by Zaf R.

Created on: April 19, 2008

This can be easily answered by asking a counter question: "Should a German (or French, Brazilian, Indian, Chinese...) company be legally liable in German (or French, Brazilian, Indian, Chinese...) courts for environmental consequences of its operations abroad? If the German operation is located in the US, should it be liable in German courts?

In the United States the Environmental Protection Agency or EPA is charged with protecting human health and with safeguarding the natural environment: air, water, and land. It has the primary responsibility for setting and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws. Similarly, other countries in the world have their own versions of such an agency.

It follows that any US company with operations abroad, that violates any environmental law of that country, will fall under the purview of that country's legal system. To say yes that US companies should be legally liable in US courts raises more questions than answers. First there is the question of the jurisdiction of US courts within an independent nation. Second , the logic of a US court prosecuting and enforcing another country's environmental laws. Third, the cloud over the objectivity of US courts in holding a US company liable and setting damages. Unless the government enacts legislation to this effect, the answer is therefore no.

To illustrate: a US company operates factory on the other side of the world which leaks toxic chemicals into the water supply or into the atmosphere, affecting the surrounding community. Slowly the toxins continue to travel to outlying communites and the story is picked up in the local media prompting government officials to investigate. The investigation reveals serious environmental impact and long term damage. Who will charge the US company? Won't it be the government of that country, for violating their environmental laws?

Logistics aside, the only reasoning behind this idea should be to ensure that US companies are held accountable, and not to protect them. It may have some merit if only to be analogous to a parent needing to discipline their child. But like mentioned before, there are many "parents" in the world who may take the same view. An exception may be made, and hence an argument for the US court system, where the "parent" lacks the ability, such as third world countries facing the powerful attorneys from huge multinationals. There are many instances where these nations, eager for foreign investment, are taken advantage of by both the US companies and their own governments to the detriment of their environment.

The logical, but not easy, solution should be a system that ensures that its the environment that wins, in every country. However, implications of big business, international trade, and political expediency usually trump this concept. There is still hope though, since today, environmental issues have come fully to the fore, pushing violators to the front and center of the world news, facilitating transparency and public pressure for justice, and this should eliminate this argument.

I have a suggestion too, and that is to have an international agency, of which all countries are members, charged with protecting Earth's environment, which hold violators liable in a World Environmental Court.

Learn more about this author, Zaf R..
Click here to send this author comments or questions.