The Bering Sea Arbitration (1893, US vs. UK): the fur-seals' high-seas takings — the arbitral refusal of the US's extra-territorial conservation claim: the high seas' freedom held against the unilateral jurisdiction; the case's lesson: the shared resources need the agreed regimes (the later treaties' answer); The Trail Smelter Arbitration (1938-41, US vs. Canada): the Columbia smelter's sulphur fumes damaging the Washington farms — the award's foundational principle: no state may use or permit the use of its territory in a manner causing serious injury by fumes to another's territory — the transboundary-harm rule's birth (the customary no-harm principle's ancestor — Unit 2.1.2); The Lake Lanoux Arbitration (1957, France vs. Spain): the French hydro-works on the shared Carol river — the award: the upstream state's works permissible with the prior notification-and-consultation of the downstream state (the procedural duties' birth: the cooperation's discipline — the award's rejection of a veto-right balanced with the consultation's duty); The Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case (1997, ICJ, Hungary/Slovakia): the Danube's diverted dams — the Court's synthesis: the treaty's continuing-life (the fundamental-change rejection), the environmental necessity's careful limits, and the parties' duty to negotiate in the light of the environmental norms' development (the sustainable-development-and-treaty-law interface; the 2017 follow-up's continuing saga); The Pulp Mills Case (2010, ICJ, Argentina v. Uruguay): the Uruguay river's mills — the Court's holding: the EIA's customary duty (the transboundary-impact assessment as the due-diligence's requirement) + the continuous-monitoring duty — the procedural obligations' modern canon (the environmental due diligence's content filled by the Court).
Exam Focus Long questions: (i) The environmental problems' catalogue + environmental law's character; (ii) IEL's nature and scope; (iii) The historical development's ladder (Stockholm-Rio's centrality); (iv) Any two or three of the five awards (the Trail Smelter + Pulp Mills pair is the banker — the no-harm rule and the EIA duty). Short questions: the Stockholm Declaration; the IPCC; the GEF; the Bering Sea's lesson. Trick areas: (i) Trail Smelter is the NO-HARM rule's source; Pulp Mills is the EIA-DUTY's source — the two classics' respective lessons; (ii) Lake Lanoux rejected the downstream VETO while imposing the CONSULTATION duty — the balance is the holding; (iii) IEL's enforcement is soft (the compliance committees) — the honest structural point; (iv) The Bering Sea case LIMITED unilateral conservation on the high seas — not a conservation victory but a jurisdictional discipline.