ppp, to which US environmental statutes do not refer. The implications of these developments for the ppp as an instrument of municipal but also global environmental governance in climate change mitigation law flow less from the nominal status of the ppp in the laws of China, India, and the United States than from the unique institutional and cultural conditions that prevail there. The result is a case study in how institutions and culture can transform the implementation of a principle of environmental governance that at first glance might seem to be a simple exercise in economic rationality into a different exercise that is not simple at all.

Mestrado Bolonha em Contabilidade, Fiscalidade e Finanças Empresariais The aim of this research is to understand the determinants of environmental taxation, i.e. what influences the revenues obtained from this type of taxes. The existing literature on the determinants of environmental taxation is scarce, and focusing on the EU is even scarcer. In this dissertation we hope to contribute to the body of studies on the determinants of environmental taxation by studying the specific case of the EU-28. In order to carry out this study, we collected annual data on specific economic and tax variables from 1998 to 2018 for EU countries and the UK, and carried out panel data analysis by using regression models to estimate the determinants of environmental taxation revenue. We developed five sets of regression models using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method. The results indicate that GDP per capita, GDP growth, services, the financial crisis and the sovereign debt crisis have a negative impact on environmental taxation revenues in the EU-28, while tax revenue, industry, the euro, the deficit, the degree of openness of the economy and lnGDP have a positive impact on environmental taxation revenues. O objetivo desta investigação é perceber quais são os determinantes da tributação ambiental, ou seja, aquilo que influencia as receitas obtidas deste tipo de impostos. A literatura já existente sobre os determinantes da tributação ambiental é reduzida, e centrada na UE é ainda mais reduzida. Nesta dissertação esperamos contribuir para o conjunto de estudos sobre os determinantes da tributação ambiental, estudando o caso específico da UE-28. De forma a efetuar este estudo, recolhemos dados anuais de variáveis económicas e fiscais específicas de 1998 até 2018, para os países da UE e para o Reino Unido, e efetuámos análise de dados em painel através do uso de modelos de regressão para estimar os determinantes da receita da tributação ambiental. Desenvolvemos cinco conjuntos de modelos de regressão, utilizando o Método dos Mínimos Quadrados (OLS). Os resultados indicam que o PIB per capita, o crescimento do PIB, os serviços, a crise financeira e a crise das dívidas soberanas têm um impacto negativo nas recitas da tributação ambiental na UE-28, enquanto a receita fiscal, a indústria, o euro, o défice, o grau de abertura da economia e o lnPIB têm um impacto positivo nas receitas da tributação ambiental. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The article concerns the Swedish aviation tax which was introduced in 2018. A tax policy approach is applied to not only consider tax technicalities but also the ideals and goals of the tax from the perspective of the Swedish legislature. Resulting in an inclusion of not only legal aspects but also a consideration of how politics and economics influences the design of such a tax. The author concludes that there are several potential State aid problems with the present design of the tax, eg too low tax rates in order to fulfil its environmental policy objective, an exemption of transit and transfer passengers that distorts the competition between airlines and which is not justified or exempted from State aid rules.Keywords: aviation taxes, fiscal State aid, emission offsetting, carbon offset, polluter pays principle, Sweden, The article concerns the Swedish aviation tax which was introduced in 2018. A tax policy approach is applied to not only consider tax technicalities but also the ideals and goals of the tax from the perspective of the Swedish legislature. Resulting in an inclusion of not only legal aspects but also a consideration of how politics and economics influences the design of such a tax. The author concludes that there are several potential State aid problems with the present design of the tax, eg too low tax rates in order to fulfil its environmental policy objective, an exemption of transit and transfer passengers that distorts the competition between airlines and which is not justified or exempted from State aid rules.

The paper examines two backwardlooking principles about how the costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change should be distributed. According to the polluter pays principle, such costs should be borne by those who caused climate change. According to the beneficiary pays principle, they should be borne by those who have benefited from the activities causing climate change, regardless of whether they took part in such activities or not. The paper unpacks both principles, considers their main problems and contends that, when properly combined, they can address such problems. El artículo analiza dos principios retrospectivos sobre cómo deberían distribuirse los costes de mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático. Según el principio de responsabilidad histórica, dichos costes deberían ser asumidos por quienes han causado el cambio climático. Según el principio del beneficio, deberían ser asumidos por los beneficiarios de las actividades causantes del cambio climático, con independencia de que hayan contribuido a ellas o no. El artículo presenta los principios y sus implicaciones, analiza sus principales problemas y argumenta que una combinación de ambos resuelve dichos problemas y proporciona una respuesta adecuada sobre cómo distribuir los costes de mitigación y adaptación.

