Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm
Arising Out of Hazardous Activities

2006
  • Introductory Note
  • Procedural History
  • Documents
By Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju (P. S. Rao)
Visiting Professor and Director, Justice Jeevan Reddy Center for International Trade and Business,
NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, India
Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission on the topic of International Liability (1997-2006)



EnglishEnglish

Historical background

After completing its work on the prevention of transboundary harm in 2001, the International Law Commission (hereinafter “ILC” or “the Commission”), pursuant to a decision of the United Nations General Assembly1 (hereinafter “UNGA”), reverted to the remainder of the work concerning remedial measures. It may be recalled in this connection that the 1996 Working Group of the Commission had concluded that, it could not envisage a regime of liability that would be generally considered suitable and acceptable to address issues of reparation and compensation arising or likely to arise from the operation of hazardous or dangerous activities. The commentary to article 5 of the draft articles adopted by that Working Group noted that: “[t]he principle of liability is without prejudice to the question of: (a) the entity that is liable and must make reparation; (b) the forms and the extent of reparation; (c) the harm that is subject to reparation; and (d) the basis of liability”2. In other words, reviewing the work that it had done for over a decade, the Working Group concluded that, prospects for achieving a widely acceptable international regime of liability lay in avoiding an exclusive or even primary focus on the State, even though its earlier work had proceeded on that basis for some good reasons3.

Accordingly, a Working Group of the ILC, established in 2002, examined possible ways to deal with the subject matter left for consideration. The Working Group first noted that significant transboundary harm could occur under two different circumstances: first, harm associated with non-compliance with the duty of prevention and the duty of due diligence that it entails; and second, harm arising despite observance of such duties either because prevention measures adopted proved inadequate, or where the risk of harm was not foreseeable to provide for adequate measures to prevent the same4. It is well understood, thanks to the earlier discussion within the Commission, that non-compliance with the duty of due diligence would amount to a wrongful act giving rise to State responsibility5. The Working Group concluded accordingly that what was left for its consideration was transboundary harm that could occur despite compliance by the State with all its duties of prevention, that is, despite its best efforts, knowledge and means available to it.

As regards the scope of the regime governing international liability, it recommended that it should be the same as the one that was agreed upon in the case of the draft articles on prevention, with respect to (a) activities to be covered, (b) threshold governing damage, and (c) loss to persons, property (including elements of State patrimony and national heritage), and the environment within the national jurisdiction6.

As a basis for the work ahead, the Working Group also suggested certain policy guidelines: first, it reiterated the basic policy that underlined the topic from its inception that “the innocent victim7 should not, in principle, be left to bear the loss”; second, “any regime for allocation of loss must ensure that there are effective incentives for all involved in a hazardous activity to follow best practice in prevention and response”; and third, such a regime should focus on operators, insurance companies, and pools of industry funds, in addition to States, which could “play an important role in devising and participating in loss-sharing schemes”8

While generally endorsing the guidelines suggested by the 2002 Working Group, the Commission understood that “full and complete compensation might not be possible in every case”9. Factors militating against that possibility, as identified by the Commission, were: “problems with the definition of ‘damage’, difficulties of proof of loss, problems of the applicable law, limitations on the operator’s liability as well as limitations within which contributory and supplementary funding mechanisms operated”10.

Reliance on the concept of “allocation of loss” replacing terms like “liability for harm or damage” was criticized by some members, preferring the use of more familiar terms like “damage” or “compensation” or “allocation of damages”11. While similar views were also expressed by some delegations to the UNGA Sixth Committee during the debate on the report of the ILC, others welcomed the new emphasis on “allocation of loss” primarily to the operator and linking to the supplementary contributions from others, including the State, noting that it “has made it possible to overcome the conceptual difficulties in delineating the contours of the topic, including separating it from State responsibility”12. Others considered that “given that the objective of the exercise is to address the loss to innocent victims, the difference between the two concepts—liability and allocation of loss—was … not so very important”13

In pursuance of this new orientation, as noted above, the Commission reviewed several relevant sectoral and regional treaties and other instruments, some of which were well established and others not yet in force but instructive as models for allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm14

The Special Rapporteur’s first report in 2003 sufficiently brought home the point that States differed in their preferences and practice on the models they adopted for the allocation of loss. The Second report in 2004 noted the different elements of civil liability and private international law that were involved in the many choices States made: the definition of compensable damage, the designation of entities for the purpose of attaching the primary and secondary or subsidiary liability for compensation, the selection of standard of liability, the choice of exceptions to liability, the construction of the causal connection and the associated issue of who should discharge what standard of burden of proof, the appropriate national judicial forums for submission and settlement of claims of compensation and other issues of private law on choice of applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards15. As such it was pointed out that any exercise to develop a full convention or even a protocol on liability would involve the harmonization of these elements, being a task beyond the scope of the present exercise16.

Based on the views expressed first by members of the Commission and later by States during the debate on the report of the Commission at the UNGA Sixth Committee in 2003, the Special Rapporteur drew the following conclusions: i). In developing any legal regime, emphasis should be placed on the need for States to have sufficient flexibility to develop national or regional schemes of liability to address their needs and those of victims of harm. ii). States had an obligation to ensure that some arrangement existed in national laws to guarantee the equitable allocation of loss, so that, to the extent feasible, the innocent victim should not be left to bear loss unsupported. iii). A model of allocation of loss that would be general and residual in character is preferred based on State practice which relied on civil liability regimes that were both sectoral and sensitive to the nature of the activity involved. iv). The legal regime to be considered by the Commission should be without prejudice to State responsibility under international law and civil liability under national law or rules of private international law. v). The scope of the topic should be the same as that governed by the draft articles on prevention. vi). The definition of “damage” should include any loss to persons and property, including elements of State patrimony and natural heritage as well as the environment within national jurisdiction, vii) excluding damage to the global commons. viii). The person most in command or control of the activity should bear the primary duty of redressing any harm caused. ix). The task of harmonization of principles of civil liability or private international law was best left to appropriate national or competent international forums as it was outside the scope of the mandate of the ILC. 17

Approving the conclusions noted thus, the Commission finalized in 2004 a set of draft guidelines on the allocation of loss. These were finalized in 2006 based on the comments received from States in 2005 which were reviewed in the third report of the Special Rapporteur. The Commission forwarded a set of eight draft principles along with commentaries to the UNGA to endorse the same and commend them to “States to take national and international action to implement them”18.

