 The tribunal could harness existing national jurisprudences and

international treaties and so would not require any new legislation.

 All that is needed is the will from the countries' governments
 Neighboring states may, for example, disagree about the course of the land or
maritime boundaries that separate them. States may also disagree about the
use of force in international relations, the hunting of whales, or large scale
construction projects that could potentially harm the environment of
neighboring states. The range of possible disagreements or disputes is
endless.
 After negotiations have failed or reached a stalemate, states sometimes
decide to entrust the resolution of their dispute to a third party like the ICJ.
But in order for the ICJ to be able to decide a dispute between two states,
both disputing states have to consent to the Court settling their dispute. In
other words, both states must voluntarily submit their dispute to the Court.
States can't be forced into litigation at the ICJ against their will. If one state
consents and the other does not, then the ICJ doesn't have jurisdiction.
First, states are sovereign entities. States are the highest power or
authority within their territory. They cannot be subject to any higher
authority without their consent. States can't be force to subject themselves to
the will of any other state, international court, or international organization.
States must voluntarily agree to do so and this, in fact, happens regularly.
Secondly, the need for consent can also be explained on a pragmatic
level by the ICJ's inability to enforce its own judgments. The judgments of the
ICJ are binding on the parties to a dispute. The litigants are obligated to
comply with the ICJ's decision but the court cannot rely on an international
police force to enforce its judgments.

 Most states have been reluctant or unwilling to give the Court broad
jurisdiction over their disputes without being able to consent on a case by
case basis.
 ICJ is the UN's only permanent court available to states that want to settle
their disputes peacefully, through adjudication. The Court has the capacity to
resolve disputes concerning a very wide range of issues, because this is how
the drafters of the UN Charter designed the court. Since 1946, the Court has
settled disputes about land and maritime boundaries. The use of force,
genocide, the use of nuclear weapons, the protection of the environment, and
the immunities of high level government officials and also states themselves.
The ICJ can be considered the successor to the Permanent Court of
International Justice, which came into existence in 1922, and was associated
with the League of Nations.
 The European Court of Justice (ECJ) plays an essential and meaningful role
within the European Community (EC). National courts and governments tend
to respect its decisions. While it is not a specialized environmental court, ECJ
is authorized to hear environmental cases on grounds of non-compliance of a
Member State with the European Community’s environmental laws. ECJ also
is authorized to render preliminary rulings on the interpretation of primary
or secondary European Law, including environmental law. ECJ structure does
not provide for a specialized chamber on environmental issues. However,
due to the complexity of environmental cases, there is a de facto
specialization among the Advocates General. Access to the court is open to
the Commission, European Union institutions, Member States, and natural or
legal persons directly subject to European laws. Based on these procedural
requirements, non-governmental organizations have been excluded from the
ECJ.
 The ECJ has contributed to the protection of the natural environment in the
European region. It has accepted more than 150 environmental cases and has
rendered important environmental jurisprudence. It was the first Court to
acknowledge many principles of international environmental law such as the
precautionary principle of international environmental law such as
precautionary principle. As national courts have funneled preliminary
questions to the ECJ, it has succeeded in clarifying environmental rules and
has influenced both the harmonization of the application of EC
environmental law and the development of national environmental law. In
addition, ECJ, as a multi-issue court, has been able to evaluate and balance
environmental protection in conjunction with other public interests such as
economic development.
STATE SOVEREIGNTY

Only if these sovereignties are respected can the sovereignty of the individual itself be
protected because the levels of sovereignty create buffer zones of protection against
tyranny, the illegitimate intrusion of centralized power -- the primary evil which the
International community has been, from time immemorial, trying to avoid/prevent.

The right to determine what destroys the environment is upon the State and not the
international community. They have such right in the simple reason that they own them.
Whatever we do with our natural resources and to the environment, that’s on us. If you
impose such law, that would be violative of our constitution. That is why it is not mandatory
for every state to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICJ – hence, consent is necessary.
Regardless of whatever they say… It’s obviously destroying the environment but it still is
determined by the state and no other sovereign state to meddle with it. It may be a problem
for others, but it can only be a problem or illegal if the state itself views it as a problem. If
you force a state to be a subject of IL, you are violating one of the principles of IL which is
the external sovereignty of every state. An equal cannot impose sovereignty over a co-equal.
An environmental issue cannot be exception to the sovereignty of a state. Because it would
violate the most fundamental of all the fundamentals which is equality among nations,
regardless of the size and growth. If you force a state to be a subject of international tribunal
against its will would be an attack against its sovereignty. And that would tantamount to the
removal of its sovereignty. And if you remove the sovereignty of a state, the state would not
exist. Sovereignty is the supreme and absolute. If you subject it to another jurisdiction, then
it is not absolute anymore. It is not only violative of the sovereignty, but also to the inherent
right of the state to be independent. If the state would be subjected to the jurisdiction of
another tribunal, the state would cease to exist because it lacks one element and that
element is sovereignty or the state would be reduced as a mere puppet of another tribunal.
In this case, it would be in a mercy of the international tribunal. And that being the case it
would now be a pandora’s box or would open the floodgates for another international
tribunal to subject states to its jurisdiction. What makes the environmental issue so special
over all other issues with more importance like crimes and others. (E.G china doesn’t want
to subject itself to become a subject to the issue in the west Philippine sea.. if in this case
which not only affects the territory of a state but also the lives of the people. What makes
this mere environmental problem more important than that? Mass killing is not covered by
ICJ, what makes the environmental problem which would ultimately result to death of
humankind/creatures. What makes this issue more important than other issues?)

(An environmental issue which should tend to directly affect the international community
should be added as one of those exceptions included in the jurisdiction of the ICJ so that an
individual can be a subject of the ICJ – war crimes, crimes against humanity)

(What is viewed as an environmental problem for one state may not be viewed as such in
another state. When you say EP, its not limited to destroying ozone layer or excessive gas
emissions. First you have to define EP.. it can be killing of endangered species. Let us say,
the only way to destroy waste products is by burning it.. because it is a developing country
and has no means of disposing the same. Would you punish such country for being poor or
undeveloped??)

(Animal testing – frowned upon by other countries. Who will now determine the efficacy of
the newly invented medical products? Who could balance the importance…. What if the only
way to test such is to use a tissue found only in an specific endangered specie? Would you
rather not develop such medical product?)

(What if the economy of a specific country is dependent on a particular industry which that
industry is thought not to be environmentally friendly? Would you prohibit such country to
develop?)

(CFCs and carbon monoxide found to destroy the ozone layer but some scientists believe
that it doesn’t really destroy the ozone layer. So who would determine? If per state have
different views on it.)