The paper provides an analysis of Italian environmental taxes on electricity production and consumption in order to verify their consistency with the Polluters Pays Principle (PPP). The environmental external costs of air emissions generated by Italian thermal power plants are compared to environmental taxes paid by the same plants (fuel excise duties, SO2/NOx tax, ETS and levy on energy producers). As a basis for the comparison, the paper applies the methods for environmental external costs assessment recommended by the National Guidelines for the Evaluation of Investment Projects (2017). The PPP comparison highlights that the external costs related to thermal power plants emissions amount to about € 9,400 million (53.8 euro per MWh produced) whereas only € 350 million are actually paid through the above-mentioned environmental taxes (3.8% of the external costs generated). Indeed, the environmental taxes directly paid by all electricity customers in their bills (excise duty on electricity, system charges for subsidising renewable energy sources) are of the same order of magnitude of the external costs of power plants. However, seen from the PPP point of view, these two taxes have the drawback of environmental tax payment being made also by "green" customers, i.e. whose electricity is bought with the guarantee of being "produced from renewable energy sources". The authors argue that environmental taxes directly falling on electricity producers are consistent with the PPP and provide in principle a better price signal to electricity markets, rather than environmental taxes directly paid by customers. Shifting current environmental taxes from electricity consumption to production would support the implementation of two of the main targets of the National Energy Strategy (2017), such as the progressive phase-out of coal at 2025 and the 55% RES electric target at 2030, while increasing the coherence and fairness of taxes paid on electricity.

The purpose of the article is a research of the European waste management and resources system in the context of approximation of national legislation to acquis communautaire, based on the relevant general and special principles. The scientific novelty caused by the fact that in the conditions of European integration for Ukraine is relevant change of legislation and practices in the field of waste management, modernization of the appropriate infrastructure and increasing environmental awareness of citizens. Generalized the positive experience of waste and resource management in the EU countries, the contents of the EU directives on the waste and resource handling, and scientific publications on this topic are noted that the majority of EU standards in this area are formulated as principles of the system of Waste and resource management. Therefore, the concept and content of the category «Principles of waste management» is found, their classification is proposed. Conclusions. On the basis of definitions of the «Principles of law» and «EU Environmental Policy principles», the principles of waste management and resources are defined as fundamental ideas and guidelines on which the waste management system and resources are functioning, They determine its general orientation, purpose, purpose and structure, and establish methods of such governance. The European waste and resource management system is based on the following general principles of the EU environmental policy: the principle of sustainable development, the polluter pays principle, the principle of introducing the best available technologies, the principle of preventive measures, the principle of promoting clean technologies and products, the principle of uniform terminology and classification, principle of planning and reporting. The specific principles of waste management and resources include the following: the principle of a waste hierarchy, which provides for the next five-step system of waste management priorities, starting with the most desirable options and ending with unwanted options that can be applied only after the previous ones: prevention of waste generation; preparation for reuse; waste processing; energy recovery; liquidation. The principle of self-sufficiency means the creation by each Member State of the EU of an adequate infrastructure for the disposal and disposal of all waste generated in it. The principle of proximity lies in the fact that the collection, disposal and disposal of waste should be as close as possible to the source of their formation. The principle of extended producer responsibility (a natural or legal person who develops, deals with, sells or imports goods by activity) means the obligation of the producer to ensure the organization of the collection, processing and utilization of their products after use, as well as information measures for consumers, etc.

Global Pact for the Environment emerged as an answer to the need for a general legal instrument on climate change which produces binding obligations. It is not just another international legal instrument which places legal obligations on state and non-state parties to address climate change. Rather, it is a novel instrument which links with national Constitutions and introduces innovative international legal principles which bind state and non-state actors as well as multinational corporations in working together towards climate change. Also, the instrument moves beyond the polluter pays principle to focus on taking precautionary measures of maintaining as well as restoring the environment. Despite the criticism of the Pact being expressed by some scholars, the Global Pact presents itself as a promising document geared to address the pressing issue of climate change.

