The Trail Smelter Arbitration ,1965 gave the origin of the no-harm rule as:

No state has the right to use or permit the use of territory in such a manner as to cause
injury by fumes in or to the territory of another of the properties or persons therein,
when the case is of serious consequence and the injury is established by clear and
convincing evidence.

In the Union Carbide case (1986) the liability of Union Carbide was established not
by directly relying on any rules of customary international law, but on the harm
theory. When harm is caused, the accused must compensate the victims of the
harm, and correct the harm promptly and effectively.

Principle 21 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human

Environment (Stockholm Declaration, 1972)

States have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own
environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their
jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

The pollution of the environment that gave rise to international liability in torts was
established in the Trail Smelter Arbitration. Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration
provides that:

“States have in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles
of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their
own environmental and development policies, and the responsibility to ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment
of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”

The precautionary principle has been provided in principle 15 of the Rio Declaration
of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) states
that “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be
widely applied by States according to their capabilities. The activities should be
controlled in order to prevent transboundary damage and if necessary forbidden by
law, even in case of scientific uncertainty regarding the character of damage that
might occur from the activities.

In so far as a negligent act is concerned, the lack of foreseeability of the occurrence of

the act if established by the accused would be enough to establish negligence. If a
disaster takes place despite satisfying the condition of “foreseeability” then the duty of
the accused / perpetrator would be to minimise the consequences of the disaster
properly and effectively. This obligation does not arise from any contract; it arises
from the general notion that thou shalt not do any harm to anybody, a notion on
which the law of negligence is based.

In the case of Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) [2010] ICJ,
the principle of due diligence has been applied as:

In order to demonstrate its best possible effort, the state of origin is requested to
prevent foreseeable significant damage, or at least minimize the risk of such harm