Testing limited environmental liability against human rights requirements. IES WORKING PAPER 3/2009

Questions regarding oil spills remain high on the political agenda. Legal scholars, legislators as well as the international, European and national Courts struggle to determine key issues, such as who is to be held liable for oil spills, under which conditions and for which damage. The international regime on oil spills was meant to establish an “equilibrium” between the needs of the victims (being compensated for their harm) and the needs of the economic actors (being able to continue their activities). There is, however, a constantly increasing array of legal scholars’ work that criticizes the regime. Indeed, the victims of a recent oil spill, the Erika, have tried to escape the international regime on oil spills and to rely instead on the provisions of national criminal law or EC waste legislation. In parallel, the EC legislator has questioned the sufficiency of the international regime, as it has started preparing legislative acts of its own. One can in fact wonder whether challenging the international liability regime with the European Convention on Human Rights could prove to be a way forward, both for the EC regulators as well as the victims of oil spills. This paper claims that the right to property, as enshrined in Article P1-1 of the Human Rights Convention, could be used to challenge the limited environmental liability provisions of the international frameworks.

Differences in larval nutritional requirements and female oviposition preference reflect the order of fruit colonization of Zaprionus indianus and Drosophila simulans

Species coexist using the same nutritional resource by partitioning it either in space or time, but few studies explore how species-specific nutritional requirements allow partitioning. Zaprionus indianus and Drosophila simulans co-exist in figs by invading the fruit at different stages; Z. indianus colonizes ripe figs, whereas D. simulans oviposits in decaying fruit. Larvae feed on yeast growing on the fruit, which serves as their primary protein source. Because yeast populations increase as fruit decays, we find that ripe fruit has lower protein content than rotting fruit. Therefore, we hypothesized that Z. indianus and D. simulans larvae differ in their dietary requirements for protein. We used nutritional geometry to assess the effects of protein and carbohydrate concentration in the larval diet on life history characters in both species. Survival, development time, and ovariole number respond differently to the composition of the larval diet, with Z. indianus generally performing better across a wider range of protein concentrations. Correspondingly, we found that Z. indianus females preferred to lay eggs on low protein foods, while D. simulans females chose higher protein foods for oviposition when competing with Z. indianus. We propose the different nutritional requirements and oviposition preference of these two species allows them to temporally partition their habitat.

Uranium fuel cycle radiation protection requirements : environmental impact statement.

F available only in microfiche.

Improved commercial vehicle conspicuity and signalling systems. Task I: accident analysis and functional requirements. Interim report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Sight distance requirements at lane closure work zones on urban freeways. Interim report.

Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, Austin

Requirements for hazardous waste landfill design, construction, and closure.

"August 1989."

Contractor requirements for the control and security of TSCA confidential business information : security manual.

Mode of access: Internet.

Environmental requirements and pollution tolerance of Plecoptera /

Issued Oct. 1978.

Environmental requirements and pollution tolerance of ephemeroptera /

Oct. 1978.

Department of Defense petroleum requirements and supplies : report of the Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Ninety-sixth Congress, second session.

"June 10, 1980."