Finally, a word about the procedures by which the
Hague Court can be involved in environmental
questions by way of the submission to its determi-
nation of particular disputes. The Court has the
power under its Statute to create Chambers for
dealing with particular questions. It was a great
ambition of the late President Nagendra Singh of
India to get such a standing Chamber established
for the particular purpose of environmental dis-
putes. This could still be done. And there are indeed
Judges of the Court who have taken a particular
interest in environmental legal and other problems,
who would be very suitable members of such a
Chamber. But there is also no reason why an envi-
ronmental dispute should not be submitted, like
other disputes, to an ad hoc Chamber of the Court;
a procedure which many governments seem to find
attractive.
Judges from Various Legal Systems
Most cases, however, between States are submitted
to the full court, which is indeed what normally
happens when the parties have not themselves
specifically asked for the alternative of a Chamber.
It is the nature of this full court to which I want now
to draw attention. There are 15 Judges (maybe up
to 17 with ad hoc Judges for a particular case). In
accordance with Article 9 of the Statute, Judges are
elected by the Security Council and the General
Assembly to represent the different forms of civilisa-
tion and different legal systems. Accordingly, the full
Court does represent the developing as well as the
developed world; not only France, the United
Kingdom, the United States, Italy, Norway, Japan,
Poland and Russia, but also Algeria, China, Guyana,
Nigeria, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and Venezuela.
On
this question of the environment, there are great ferences between the interests and the point of
view of the developed and the developing nations.
The Court has necessarily evolved techniques and
procedures (necessarily elaborate and time-con-
suming, but notably very successful), whereby a
legal decision can be forged which comprises these
two sources.
The Court has recently quite often
been unanimous or near-unanimous in its deci-
sions; and there have been very few, if any, where
the alignment of judicial opinions for or against the
decision was predictable. This is a great accom-
plishment; and makes it all the more important to
have the Court at the centre of this environment
question.