Analysis of the 2006 draft principles

The main objective of the 2006 draft principles governing the allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm19(hereinafter “the draft principles”) is to contribute to the progressive development of law in this field, by providing “appropriate guidance to States in respect of hazardous activities not covered by specific agreements and by indicating the matters that should be dealt with in such arrangements”20. The preamble sets out the general context that governed the development of the draft principles and the basic policies and understanding that shaped its content: concern for the protection of the environment, liability to be distinguished from State responsibility, the duty of prevention and remedial measures in case harm occurs despite compliance with due diligence obligations.

Principle 1 deals with the scope of the principles covering significant transboundary damage arising from activities not prohibited by international law. Determination of “damage” as significant involves, as in the case of 2001 draft articles on prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities21, both factual and objective criteria, as well as value determination that would evolve along with growing scientific knowledge and increasing demands on good governance. Most importantly, the scope of the draft principles is confined to dealing with “physical consequences” of damage relatable to an activity through a chain of causation. Some examples of activities covered by existing international liability regimes were noted in the commentary22. The threshold is also designed to discourage “frivolous and vexatious” claims23.

The definition of “damage” noted in Principle 2 includes, in addition to the loss of life, personal injury, loss or damage to property, in sub-paragraphs. (iii)-(v), damage to the environment per se: “loss or damage by impairment of the environment”; “the costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement of the property or environment, including natural resources”; and “the costs of reasonable response measures”24. The different elements noted in this connection are drawn from trends in decision dealing with compensation for damage affecting the environment. They could also pave the way for further developments of the law for the protection of the environment per se25.

Damage by impairment of the environment would allow claims concerning the loss of income directly deriving from an economic interest in any use of the environment, incurred because of modification, alteration, destruction, or loss of the environment26. The standing to sue in such cases is open only to public authorities in the name of the State, which may be considered to have held such property in the trust. Public interest groups also have the standing to sue and pursue claims in this regard as the environment is an asset of common concern27.

It may be noted that the references to “costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement” in subparagraph (iv) and reasonable costs of clean-up associated with the “costs of reasonable response measures” in subparagraph (v) are relatively recent concepts. The reference to “reasonable” is intended to indicate that the costs of such measures should not be excessively disproportionate to the basic objective of the reinstatement, that is, to re-establish the situation ante that existed or would have existed but for the harm at issue. It is pointed out that the aim of these measures should be “not to restore or return the environment to its original state but to enable it to maintain its permanent functions”; and where that is not possible, “it is reasonable to introduce the equivalent of those components into the environment”28. Recent trends allow compensation for the loss of “non-use value” of the environment29. The Commission has opted to include in the definition of “environment” both the natural resources, such as air, soil, water, flora and fauna, and their interaction but also encompassing non-service values, such as aesthetic aspects of the landscape. This includes the enjoyment of nature because of its natural beauty and recreational attributes, and associated opportunities. This broader approach is justified, according to the Commission, because of the general and residual character of the draft principles30.

Paragraph (g) of Principle 2 defines “operator”. The channeling of liability onto one single entity, whether owner or operator, is the hallmark of strict liability regimes. “Operator” is defined in functional terms, based on “a factual determination as to who has use, control and direction of the object at the relevant time”31. The commentary however makes it clear that “the term 'operator' would not include employees who work or are in control of the activity at the relevant time”. The term “control” denotes “power or authority to manage, direct, regulate, administer or oversee”. The expression “control” thus could cover “the person to whom decisive power over the technical functioning of an activity has been delegated, including the holder of a permit or authorization for such an activity or the person registering or notifying such an activity”32.

Principle 3 identifies the purposes served by the present draft principles: prompt and adequate compensation to the victim of transboundary damage; and to preserve and protect the environment and its restoration or reinstatement. These two aspects are linked to Principle 4 (prompt and adequate compensation) and Principle 5 (response measures).

The Trail Smelter arbitrationa33, the Corfu Channel case34, Principle 22 of the Stockholm Declaration35, and Principle 13 of the Rio Declaration36 underpin the aspirations and preferences of the international community in advancing the principle of prompt and adequate compensation. In addition to serving the stated purposes, the draft principles directly or indirectly serve several other objectives, such as principles of precaution and “polluter pays” principles or “cost internalization”37, resolving disputes among States in a peaceful manner, promoting the viability of economic activities that are important for the welfare of States and peoples, and providing compensation in a manner that is predictable, equitable, expeditious, and cost-effective.

Commentary to Principle 3 notes some general principles concerning payment of compensation, evolved over a period of time, and endorsed by the International Court of Justice (hereinafter “ICJ” or “the Court”) and other international tribunals. The basic principle was noted by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Chorzow Factory case: “that reparation must, so far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed”38.  Where restitution in kind is not possible, compensation must be paid to cover the loss. Two basic principles guided the award of compensation. Damages awarded should not have a punitive function. The victim can only be compensated for the loss suffered and cannot be rewarded with financial gain for the harm caused to him39

Generally, as noted above, principle 2 makes it clear that claims concerning “costs incurred by way of reasonable preventive, restoration or reinstatement measures” are allowed. In addition, compensation would be available in respect of “financially assessable damage, that is quantifiable in monetary terms”.  Overall, “the particular circumstances of the case, the content of the obligation breached, the assessment of the reasonableness of measures undertaken by parties in respect of the damage caused, and finally, considerations of equity and mutual accommodation” would determine what is compensable and how much would it be40

Principle 4 calls on the State of origin of the hazardous activity that causes transboundary harm to take all necessary measures to ensure prompt and adequate compensation to victims (para. 1). These measures include the imposition of liability without proof of fault on the part of the operator, or in appropriate cases, other person or entity (para. 2); requiring the operator to maintain financial security such as insurance, bonds, or other financial guarantees to cover claims for compensation (para. 3)41; and where appropriate, the requirement for the establishment of industry-wide funds at the national level (para. 4). Principle 4 also emphasized that in the event the measures thus noted proved insufficient to provide adequate compensation, “the State of origin should also ensure that the additional financial resources are made available” (para. 5)42.

