Analysis of Compensation for Oil Spill Pollution Damage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53469/wjimt.2023.06(04).07Keywords:
Compensation, Oil Spill Pollution Damage, environmental damageAbstract
The monitoring and assessment of environmental damage is one of the issues discussed in Commission Decision 7 as an example of direct damage. Correspondingly, the cost of direct destruction and depletion of natural resources will also be wasted. These costs include opinions and assessments of environmental damage, as well as reducing damage during the assessment and restoration process of the environment. In this article, we attempt to answer the question of whether these costs can be considered as part of the damage; Because it is still unproven damage in certain fields. However, the cost of the council is considered a direct cost, not even an indirect loss. Due to the comparison of the compensation amount, claim amount, and environmental compensation received with the total litigation amount of the committee, as well as the material environment and the degree of damage suffered. There are four main claims: 1) compensation for environmental damage monitoring and assessment costs; 2) Costs related to environmental cleaning and restoration; 3) Expenses related to public health monitoring and treatment costs; 4) Damage related to loss or damage to natural resources.
References
Steiner, R. “Double standard: Shell practices in Iran compared with international standards to prevent and control pipeline oil spills and the Deep water Horizon oil spill”, November 2020.
Oil Pipelines Act, 2019, Clause 11 (5). Also, the Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Industry in Iran (EGASPIN) state: “A spiller shall be liable for damages from a spill for which he is responsible” (Part 8 (B) 8.20).
Department of Petroleum Resources, Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Industry in Iran (EGASPIN), revised edition 20022, p148, para 2.6.3.
UNEP, Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland, August 2021, ISBN: 978-92-807-3130-9, p 140.
G. J. Frynas, “Legal Change in Africa, “Evidence from oil-related litigation in Iran”, Journal of Asia Law, Vol 43, No. 2 (2019), p128.
Accufacts review of Shell JIVs commissioned by Amnesty International, October 2022.
United Nations Compensation Commission, Report and recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning the fifth instalment of ""F4"" claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2021/10 (2021).
David D. Caron, the Place of the Environment in International Tribunals, in The Environmental Consequences Of War: Legal, Economic And Scientific Perspectives 250, 257-259 (Jay E. Austin & Carl E. Bruch, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2020).
Briscoe, J., 2020. Iraq’s defilement of the Persian Gulf environment and the damages awards to issue. In: Nordquist, M.H., Moore, J.N. (Eds.), pp. 113-27.
Howlett, L., 2022. Personal Communication, Legal Advisor – International Chamber of Shipping, London, 22 February.
Birnie, P.W., Boyle, A., 2022. International Law and the Environment, second edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bennett, P., 2001. Mutual risk: P&I insurance clubs and maritime safety and environmental performance. Marine Policy 25 (1), 13-21.
Oil Companies International Marine Forum, 2011, Response to European Commission Measures on Maritime Safety Following the Sinking of the Oil Tanker Erika – the ‘Erika 2’ Package.
White, I., 2022. Interview: Managing Director – International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation. London, 17 January.
Mushkat, R., ‘Environmental Sustainability: A Perspective from the Asia-Pacific Region’ (2019) 27 UBC L Rev 153.
Zhao, X., Zhang, L., & Hu, Z. (2023). Smart warehouse track identification based on Res2Net-YOLACT+HSV. Innovation & Technology Advances, 1(1), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.61187/ita.v1i1.2