International Update, July/August 2007

News and events from the Iowa International Office

Compensation for environmental damages under international law

ABSTRACT The purpose of this research is to clarify the contribution of international dispute adjudication mechanisms in regard to environmental protection. Most specifically, the study aims to identify and develop the criterion adopted by the international judge in relation to the compensation for environmental damages. In this perspective, the study identifies some gaps between international responsibility and environmental protection interests. The premise sustained all along the study is that compensation is determinant to conciliate environmental prerogatives with mechanisms of international adjudication, in particular the system of international responsibility. Supported by the analysis of treaties, international decisions and secondary sources, the thesis defends the idea that some elements of international law allow the adjudicator to adapt the compensation to attend certain environmental interests, creating a new approach which was entitled 'fair compensation'. The antithesis of this approach is the idea that compensation in international law is limited exclusively to the strict reparation of the material losses incurred by the victim. As a synthesis, the study defends the specificity of environmental damages in relation to other kind of damages that are subject to compensation under international law. The measure upon which compensation for environmental damages could be classified as a specific type of damage under international law remains to be determined. The main conclusion of the study is that the existing standard of compensation defined by the theory and practice of international law is impossible to be strictly respected in cases involving environmental damages. This limitation is mainly due to the complexity of the notion of environment, which is constantly conflicting with the anthropologic view of legal theory. The study supports the idea that the establishment of a 'fair compensation' which takes into account the political, legal and technical context of the environmental damage, is the best possible approach to conciliate internationally responsibility and environmental interests. This could be implemented by the observance of certain elements by the international judge/arbitrator through a case-by-case analysis.

Reliability of panel-based guidelines for colonoscopy: an international comparison.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the reliability of explicit guidelines developed using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. METHODS: The appropriateness of over 400 indications for colonoscopy was rated by two multispecialty expert panels (United States and Switzerland). A nine-point scale was used, which was consolidated into three categories of appropriateness: appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate. The distribution of appropriateness ratings between the two panels and the intrapanel and interpanel agreement for categories of appropriateness were calculated for all possible indications. Similar statistics were calculated for a series of 577 primary care patients referred for colonoscopy in Switzerland. RESULTS: Over 80% of all indications (348) could be directly compared. The proportions of indications classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate were 28.4%, 24.7%, 46.6% and 33.0%, 23.0%, 44.0% for the U.S. and the Swiss panels, respectively. Interpanel agreement was excellent for all the possible indications (kappa value: 0.75) and lower for actual cases (kappa value: 0.51) because of lower agreement for the most frequently encountered indications. CONCLUSIONS: Good agreement between the two sets of criteria was found, pointing to the reliability of the method. Partial disagreement occurred essentially for a few, albeit frequently encountered, indications for use of colonoscopy in cases of uncomplicated lower abdominal pain or constipation.

International update, March/April 2007

News from the Iowa International Office