Some important observations arising out of Principle 4 are: the draft principles are organized on the assumption “that the State of origin would have performed fully all the obligations concerning prevention” of transboundary harm43. The notion of “promptness” refers to expeditious access to justice and procedures aimed at eliminating costly and protracted litigation44. Compensation should be adequate but not necessarily full or sufficient, a consequence that flows directly from the imposition of strict but limited liability on the operator45. The imposition of strict liability on the operator is aimed at helping the victim to secure prompt and adequate compensation. It enables the claimant to seek compensation without having to “shoulder a heavy burden of proof of fault or negligence in respect of highly complex technological activities whose risks and operation the concerned industry closely guards as a secret”46. Second, it might help, at the international level, the application of a less rigorous standard of proof of proximity or causal connection of the damage to the source of the activity47.

Principle 5 deals with response measures after the occurrence of transboundary damage has become imminent or real. The duties of notification, consultation, and cooperation involved are similar to the duties the State of origin owes in respect of the prevention of transboundary harm. The difference lies in the fact that these duties are that much more urgent and compelling, first to prevent the occurrence of transboundary damage or mitigate its effects where it is only imminent, and second, to reduce the range of its effects in case it is real.

The duty of prompt notification (para. a) imposed on the State of origin is a duty under general international law and is endorsed as such by the ICJ in the Corfu Channel case and the Nicaragua case. The Convention on the Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident, adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1986, confirmed the importance of this duty under customary law. The notification addressed to all States affected or likely to be affected should contain all available and practical information about the nature of the damage and remedial action that could and should be taken. 

The State of origin, with the appropriate involvement of the operator, should in addition take all necessary response measures based on the “best available scientific data and technology” (para. b). The duty to take response measures involves the duty on the part of the State of origin to put in place necessary contingency preparedness and to employ the best means at its disposal to prevent or, at any rate, mitigate the transboundary damage, once the emergency arises. It may also seek, where necessary, possible assistance from other States and competent international organizations.

The requirement concerning response measures is closely related to the principle of a precautionary approach. Accordingly, the State of origin is expected to perform this duty “keeping in view all social and economic costs”48. Further, the duty imposed on the State of origin in this respect is secondary and residuary to the responsibility of the operator, which is primary. Accordingly, the State would have the option of securing reimbursement of costs of reasonable response measures from the operator49.

The duties of consultation and cooperation noted as part of Principle 5 (c and d) entail duties on the part of the State of origin and States likely to be affected. Once notified, the States likely to be affected are under a duty to take all appropriate and reasonable measures to mitigate the damage to which they are exposed. Such a response action is essential not only in its public interest but also “to enable the appropriate authorities and courts to treat the subsequent claims for compensation and reimbursement of costs incurred for response measures taken as reasonable”50.

Principle 5 (e) deals with cooperation sought by the State concerned from or offered by the competent international organizations in undertaking necessary response measures. These are expected to be organized on mutually agreed terms and conditions. While different factors govern these arrangements, it is important to note that any such arrangements “should not be based on purely commercial terms and be consistent with the elementary considerations of humanity” with the primary objective of “rendering humanitarian assistance to the victims in distress”51

Principle 6 deals with procedural minimum standards. Principle 4 along with Principle 6 constitute the substantive and procedural principles governing the basic purpose of the draft principles of ensuring prompt and adequate compensation to victims in respect of transboundary damage suffered on account of hazardous activities. Principle 6 provides for the establishment of jurisdiction to deal with claims concerning compensation, equal and non-discriminatory access to justice irrespective of the nationality or place of residence of the victims, availability of effective legal remedies, recognition, and enforcement of foreign judicial and arbitral decisions, recourse to international procedures for the settlement of compensation claims, and access to information.

The commentary to Principle 6 notes in para. 1 that access to administrative, quasi-judicial, and judicial bodies at the national level could be provided by States, as already mentioned in the commentary to Principle 4, in accordance with due process, or by negotiation between States concerned. Para. 2 emphasizes that the State of origin should ensure no less prompt, adequate and effective remedies to victims than those available for its nationals for similar damage.  This might require, incidentally attention to matters both of procedure52 and substance. The latter involves more difficult issues relating to incorporating the minimum substantive standards provided for in international instruments dealing with human rights and other matters such as choice of law or choice of forum53. Paragraph 3 refers in this connection to the need for harmonization of laws and agreement among the States concerned. 

Principle 6, paragraph 4 focuses on “international claims settlement procedures” based on the practice which differs from case to case54: payments made ex gratia or settled through negotiations, contributions made by the State of origin to the States affected to disburse compensation through national claims procedure established by the latter, lump sum compensation paid either as a result of a trial or out-of-court settlement, or payment of some reasonable compensation paid on a provisional basis, pending settlement through more formal procedures. The work of the Iran-US Claims Tribunal55 and the UN Compensation Commission56 offer useful models of their own.

Given the fact that some, if not most, of the compensation claim procedures were subject to remedies sought in civil law “requiring victims to pursue their claims in foreign national and judicial and other forums”, the overall impression gathered by the Commission was that it leaves much to be desired. In this context, it is recommended that “both States and concerned entities representing the victims must get involved to settle claims out of court or the victims must be given equal or non-discriminatory right of access to civil law remedies”57.

