International environmental responsibility

The institution of international responsibility is different from the law. Original characteristic of international responsibility is given by its certain characters. Its existence is a corollary of the principle of equal states and its purpose is to avoid war and use of force or threat of force. As in law, the sole basis for criminal liability is international offense in this case since this is an international crime. International environmental responsibility is represented by the consequences (moral, political, legal) arising (for subjects of international law, namely States, international organizations) or from committing illegal acts (permitted by international law) and breach of duty reinforced through an international treaty or custom, or from damage caused by lawful activities (international law permits) and other countries environmental damage by activities performed within the jurisdiction or control of that State. The subjects of international law (in general) are entities (mainly, states, international governmental or nongovernmental) that act as direct recipients of international rules, with the ability to exercise rights and assume obligations in the international legal order. The state is (in principle) responsible (at international level) and one called to answer for breach of duty (conventional, customary in principle general) environmental protection with an international character (delict) and / or injurious consequences arising Allowed activities (lawful acts permitted). International responsibility of States arising from acts or omissions of its organs and officials who violate the rules of international law and does not respect its obligations about con venţională. International organizations are subjects of international law derived from established countries through agreements between them (holders of rights and obligations under international law) and answer (usually) jointly with the Member States, the application must be addressed against the organization. Individuals who act as agents of the state offenders whenever they decide, ordered or executed acts punishable by international law. To identify the active subject of liability for the injurious consequences arising from activities not prohibited by international law, must determine who is the holder of obligations of prevention and management of activities mentionate in determining this polluter pays principle can guide us. Thus, according to this principle, the polluter who must pay both the costs of preventive measures and those of repair in case of accidental pollution. The operator of a hazardous activity holds obligations to prevent and repair damage to the environment. Analyzing the proposed definition of RDI, that two are characteristic features of the concept of operator, ie either the person who, at the time of the incident that caused damage border, he was commander of the activity, be it in control at that time. The environment is not and cannot be the subject of victim (whether unlawful or lawful acts generating an impact on his injury), but the fundamental value protected internationally. The subject is entitled to compensation advertising- is the "holder" environment and in the state (when affected environment under its jurisdiction) or the international community (when affected environment not under the national jurisdiction of a state) that (the victim) acts (the rule) under state management or defense of environmental elements. Internationally, the distinction between liability and responsibility for the wrongful act harmful consequences resulting from lawful activities. According to art. 2 of the project on 'responsibility for internationally wrongful states "adopted by the CDI in 2001, there is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an act or omission, a) is attributed to the State under the international rights and b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of that State. As regards imputability illegal act, it was considered in the literature as being provided "subjective" as the intent and knowledge of the relevant State organs and agents. Regarding the second condition - violation of international obligations - conduct must represent a breach of an international obligation assumed by the State concerned - this condition was considered "objective". The existence of one of the circumstances which removes the unlawful nature of an act is, in fact, an obstacle to a request for compensation for breach of an international obligation. The causes that exclude unlawfulness of the act are: consent, self-defense, countermeasures, force majeure, state of distress and state of necessity. The main legal consequences of an internationally wrongful obligations of the state are "guilty" to cease the unlawful conduct and to repair the damage caused by his conduct. The state must fulfill the obligation breached. Even if the state ceases responsible and repair the damage caused by the unlawful conduct, it is not exempt from the obligation to remedy a breach încălcate.Atât repeating the illegal act and, where appropriate, compensation and rehabilitation are part of the legal relationship affected by the breach. The requirement covers repair any damage caused by the wrongful act, whether it is a material or moral one.