I.

The general regime applicable to the international liability In the environmental law for injury is using the term "environmental damage". The term environmental damage was first used by Michel Despax (Droit de l'environnment Litec, 1980, p.1036) . The responsibility for the environmental damage by polluting actions (including resulting from nu clear accidents), is provided by the general principle, which prohibits any state "to use its territory for acts contrary to states rights" ( Corfu Channel United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania 1949) In the cross-border pollution, this rule was regulated in the arbitraty decision Trail Smelter (1941). The Trail Smelter case came up with the issue of "duty" of states to "prevent transboundary harm" and invoking the "polluter pays" principle. Two general principles have been evolved from the case of Smelter. The first and more general one is that enjoying every state not to allow its territory to be used in such a way as to damage the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. This principle is substantially based on an even more general obligation, enunciated in the abovementioned case Corfu Channel where the principle laid down that every State is under the obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of the other states. The second general principle attested to by the general and increasing concern of the States about the environment and born out by the great number of treaties concluded that imposing upon States the obligation to co-operate for the protection of the environment. Customary law, which was formed after has also established established these principles. These principles were included also in: the Final Act of Helsinki Conference - Chapter V (1975), World Charter for Nature (1982 ). All these documents and the existence of international environmental law principles(principle of good neighborliness, the principle of common heritage protection, notice and consultation) require state responsibility regarding environmental violation. In fact,the breach of any duty with the international character of environmental (home customary,conventional or general principle of law), will determine, in certain circumstances, the state responsibility.

A problem that arises is to know who has the right to bring before the court the subject (s) who violated the international law of environment. Thus, if it is transboundary pollution, the injured will be entitled to claim the damages he has suffered. In the event damage is caused to a space environment outside national jurisdiction - the high seas, outer space, Antarctica - there is no State that can submit a complaint speaking on behalf of humanity that is truly a victim of environmental damage. The legal basis of liability is, traditionally, the fault attributable to State. From this rule are few exceptions. The first one results the Convention of 22 March 1972 on international liability for damages cause by space objects. According to Article 2 of the document:A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight. The objective liability for risk is accepted for damages resulting from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and, finally, the damage caused by marine pollution by hydrocarbons. The International jurisprudence avoided with some rare exceptions, to recognize and enforce liability without fault states in, preferring to resort to other legal subterfuge (for example, the rule of equity). Thus, for example, it is often invoked the fact that the failure of the states affected by the negative consequences of the Soviet government to claim responsibility for the Chernobyl nuclear accident, or in the incident in the Swiss Sandozfactories (1986) is an evidence that objective liability, even in very serious accidents, it is not easily accepted. Moreover, in this connection, the ONU International Law Commission turned to a more flexible solution, meaning that liability would be required for all serious cross-borderdamage, but leaving the states concerned the possibility to decide on the form of repair in every particular case, based on fairness and balance of interests.

II. Liability in different fields

The international law does not include universal rules on state responsibility, these are arising from the application of the principle "chic uterus tuo" and the principle of good neighborliness or fairness of use - when it comes to the river law. Thus, in the Helsinki Rules,the chapter on pollution (Article IX-XI ) appears more like a recommendation for the states to have good conduct in the use of International Rivers. According to these rules, pollution is a "harmful changes" in the natural composition, the content or quality of water produced by human intervention. Under Article 10 point 1 "a" and "b" of the Helsinki rules, a country has first the obligation to prevent water pollution or any increase of water pollution that could cause serious damage to another state and at the same time, is obliged to take all reasonable steps to reduce water pollution from existing international basin. In view of the Helsinki Rules an injury is "substantial" if it results in a "material impact" or prevents the rational use of water. In the right of space the Treaty regarding the principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space field, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, from 1967 and the Convention for damage caused by space objects from 1972, are regulating responsibility of states that are launching space objects. The Convention from 1972 takes into account the subjective liability - when a damage is caused by an object l "anywhere besides Earth's surface" to another space object launched by another state and the objective responsibility, "absolute" for damages caused by a space object on the earth's surface or on an aircraft. At the beginning of the 1960s, two international instruments dealing with the question of civil liability in the field of nuclear energy were negotiated. The first of these instruments is the Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (Paris Convention)adopted 29 July 1960 under the auspices of the European Nuclear Energy Agency, a semi-autonomous body within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This Convention applies when a nuclear incident has occurred on the territory of a Contracting State, in so far as the damage caused has been suffered on the territory of another Contracting State. It has been supplemented by a Brussels Convention,