Paragraph 5 gains importance, in the light of the above, as it provides for access to information, “without which the principle of equal access noted in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 for victims of transboundary damage cannot be realized expeditiously or without much expense”58. It is an evolving principle and one that is included in national law and some international instruments. Ensuring the implementation of this principle in all its varied dimensions as a “legally enforceable right is taking its time”59.

Principle 6 (5) is designed to give necessary room to States to deny access to information in appropriate cases, for example, where consideration of national security requires it.

Principle 7 reiterated the general and residual character of the draft principles. It urges States to adopt bilateral, regional, or international agreements on particular categories of hazardous activities. In that sense, it emphasizes the basic philosophy or policy originally articulated by Quentin-Baxter in his schematic outline and reiterated by Barbosa during his long tenure as the Special Rapporteur, that is, the development of international liability regimes based on negotiations between and among States based on the shared expectations and selecting from among the boundless choices available to them.

Principle 8 makes an otherwise obvious point encouraging States to adopt necessary legislative, regulatory, and administrative measures to implement the draft principles. In so doing, States are under a duty to ensure that such measures do not amount to any discrimination on any ground prohibited by international law, including those based on nationality, domicile, or residence. Other grounds equally prohibited, as noted by the commentary, are “race, gender, religion or belief”60.

The ILC thus was able to conclude its work on international liability, originally inscribed on its agenda as an item in 1978, in 2006, that is, nearly after 28 years. The main focus of the work during this period was protecting the environment and identifying sources of funds for restoring the environment as well as ensuring suitable compensation for innocent victims of transboundary harm. The liability regime, drafted in the form of principles, in contradistinction to the draft articles on prevention, as conceived very early in the exercise, is both general and residuary in character. It encourages States to conclude bilateral, regional and international regimes regulating hazardous activities, considering their special characteristics and types of risks they embody, based on their shared expectations and selecting from among the boundless choices available to them. The principles thus identified could serve as a useful guide in dealing with compensation claims even in contexts other than strict transboundary contexts.

This Introductory Note was finalized in February 2023.

Related Material

A. Legal Instruments

Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, in Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 5-16 June 1972 (A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1).

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, in Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 3-14 June 1992 (A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1(Vol.I)).


B. Jurisprudence



Trail smelter case (United States, Canada), 16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941, United Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. III, pp. 1905-1982.

International Court of Justice, Corfu Channel case, Judgment of April 9th, 1949, I.C. J. Reports 1949, pp. 4, 244.

International Court of Justice, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168.


C. Documents


Report of the International Law Commission, Forty-eighth session (6 May - 26 July 1996), Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first session, Supplement No.10 (A/51/10), annex I.

Second Report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities), by Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/501, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1999, vol. II, Part One).

Third report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities), by Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/510, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2000, vol. II, Part One).

Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-third session (23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001), Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-First session, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10 + Corr.1).

General Assembly resolution 56/82 of 18 January 2002 (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session).

Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-fourth session (29 April-7 June and 22 July-16 August 2002), Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-seventh session, Supplement No.10 (A/57/10).

Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-fifth session (5 May-6 June and 7 July-8 August 2003), Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-eighth session, Supplement No.10 (A/58/10).

First report on the legal regime for allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, by Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/531, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2003, vol. II, Part One).

Second report on the legal regime for the allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, by Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/540, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2004, vol. II, Part One).

Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-eighth session (1 May-9 June and 3 July-11 August 2006), Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-First session, Supplement No. 10 (A/61/10), para. 63.


D. Doctrine


T. J. Feighery, C. S. Gibson, T. M. Raja (eds.), Gulf War Reparations and The UN Compensation: Designing Compensation After Conflict, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

R. Khan, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Controversies, Cases and Contribution, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1990.

H. Mafi, A Review of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Revista Misión Jurídica, vol. 13, no. 19, 2020, pp. 98 -119.

C. R. Pyane and P. H. Sand, Gulf War Reparations and the UN Compensation Commission: Environmental Liability, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

العربية Arabic 中文 Chinese English English Français English Русский Russian Español Spanish


International Liability for Injurious Consequences
Arising Out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law

From the outset of its work on the topic of State responsibility, the International Law Commission agreed that that topic should deal only with the consequences of internationally wrongful acts, and that, in defining the general rule concerning the principle of responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, it was necessary to adopt a formula which did not prejudge the existence of responsibility for lawful acts. That conclusion met with broad acceptance in the discussion of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly at its twenty-fifth session, in 1970.

At its twenty-fifth session, in 1973, when the Commission started to work on the first set of draft articles on State responsibility, it referred to the matter in more definite terms: “... if it is thought desirable—and views to this effect have already been expressed in the past both in the International Law Commission and in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly—the International Law Commission can undertake the study of the so-called responsibility for risk after its study on responsibility for wrongful acts has been completed, or it can do so simultaneously but separately” (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1973, vol. II, document A/9010/Rev.1, para. 39).

The General Assembly, in resolution 3071 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973, supported the position of the Commission and recommended that the Commission should undertake a study of the new topic “at an appropriate time”. The Assembly, in resolutions 3315 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974 and 3495 (XXX) of 15 December 1975, repeated its recommendation that the Commission take up the topic ‘‘as soon as appropriate”, replacing the latter phrase by the words “at the earliest possible time” in resolution 31/97 of 15 December 1976.

Pursuant to those recommendations of the General Assembly, the Commission agreed, at its twenty-ninth session, in 1977, to undertake the study on the topic at the earliest possible time, having regard, in particular, to the progress made on the draft articles on State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts.

The General Assembly, in resolution 32/151 of 19 December 1977, endorsed the conclusion of the Commission and invited it, at an appropriate time and in the light of progress made on the draft articles on State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts and on other topics in its current programme of work, to commence work on the topic of international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law.