Under the current international legal frameworks with respect to ship-recycling industry, relevant authorities are struggling from pursuing shipowners’ illegal trade of an end-of-life vessel to the shipbreaking yards, although it can be considered as a material fact to environmental harms caused by activities of ship-recycling. In this line, this paper will explore issues of circumvention by shipowners in relation to responsibility under the current international legal frameworks such as the Basel Convention and Hong Kong Convention. Based on examination of those conventions, this paper would find lack of effective control measures over shipowner’s transactions of end-of-life vessels to ship-breaking yards in South Asia through intermediaries under current international environmental law. Thus, to ensure responsibility of shipowners in relation to environmental harms in South Asian ship-breaking beaching yards, this paper examine principles of international environmental law including the polluter pays principle, and transboundary harm and liability principle. That is because environmental costs may be internalised by imposing liability on shipowners as the polluter in ship-recycling industry and also transboundary harm and its liability to a State may call concerned States more to be aware of shipowners’ activities of scrapping vessels. [

This article analyzes the development of international legislation, as well as the legislation of individual states regarding the legal regulation of compensation for environmental damage. The authors identified and analyzed two levels of regulation. The first level is international; it includes acts adopted or approved by a group of states. The second level is national; it includes the regulations of individual states. The conclusion about the existence of general rules of legal regulation in the legislation of various states is formulated. Based on the analysis of Russian legislation, mechanisms for its improvement are proposed, including using international experience.

This research is aimed to analyze and determine the 16th provision principle of the declaration on environment and development, namely the polluter pays principle, as one of the state’s form of accountability towards the polluting across borders between PTTEP Australia and Indonesia. This is a juridical research, which analyzes the issue discussed through the use of many realted sources. The Polluter Pyas Principle, as a form of State responsibility in environmental pollution, has some advantages and disadvantages when applied as a recommendation by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). From a legal perspective, this principle can be applied as a civil liability law, whereas from an economic perspective, it can be viewed as effort to control pollution by means which the polluter has an obligation to pay for the environmental pollution that he/she caused. Even so this principle also has its weakness, in an economic approach this principle is difficult to determine the determination of the cost of loss. In some countries themselves have applied this principle in handling cases of environmental pollution. In the case of cross-border environmental pollution, the principle of good neighborliness and the principle of state responsibility in dealing with pollution cases as a sign of State’s goodwill to comply with existing international law. The case of environmental pollution itself is not only the State that can sue, but a group of people or the community can also sue, if they feel harmed by the pollution that occurs. One of them is by carrying out Class Action in holding accountable for the consequences of pollution that has occurred, and is detrimental to a group or large number of people. Even though international environmental law is a soft law, it can become hard law depending on the pollution case that occurs. Even so, International Environmental Law contained in the Stockholm Declaration, Rio de Jeneiro, Civil Liability Convention and other related international arrangements have been very good in their regulatory fields. Only the state which ratifies the convention applies according to the pollution case that occurs., Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis ketentuan prinsip ke-16 the Rio Declaration On Environment and Development, yaitu Polluter Pays Principle sebagai bentuk tanggung jawab Negara terhadap pencemaran lingkungan lintas batas antara PTTEP Autraliasia (Australia) dan Indonesia. Penelitian ini merupakan yuridis yang meneliti yang meneliti sumber-sumber terkait dengan masalah yang dibahas. Hasil penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa Polluter Pays Principle, sebagai salah satu bentuk tanggung jawab Negara dalam pencemaran lingkungan memiliki kelebihan dan kekurangan jika diterapkan meski di rekomendasi oleh OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). Dari segi hukum prinsip ini diterapkan sebagai pertanggung jawaban hukum perdata, sedangkan dari segi ekonomi sebagai upaya pengendalian pencemaran dengan cara pencemar harus membayar atas pencemaran lingkungan yang terjadi. Meski begitu prinsip ini pun memiliki juga memiliki kelemahan, dalam pendekatan bidang ekonomi prinsip ini sulit untuk menentukan penetapan dalam biaya kerugian. Di beberapa Negara sendiri telah menerapkan prinsip ini dalam menanggani kasus pencemaran lingkungan. Dalam kasus pencemaran lingkungan lintas batas Negara sendiri perlu menerapkan prinsip good neighborliness dan prinsip state responsibility dalam menghadapi kasus pencemaran sebagai tanda itikad baik Negara untuk mematuhi hukum internasional yang ada. Kasus pencemaran lingkungan sendiri bukan hanya Negara yang dapat menggugat tetapi sekelompok orang atau masyarakat dapat ikut menggugat, jika merasa dirugikan akibat pencemaran yang terjadi. Salah satunya dengan cara melakukan Class Action dalam meminta pertanggungjawaban akibat dari pencemaran yang terjadi, dan merugikan sekelompok atau banyaknya masyarakat. Meski hukum lingkungan internasional merupakan soft law, akan tetapi bisa menjadi hard law tergantung dari kasus pencemaran yang terjadi. Meski begitu Hukum Lingkungan Internasional yang terdapat dalam Deklarasi Stockholm, Rio de Jeneiro, Civil Liability Convention dan pengaturan internasional terkait lainnya sudah sangat bagus dalam bidang pengaturannya. Hanya tinggal Negara yang meratifikasi konvensi tersebut menerapkan sesuai dengan kasus pencemaran yang terjadi.