In news
Consider the following statements regarding the no-harm rule in international law:
- The Indus Waters Treaty explicitly includes the no-harm rule as a provision.
- The rule mandates that states must completely prevent any potential harm to neighboring countries from transboundary projects.
- Under customary international law, the no-harm rule is regarded as a due diligence obligation.
How many of the above statements are incorrect?
(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) All three
(d) None
Solution: B
- The no-harm rule in international law is a principle that requires states to exercise due diligence to avoid causing significant harm to other states through activities within their jurisdiction, particularly when these activities have transboundary impacts.
- Statement 3 is correct as this rule is considered a due diligence obligation under customary international law, meaning states must take reasonable steps to prevent significant harm to neighbouring states.
- Statement 1 is incorrect because the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) does not explicitly incorporate the no-harm rule; it primarily focuses on water sharing rather than broader environmental obligations.
- Statement 2 is also incorrect since the no-harm rule does not mandate the prevention of all potential harm, only of “significant harm,” balancing state sovereignty with responsibilities to other states.
Course Purchase Query 