At its thirtieth session, in 1978, the Commission established a working group to consider, in a preliminary manner, the scope and nature of the topic. Having considered the recommendations made by the Working Group (A/CN.4/L.284 and Corr.1), the Commission appointed Robert Q. Quentin-Baxter as Special Rapporteur for the topic and invited him to prepare a preliminary report at an early juncture. It also requested the Secretariat to collect and survey materials on the topic on a continuous basis.

At its thirty-fifth session, in 1983, the Commission agreed that the Special Rapporteur should, with the help of the Secretariat, prepare a questionnaire to be addressed to selected international organizations with a view to ascertaining whether obligations which States owed to each other, and discharged, as members of international organizations might, to that extent, fulfil or replace some of the procedures indicated in the Special Rapporteur’s schematic outline contained in his third report (A/CN.4/360 and Corr.1). In compliance with this decision, a questionnaire (A/CN.4/378) was prepared and addressed to sixteen international organizations, selected on the basis of activities which might bear on the subject matter of the inquiry.

At the Commission’s thirty-seventh session, in 1985, Julio Barbosa succeeded Robert Q. Quentin-Baxter as Special Rapporteur for the topic. In connection with its work on the topic, the Commission had before it the reports of the Special Rapporteurs (A/CN.4/334 and Add. 1. and Add. 1/Corr. 1 and Add 2; A/CN.4/346 and Add.1 and Add. 2; A/CN.4/360 and Corr.1; A/CN.4/373 and Corr. 1 and 2; A/CN.4/383 and Add.1; A/CN.4/394), information provided by Governments and international organizations (A/CN.4/378), as well as documents prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/384).

At its fortieth session, in 1988, the Commission began the first reading of the draft articles on the topic which were contained in the Special Rapporteur’s fourth report (A/CN.4/413 and Corr.1 & 2).

At its forty-fourth session, in 1992, the Commission established a Working Group to consider some of the general issues relating to the scope, the approach to be taken and the possible direction of the future work on the topic. On the basis of the recommendation of the Working Group (A/CN.4/L.470), the Commission decided, with regard to the scope of the topic, that, pending a final decision, the topic should be understood as comprising both issues of prevention and of remedial measures. Prevention should, however, be considered first; only after having completed its work on that first part of the topic would the Commission proceed to the question of remedial measures. Thus, the draft articles should deal first with preventive measures in respect of activities creating a risk of causing transboundary harm and secondly with articles on the remedial measures when such activities had caused transboundary harm. The Commission deferred, however, its decision on the question of the approach to be taken with regard to the nature of the articles or of the instrument to be drafted, until after the completion of the work on the topic. The Commission also deferred its decision on the title of the topic until after the completion of the draft articles. (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1992, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 344-348.)

At its forty-sixth and forty-seventh sessions, in 1994 and 1995, the Commission provisionally adopted draft articles 1 (Scope of the present articles), 2 (Use of terms), 11 (Prior authorisation), 12 (Risk assessment), 13 (Pre-existing activities), 14 (Measures to prevent or minimize the risk), 14 bis (Non-transference of risk), 15 (Notification and information), 16 (Exchange of information), 16 bis (Information to the public), 17 (National security and industrial secrets), 18 (Consultations on preventive measures), 19 (Rights of the State likely to be affected), 20 (Factors involved in an equitable balance of interests, (A) (Freedom of action and the limits thereto), (B) (Prevention), (C) (Liability and compensation) and (D) (Cooperation), with commentaries thereto (A/CN.4/L.494 and Corr. 1; A/CN.4/L.508).

At its forty-seventh session, in 1995, the Commission established a Working Group to identify activities within the scope of the topic. In the light of the Working Group’s report (A/CN.4/L.510), the Commission agreed that it must, in its future work on the topic, have a clear view of the kind of activities to which the draft articles on the topic apply. It took the view that it could work on the basis that the types of activities listed in various conventions dealing with issues of transboundary harm came within the scope of the topic, but that eventually, more specificity might be required in the draft articles.

At its forty-eighth session, in 1996, the Commission established a Working Group to review the topic in all its aspects in the light of the reports of the Special Rapporteur (in addition to those previously mentioned: A/CN.4/394; A/CN.4/402 and Corr.1, Corr.2 (S only) to 4; A/CN.4/405 and Corr.1& 2; A/CN.4/423 and Corr.1 & 2; A/CN.4/428 & Corr.1-4 and Add.1; A/CN.4/437 and Corr.1; A/CN.4/443 and Corr.1 and 3; A/CN.4/450; A/CN.4/459; A/CN.4/468; A/CN.4/475, Corr.1, Add. 1 and Add.1/Corr.1) and the discussions on the topic held over the years. In its report to the Commission, the Working Group submitted a single consolidated text of draft articles and commentaries thereto which were limited in terms of the scope of the topic and residual in character (A/CN.4/L.533 and Add.1). The Commission was unable to examine the draft articles at that session. It, however, decided to transmit them to the General Assembly and to Governments for comments. (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, vol. II (Part Two), para. 97-101.)

At its forty-ninth session, in 1997, the Commission, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 51/160 of 16 December 1996, established a Working Group to consider the question of how to proceed with the topic. The Working Group reviewed the work of the Commission on the topic since 1978 (A/CN.4/L.536). It noted that the scope and content of the topic remained unclear due to such factors as conceptual and theoretical difficulties, appropriateness of the title and the relation of the subject to the topic “State responsibility.” It further noted that the Commission had dealt with two distinct, though related, issues under the topic: “prevention” and “international liability”. The Working Group agreed that those issues henceforth should be dealt with separately. Noting that the work on prevention was already at an advanced stage, the Working Group believed that the Commission should proceed with its work on this aspect of the topic with a possible completion of the first reading in the near future. With respect to the second aspect, liability, the Working Group was of the view that, while retaining it, the Commission should await further comments from Governments before making any decision on the issue. (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1997, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 165-167.)

At the same session, the Commission considered and adopted the Working Group’s report. On the basis of the recommendation of the Working Group, the Commission decided, inter alia, to proceed with its work on the topic, undertaking first prevention under the subtitle “Prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities”.

