The Stockholm Principles 14 to 26

The Indian connection. Principle 19 on environmental education is the one Indian courts have acted on most directly, by directing that environmental studies be taught, and it is also part of the reason the syllabus you are reading exists. Principle 20 on technology on terms that are not a burden is the ancestor of the technology transfer arguments in the climate negotiations.

Principle 21: the important one

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 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.

Why this is the one to know. Four reasons.

1. It reconciles the two things the conference could not otherwise reconcile: sovereignty over resources, which the developing countries insisted on, and responsibility for transboundary harm, which was the reason Sweden convened the conference. Both are in one sentence.
2. It is generally accepted as reflecting customary international law, which means it binds States independently of the Declaration. No other principle in the instrument has that status.
3. It was repeated almost word for word as Rio Principle 2, with the addition of "and developmental" after "environmental policies", which is a small change that a careful answer notices.
4. It covers areas beyond national jurisdiction, which is what makes it applicable to the high seas, to Antarctica and to the atmosphere.

Principles 22 to 26: liability, standards and weapons

Principle 22. States shall cooperate to develop further the international law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage caused by activities within the jurisdiction or control of such States to areas beyond their jurisdiction.

Principle 23. Without prejudice to criteria agreed internationally or standards determined nationally, it will be essential in all cases to consider the systems of values prevailing in each country, and the extent of the applicability of standards which are valid for the most advanced countries but which may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries.

Principle 24. International matters concerning the protection and improvement of the environment should be handled in a cooperative spirit by all countries, big and small, on an equal footing.

Principle 25. States shall ensure that international organizations play a coordinated, efficient and dynamic role for the protection and improvement of the environment.

Principle 26. Man and his environment must be spared the effects of nuclear weapons and all other means of mass destruction, and States must strive to reach prompt agreement in the relevant international organs on the elimination and complete destruction of such weapons.

Two points. Principle 22 is a promissory note that has largely not been paid. Fifty years later there is still no general international law of liability and compensation for transboundary environmental damage, and the gap is one of the standing criticisms of the field.

Principle 26 dates the instrument. A declaration on the environment that ends with nuclear weapons belongs to 1972, and it is worth mentioning because it shows what the delegates thought the largest environmental threat was.

Worked example

MU's 2019 short note reads "Principles of Stockholm Conference for the protection and conservation of environment."

Do not attempt all twenty-six. Structure it as: the grouping, in a table or a sentence; Principle 1 for the right and the responsibility; Principles 2 to 5 for resources, quoting Principle 5 on non-renewables; Principle 13 and 14 for planning as the answer to the conflict; Principle 17 for institutions; and then Principle 21 in full, with the point that it alone is customary law and that Rio repeated it.

Close on Principle 22 and what has not happened under it, because a note that ends with an unfulfilled promise reads as an assessment rather than a list.

What these principles do NOT do

Principle 16 does not license coercion. It is doubly qualified: without prejudice to basic human rights, and as deemed appropriate by the Governments concerned.

Principle 21 does not prohibit exploitation. It affirms the sovereign right to exploit, and attaches a responsibility about the effects beyond the State's own territory.

Principle 22 created nothing. It is an undertaking to develop law in the future, and the law has not been developed.

Distinctions that carry marks

Quick revision

• Principle 14: rational planning is the essential tool for reconciling development and environment. The answer to the conflict is procedural.
• Principle 16: demographic policies, without prejudice to basic human rights and as deemed appropriate by the Governments concerned, where growth or concentration has adverse effects. The qualifications matter for module III.
• Principle 17: appropriate national institutions must be entrusted with planning and managing environmental resources. The Boards and the Ministry answer to this.
• Principle 19: environmental education, for the young and for adults, with due consideration to the underprivileged.
• Principle 21: sovereign right to exploit, and responsibility not to damage the environment of other States or of areas beyond national jurisdiction. The only principle accepted as customary international law, repeated as Rio Principle 2 with the words "and developmental" added.
• Principle 22: an undertaking to develop the law of liability and compensation for transboundary damage, which has largely not happened.

Test yourself

1. State Principle 21 and give two reasons why it is the most important of the twenty-six.

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 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. It matters because it reconciles sovereignty with responsibility for transboundary harm in a single sentence, and because it alone among the twenty-six is generally accepted as reflecting customary international law.

2. What is the difference between Stockholm Principle 21 and Rio Principle 2?

Rio Principle 2 repeats it almost word for word but adds "and developmental" so that the sovereign right is exercised pursuant to a State's own environmental and developmental policies. The addition makes development an express ground for the exercise of the right.

3. How does the Declaration answer the conflict between development and environment?

Procedurally rather than substantively. Principle 13 requires an integrated and coordinated approach to development planning, and Principle 14 says that rational planning is the essential tool for reconciling any conflict between the two. There is no rule about which prevails, which is the same answer Indian law gives through environmental impact assessment.

4. What are the two qualifications on Principle 16, and why do they matter?

That demographic policies must be without prejudice to basic human rights, and that they must be deemed appropriate by the Governments concerned. They matter because they are the answer to any argument that international environmental law licenses coercive population measures, which is directly relevant to the question in module III whether law can control population.