signed on 31 January 1963, which institutes a complementary system of indemnifications drawn from public funds in the event of particularly costly damages. The second international instrument is the Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (Vienna Convention), which was adopted on 21 May 1963 under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Unlike the Paris Convention, the principal characteristics of which it takes on, the Vienna Conventions mission is to be worldwide.The Paris and Vienna Conventions existed for a long time independently from one another. It was only on 21 September 1988 that a linkage was established betweenthem through a Joint Protocol who entered in force in 1992. The Paris and Vienna Conventions both apply to any death, any damage to persons, any loss of goods or any damage to goods caused by a civil nuclear incident occurring in a nuclear installation or in the course of carriage of nuclear substances to or from a nuclear installation. Petrolium These past thirty years have been marked by an incredible number of devastating wrecks of big oil tankers we mention here only the names Amoco Cadiz, Braer,Maersk Navigator, Exxon Valdez or, most recently, Erika. The first great catastrophe of this type had involved the Torrey Canyon which, on 18 March 1967,sank along the British coast of Cornwall. The disastrous consequences of this shipwreck had prompted the international community to establish a new set of rules for liability. The effort led to the adoption of the International Convention on Civil Liability for OilPollution Damage concluded at Brussels in 1969 under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Since its entry into force on 19 June 1975, theConvention has been modified by additional protocols adopted in 1976, 1984 and 1992. The actual implementation of the 1969 Convention is ensured by means of the requirement of obligatory insurance (Art. VII, paragraph 1) as well as by the possibility of a direct action against the insurer (Art. VIII, para. 8). Under Article I, paragraph 6, of the Convention, in the version of the 1992 protocol, pollution damage means: a) the loss or damage caused outside of the ship by contaminationfollowing a leak or a discharge of petroleum from the ship, wherever this leak or discharge may occur, it being understood that thecompensation paid on grounds of alteration of the environment other than profit lost as a result of this alteration will be limited to the cost of reasonable measures of restoration which have been or will be taken.

b) the costs of the protective measures and the other losses or damage caused by these measures. The Brussels Convention sets up a system of objective liability channelled to the owners of ships (Art. III). It applies exclusively to pollution damage suffered in the territory, in the territorial sea, or in the exclusive economic zone of a Contracting State, as well as to preventive measures intended to avoid or to reduce such damages

III. Civil liability

In the absence of special legislation calls on the classic principle of liability for situations where this kind of responsibility in case an injury occurs due to failure to comply with laws relating to conservation, development and environmental protection. All the countries are consideredto have a form of classical civil liability based on the fundamental principle that where a person causes damage to another with some degree of fault (usually negligence) that damage should be compensated. These rules are expressed either as part of acivil code or through common law developed through case law or through enactments formalising common law. The main civil law remedy common to the countries studied is compensation by way of damages. The objective is to compensate persons for injury or loss caused to them - that is,as far as possible to put them in a position as if the damage had not occurred. The systems therefore seek to assess the value in financial terms of this loss. Recoverable losses are generally limited to personal injury, damage to property and often pure economic loss. The general rule is that the polluter is responsible. Normally the liable person is an operator or land owner although specific legislation may name the liable person more specifically. The general rules of civil liability may in addition apply where the environmental liability is not dealt with in a specific law. This is in particular the case for Spain and for France, where Article 1384 of the Civil Code continues to play an essential role even in environmental matters. The French Civil Code originally provided only for exceptional cases of liability for damage caused by things: liability for damage caused by animals or by buildings. But, with industrial development, to require that victims prove fault on the part of the person whose liability they seek to engage would amount to depriving many among them of reparation. The French court decisions then isolated a phrase out ofArticle 1384 of the Civil Code, which was in reality a simple transition announcing subsequent provisions, and drew from it a general principle

of liability without fault being proven: a person is liable [] for the damage [] factually caused by [] the things that he has under his custody.This text applies nowadays to anything which has caused damage, without distinction as to whether it was or was not activated by a human hand and without distinction as to whether it was dangerous or not. Thus there remain outside of the sphere of Article 1384 only those things for which special rules of liability exist, such as exist for radioactive matter. IV. The conflict of laws in the field of environmental liability