The Legal Restructuring of State Responsibility and Ecological Compensation for Transboundary Environmental Damage

Abstract

As global environmental crises intensify, the legal regulation of transboundary ecological damage is undergoing a critical transition from a traditional private-law model of point-to-point compensation to a comprehensive global responsibility system centered on ecosystem integrity. Addressing the persistent challenges in determining and quantifying liability for transboundary environmental damage, this article critically examines the definitional dilemmas surrounding "pure environmental damage" and the fragmentation of current treaty practices. By abandoning rigid mathematical modeling in favor of strict legal dogmatics, this study establishes a dual-track normative framework distinguishing between State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts and international liability for injurious consequences arising from lawful activities. Furthermore, the article argues that the obligation of "due diligence" serves as the core jurisprudential criterion bridging this dual-track system. Through an empirical analysis of landmark international jurisprudence—including the Trail Smelter arbitration and recent advisory opinions by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)—this study exposes the limitations of traditional restoration cost methods and habitat equivalency analyses. Ultimately, the article proposes a legally grounded "Dual-Track Quantification Framework" that operationalizes the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) and intergenerational equity. This framework aims to constrain excessive judicial discretion while providing a legally sound, predictable instrument for transboundary damage compensation that harmonizes scientific necessity with substantive legal justice.