The General Assembly, in resolution 52/156 of 15 December 1997, took note of the Commission’s decision.


International liability in case of loss from transboundary harm
arising out of hazardous activities

The General Assembly, in resolution 53/102 of 8 December 1998, requested the Commission, while continuing its work on prevention, to examine other issues arising out of the topic, taking into account comments made by Governments, either in writing or in the Sixth Committee, and to submit its recommendations on the future work to be done on these issues to the Sixth Committee.

In his second report (A/CN.4/501), Special Rapporteur Rao, dealt, apart from the issues related to the first part of the topic (prevention), with the treatment of the concept of international liability in the Commission since the topic was placed on its agenda; negotiations on liability issues in other international fora; and options with respect to the future course of action on the question of liability. The Commission considered the report at its fifty-first session, in 1999, and decided to defer the consideration of the question of international liability, pending completion of the second reading of the draft articles on the prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities.

The General Assembly, in resolutions 54/111 of 9 December 1999 and 55/152 of 12 December 2000, requested the Commission to resume the consideration of the liability aspects of the topic as soon as the second reading of the draft articles on prevention was finalized. The General Assembly, by resolution 56/82 of 12 December 2001, requested the Commission to resume, during its fifty-fourth session, its consideration of the liability aspects of the topic, bearing in mind the interrelationship between prevention and liability, and taking into account the developments in international law and comments by Governments.

At its fifty-fourth session, in 2002, the Commission decided to include the topic “International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law” on its programme of work and to begin consideration of the second part of the topic “International liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities”. The Commission established a Working Group, chaired by Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, to consider the conceptual outline of the topic. The Working Group recommended continuing to limit the scope of the remainder of the topic concerning liability to the same activities that were covered under the first part of the topic concerning prevention, which would effectively link the work on the two parts of the topic. The Working Group also set out the following initial understandings on the topic: (a) a threshold would have to be determined to trigger the application of the regime on allocation of loss caused; and (b) the loss to be covered should include loss to (i) persons, (ii) property, including elements of State patrimony and national heritage, and (iii) environment within national jurisdiction. The Working Group also considered the approach to be taken regarding the role of the operator and the State in the allocation of loss. The Commission adopted the report of the Working Group, as amended by the Commission. The Commission also appointed Mr. Rao as Special Rapporteur for the topic (A/57/10).

The General Assembly, in resolution 57/21 of 19 November 2002, took note of the Commission’s decision to proceed with its work on the topic, as requested by the Assembly in resolution 56/82.

At its fifty-fifth session, in 2003, the Commission had before it the Special Rapporteur’s first report (A/CN.4/531) on the legal regime for allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities. The report reviewed the work of the Commission in previous years, analysed the liability regimes of various instruments and offered conclusions for the consideration of the Commission. After considering the report, the Commission decided to establish a Working Group, under the chairmanship of the Special Rapporteur, to assist the Special Rapporteur in considering the future orientation of the topic in the light of his report and the debate in the Commission (A/58/10).

At its fifty-sixth session, in 2004, the Commission had before it the second report (A/CN.4/540) of the Special Rapporteur on the legal regime for the allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities. The Commission also had the Survey of Liability Regimes relevant to the topic, updated by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/543). The Commission established a working group under the chairmanship of Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao to examine the proposals submitted by the Special Rapporteur, taking into account the debate in the Commission, with view to recommending draft principles ripe for referral to the Drafting Committee, while also continuing discussions on other issues, including the form that work on the topic should take. In its work the Working Group reviewed and revised the 12 draft principles submitted by the Special Rapporteur and it recommended that the 8 draft principles contained in its report (A/CN.4/L.661) be referred to the Drafting Committee. The Commission received the oral report of the Chairman of the Working Group and decided to refer the eight draft principles to the Drafting Committee. The Commission also requested the Drafting Committee to prepare a text of a preamble. The Commission subsequently considered the report of the Drafting Committee (A/CN.4/L.662) and adopted on first reading a set of eight draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities (A/59/10). The Commission also decided, in accordance with articles 16 and 21 of its Statute to transmit the draft principles through the Secretary-General, to Governments for comments and observations, with the request that such comments and observations be submitted to the Secretary-General by 1 January 2006 (A/59/10).

The General Assembly, in resolution 59/41 of 2 December 2004, expressed its appreciation to the International Law Commission for the completion of the first reading of the draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, and drew the attention of Governments to the importance for the International Law Commission of having their views on the draft principles.

The General Assembly, in resolution 61/34 of 4 December 2006, expressed its appreciation to the International Law Commission for the completion of the second reading of the draft principles.

At its fifty-eighth session, the Commission adopted on second reading the text of the preamble and a set of eight draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, with commentaries. The Commission recalled that at its forty-ninth session (1997) it decided to consider the topic in two parts; at its fifty-third session (2001) it completed the first part and recommended to the General Assembly the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles on Prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities. The Commission’s recommendation was based on its view that, taking into account the existing State practice, the first part of the topic lent itself to codification and progressive development through a convention. The adoption by the Commission of the draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities completed the second part, thus concluding work on the topic “International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law”. In accordance with article 23 of its Statute the Commission recommended, for the second part, that the Assembly endorse the draft principles by a resolution and urge States to take national and international action to implement them.

On 4 December 2006, the General Assembly adopted resolution 61/36 , in which it decided to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-second session an item entitled “Consideration of prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities and allocation of loss in the case of such harm”.

On 7 December 2007, the General Assembly adopted resolution 62/68 , in which it welcomed the conclusion of the work of the International Law Commission on prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities and allocation of loss in the case of such harm and its adoption of the respective draft articles and draft principles and commentaries on the subjects. It commended the articles on prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities, presented by the Commission, the text of which was annexed to the resolution, to the attention of Governments, without prejudice to any future action, as recommended by the Commission regarding the articles. It invited Governments to submit comments on any future action, in particular on the form of the respective articles and principles, bearing in mind the recommendations made by the Commission in that regard, including in relation to the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles, as well as on any practice in relation to the application of the articles and principles. It decided to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-fifth session the item entitled “Consideration of prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities and allocation of loss in the case of such harm”.

