Future proofing the principle of no significant harm

Joyeeta Gupta () and Susanne Schmeier
Additional contact information
Joyeeta Gupta: University of Amsterdam, IHE-Delft Institute for Water Education
Susanne Schmeier: IHE-Delft Institute for Water Education

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2020, vol. 20, issue 4, No 10, 747 pages

Abstract: Abstract The principle of ‘no significant harm’ as a way of addressing transboundary environmental challenges is both inadequately researched and inadequately implemented in many parts of the world. This paper addresses the questions: What is the nature of transboundary harm in the Anthropocene? Is the principle of no significant harm able to address current and pre-empt future transboundary harm in the field of water and environmental law? This special issue has focused on this principle in the arena of water law. This article integrates the findings in the context of a broader understanding of global harm in the Anthropocene. We draw 4 conclusions. First, conceptually harm is moving beyond direct inter-state harm between neighbouring countries to a multi-directional, multi-actor/multi-level harm, which is increasingly creeping and cumulative, with growing spatial and temporal characteristics. It thus requires moving beyond quibbling over what is ‘significant’ harm to recognize the climate emergency, the sixth biodiversity extinction, the huge damage to water systems and to realize that the threshold of ecosystem and human tolerance of damage are reducing rapidly. Second, however, the no-harm principle tends to be better developed in qualifying sovereignty in relation to transboundary harm on rivers than in the broader environmental and development arena as demonstrated by agenda 2030 which reverts to full permanent sovereignty. Third, legal scholarship, however, does provide a wide range of instruments for addressing harm before it occurs, after it has happened, and considering the differentiated economic capacity of the actors. Finally, the larger problem is that it is not individual projects or programmes that cause problems as much as national prioritization of economic growth which has led to externalizing the environment. The no-harm principle will be ineffective if it cannot be used to question the content of ‘growth’-led policies. There is need to future proof the no-harm principle.

Keywords: No-harm; No significant harm; Sovereignty; Responsibility; Equity; Water law; Environmental law; Sustainable development goals (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-020-09515-2 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:20:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10784-020-09515-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10784

DOI: 10.1007/s10784-020-09515-2

Access Statistics for this article

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics is currently edited by Joyeeta Gupta

More articles in International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().