<![CDATA[Cross-border environmental harm presents legal difficulties when cumulative environmental injury involves multiple contributors, overlapping obligations, and uncertain causal relationships. Existing scholarship addresses prevention, attribution, and remedies extensively but provides insufficient methodological integration across conventional transboundary pollution and global environmental harm. This study examines the interaction between primary environmental obligations and the secondary rules of State responsibility. A normative-doctrinal approach evaluates treaties, International Law Commission instruments, and selected international jurisprudence through September 2026, applying structured legal interpretation and comparative analysis. Particular attention is given to the 2024 ITLOS and 2025 Inter-American Court and ICJ climate advisory opinions. The findings establish that the no-harm principle and due diligence remain complementary preventive obligations, while contemporary jurisprudence clarifies their application to cumulative environmental risks. Attribution of State conduct must be distinguished from scientific causation, legal causation, and allocation of compensable injury. Concurrent environmental and human-rights obligations do not automatically establish jurisdiction, procedural standing, or proportional liability. The study develops a four-stage doctrinal framework separating primary obligations, breach and conduct attribution, causal contribution and allocation, and invocation of responsibility and remedies. This framework provides a systematic method for evaluating complex environmental responsibility while distinguishing established legal requirements from unresolved questions of collective causation and reparation]]>
Copyrights © 2026