The General Assembly, in resolution 65/28 of 10 December 2010, commended once again the principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, the text of which was annexed to General Assembly resolution 61/36, to the attention of Governments, without prejudice to any future action, as recommended by the Commission regarding the principles. It invited Governments to submit further comments on any future action, in particular on the form of the respective articles and principles, bearing in mind the recommendations made by the Commission in that regard, including in relation to the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles, as well as on any practice in relation to the application of the articles and principles. It requested the Secretary-General to submit a compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies referring to the articles and the principles. It included in the provisional agenda of its sixty-eighth (2013) session the item entitled “Consideration of prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities and allocation of loss in the case of such harm”.


Text of the Instrument

Selected preparatory documents
(in chronological order)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1186 to 1193 held, respectively, on 30 September and from 1 to 8 October 1970 (A/C.6/SR.1186-1193)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its twenty-fifth session, 7 May – 13 July 1973, Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fifth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/9010/Rev.1, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1973, vol. II)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1395 to 1407 and 1414 to 1416 held, respectively, from 25 to 28 September and from 1 to 16 October 1973 (A/C.6/SR.1395-1407 and 1414-1416)

General Assembly resolution 3071 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973 (Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its twenty-fifth session)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its twenty-sixth session, 6 May – 26 July 1974, Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-ninth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/9610/Rev.1, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1974, vol. II, Part I)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1484 to 1496, 1507, and 1509, held, respectively, from 24 to 31 October and from 1 to 28 November 1974 (A/C.6/SR.1484-1496, 1507 and 1509)

General Assembly resolution 3315 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974 (Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its twenty-sixth session)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1534 to 1535, 1538, 1542 to 1543, 1545 to 1549 and 1575, held, respectively, from 8 to 28 October and on 26 November 1975 (A/C.6/SR.1534-1535, 1538-1549 and 1575)

General Assembly resolution 3495 (XXX) of 15 December 1975 (Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its twenty-seventh session)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 13 to 35, 42 and 60 of the thirty-first session, held, respectively, from 7 to 29 October, 1 to 12 November and on 1 December 1976 (A/C.6/31/SR.13-35, 42 and 60)

General Assembly resolution 31/97 of 15 December 1976 (Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its twenty-eighth session)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its twenty-ninth session, 9 May – 29 July 1977, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-second session, Supplement No.10 (A/32/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1977, vol. II, Part II)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 25, 30 to 46 and 68 of the thirty-second regular session, held, respectively, from 21 to 31 October, 1 to 15 November and on 9 December 1977 (A/C.6/32/SR.25, 30-46 and 68)

General Assembly resolution 32/151 of 19 December 1977 (Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its twenty-ninth session)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirtieth session, 8 May – 28 July 1978, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-third Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/33/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1978, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Report of the Working Group on International Liability for Injurious Consequences arising out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law (A/CN.4/L.284 and Corr.1, 8 May to 28 July1978)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1502, 1525 and 1527, held, respectively, from 16 to 27 June 1978 (A/CN.4/SR.1502, A/CN.4/SR.1525 and A/CN.4/SR.1527, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1978, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Thirty-second session, 5 May – 25 July 1980, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/35/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1980, vol. II, Part II)

Preliminary report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts
not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Robert Q. Quentin-Baxter, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/334 and Add.1 & Corr.1 and Add.2, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1980, vol. II, Part I, 24 and 27 June and 4 July1980)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1630 to 1633, held, respectively, from 10 to 15 July 1980 (A/CN.4/SR.1630, A/CN.4/SR.1631, A/CN.4/SR.1632 and A/CN.4/SR.1633, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1980, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-second session (1980): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its thirty-fifth session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/L.326)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-third session, 4 May - 24 July 1981, Official Records of the General Assembly, thirty-sixth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/36/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1981, vol. II, Part II)

Second report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not
prohibited by international law, by Mr. Robert Q. Quentin-Baxter, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/346 and Add.1 & 2, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1981, vol. II, Part I, 12 and 30 June and 1 July 1981)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1685 to 1687, and 1690, held, respectively, from 6 to 14 July 1981 (A/CN.4/SR.1685, A/CN.4/SR.1686, A/CN.4/SR.1687 and A/CN.4/SR.1690, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1981, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-third session (1981): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its thirty-fifth session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/L.339)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Thirty-fourth session, 3 May - 23 July 1982, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-seventh session, Supplement No. 10 (A/37/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1982, vol. II, Part II)

Third report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Robert Q. Quentin-Baxter, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/360 and Corr.1, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1982, vol. II, Part I, 23 June 1982)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1735, 1739 and 1741 to 1744, held, respectively, on 28 June and from 5 to 12 July 1982 (A/CN.4/SR.1735, A/CN.4/SR.1739 and A/CN.4/SR.1741, A/CN.4/SR.1742, A/CN.4/SR.1743 and A/CN.4/SR.1744, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1982, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-fourth session (1982): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its thirty-seventh session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/L.352/Corr.1)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Thirty-fifth session, 3 May - 22 July 1983, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-eighth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/38/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1983, vol. II, Part II)

Fourth report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Robert .Q. Quentin-Baxter, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/373 and Corr.1&.2, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1983, vol. II, Part I, 27 June 1983)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1800-1801, held, respectively, from 11 to 12 July 1983 (A/CN.4/SR.1800 and A/CN.4/SR.1801, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1983, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-fifth session (1983): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its thirty-eighth session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/L.369)

Replies received in response to the questionnaire prepared by the Special Rapporteur with the assistance of the Secretariat (A/CN.4/378, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1984, vol. II, Part I, 10 February 1984)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-sixth session, 7 May - 27 July 1984, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-ninth session, Supplement No.10 (A/39/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1984, vol. II, Part II)

