AZ vs. CA:22 California Exhibits, Vol. XXII; Nos. 5001-5002; 5101-5123; 5200A-5205A; 5521-5588A; 5601-56215521-5588A; 5601-5621

page 120

-120- No case of air pollution dealt with by an international tribunal has been brought to the attention of the Tribunal nor does the Tribunal know of any such case. The nearest analogy is that of water pollution. But, here also, no decision of an international tribunal has been cited or has been found. There are, however, as regards, both air pollution and water pollution, certain decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States which may legitimately be taken as a guide in this field of international law, for it is reasonable to follow by analogy, in international cases, precedents established by that court in dealing with controversies between States of the Union or with other controversies concerning the quasi-sovereign rights of such States, where no contrary rule prevails in international law and no reason for rejecting such precedents can be adduced from the limitations of sovereignty inherent in the Constitution of the United States . The tribunal then summarized the cases of Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906); Hew York v. .New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296 (1921; New Jersey v. New York City, 283"U.S.' **73 (1931); and on the subjedt of air pollution, Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230 (1907), 237 U.S. ^7^ (1915). Referring to these cases, and to a decision of the Federal Court of Switzerland in a suit between cantons relating to a 'shooting establishment', the tribunal concluded: The Tribunal, therefore, finds that the above decisions, taken as a whole, constitute an adequate basis for its conclusions, namely, that, under the principles of international law, as well as of the law of the United States, no State has the right to use crJ permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious consequence and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence.^ In the conclusion of this portion of its decision the tribunal stated: Considering the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal honds that the Dominion of Canada is responsible in international law for the conduct of the Trail Smelter. Apart from the undertakings in the Convention, it is, therefore, the duty of the Government of the Dominion of Canada to see to it that this conduct should be in conformity with the obligation of the Dominion under international law as herein determined.3 1. Ibid., p. 71^. 2. Ibid., p. 716. 3. Ibid., pp. 716-17.