Fifth report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Robert Q. Quentin-Baxter, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/383 and Corr.1, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1984, vol. II, Part I, 12 and 19 June 1984)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1848 to 1853, held, respectively, from 26 to 29 June and from 2 to 3 July 1984 (A/CN.4/SR.1848, A/CN.4/SR.1849, A/CN.4/SR.1850, A/CN.4/SR.1851, A/CN.4/SR.1852 and A/CN.4/SR.1853, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1984, vol. I)

Survey of State practice relevant to international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/384, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1985, vol. II, Part I/Add.1, 16 October 1984)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-sixth session (1984): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its thirty-ninth session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/L.382)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-seventh session, 6 May - 26 July 1985, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortieth session, Supplement No.10 (A/40/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1985, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1910 and 1928 to 1929, held, respectively, on 25 June and from 17 to 18 July 1985 (A/CN.4/SR.1910, A/CN.4/SR.1928 and A/CN.4/SR.1929, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1985, vol. I)

Preliminary report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/394, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1985, vol. II, Part I, 5 July 1985)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-seventh session (1985): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its fortieth session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/L.398)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-eighth session, 5 May - 11 July 1986, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-first session, Supplement No.10 (A/41/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1986, vol. II, Part II)

Second report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/402 and Corr.1, Corr.2 (S only) to 4, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1986, vol. II, Part I, 13 May 1986)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 1972 to 1976, held, respectively, from 20 to 26 June 1986 (A/CN.4/SR.1972, A/CN.4/SR.1973, A/CN.4/SR.1974, A/CN.4/SR.1975 and A/CN.4/SR.1976, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1986, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-eighth session (1986): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its forty-first session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/L.410)

Third report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/405 and Corr.1& 2, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1987, vol. II, Part I, 16 March 1987)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-ninth session, 4 May - 17 July 1987, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-second session, Supplement No. 10 (A/42/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1987, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2015 to 2023, held, respectively, from 16 to 30 June 1987 (A/CN.4/SR.2015, A/CN.4/SR.2016, A/CN.4/SR.2017, A/CN.4/SR.2018, A/CN.4/SR.2019, A/CN.4/SR.2020, A/CN.4/SR.2021, A/CN.4/SR.2022 and A/CN.4/SR.2023, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1987, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirty-ninth session (1987): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its forty-second session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/L.420)

Fourth report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by International Law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/413 and Corr.1 & 2, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1988, vol. II, Part I, 6 April 1988)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fortieth session, 9 May - 29 July 1988, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-third session, Supplement No. 10 (A/43/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1988, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2044 to 2045, 2047 to 2049 and 2074 to 2075, held, respectively, from 11 to 20 May and from 6 to 7 July 1988 (A/CN.4/SR.2044, A/CN.4/SR.2045, A/CN.4/SR.2047, A/CN.4/SR.2048, A/CN.4/SR.2049, A/CN.4/SR.2074 and A/CN.4/SR.2075, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1988, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fortieth session (1988): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its forty-third session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/L.431)

Fifth report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not
prohibited by international law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/423 and Corr.1 & 2, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1989, vol. II, Part I, 25 April 1989)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-first session, 2 May - 21 July 1989, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fourth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/44/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1989, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2108 to 2114 and 2121, held, respectively, from 30 to 31 May and from 1 June to 20 June 1989 (A/CN.4/SR.2108, A/CN.4/SR.2109, A/CN.4/SR.2110, A/CN.4/SR.2111, A/CN.4/SR.2112, A/CN.4/SR.2113, A/CN.4/SR.2114 and A/CN.4/SR.2121, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1989, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-first session (1989): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its forty-fourth session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/L.443)

Sixth report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/428 & Corr.1-4 and Add.1, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1990, vol. II, Part I, 15 March 1990)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-second session, 1 May - 20 July 1990, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fifth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/45/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1990, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2179, 2181 to 2186 and 2190, held, respectively, from 22 to 29 June and from 2 to 10 July 1990 (A/CN.4/SR.2179, A/CN.4/SR.2181, A/CN.4/SR.2182, A/CN.4/SR.2183, A/CN.4/SR.2184, A/CN.4/SR.2185, A/CN.4/SR.2186 and A/CN.4/SR.2190, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1990, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-second session (1990): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its forty-fifth session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/L.452)

Seventh report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/437 and Corr.1, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1991, vol. II, Part I, 16 April 1991)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-third session, 29 April - 19 July 1991, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-sixth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/46/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1991, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2221 to 2228 and 2241, held, respectively, from 7 to 21 June and on 12 July, 1991 (A/CN.4/SR.2221, A/CN.4/SR.2222, A/CN.4/SR.2223, A/CN.4/SR.2224, A/CN.4/SR.2225, A/CN.4/SR.2226, A/CN.4/SR.2227, A/CN.4/SR.2228 and A/CN.4/SR.2241, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1991, vol. I)

Eighth report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not
prohibited by international law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/443, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1992, vol. II, Part I, 15 April 1992)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-fourth session, 4 May - 24 July 1992, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-seventh session, Supplement No. 10 (A/47/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1992, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2268 to 2273 and 2282, held, respectively, from 2 to 16 June and on 8 July, 1992 (A/CN.4/SR.2268, A/CN.4/SR.2269, A/CN.4/SR.2270, A/CN.4/SR.2271, A/CN.4/SR.2272, A/CN.4/SR.2273 and A/CN.4/SR.2282, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1992, vol. I)

Ninth report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/450, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1993, vol. II, Part I, 15 April 1993)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-fifth session, 3 May - 23 July 1993, Official Records of the General Assembly, forty-eighth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/48/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1993, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2300, 2302 to 2306 and 2318, held, respectively, on 25 May, from 1 to 11 June and on 13 July 1993 (A/CN.4/SR.2300, A/CN.4/SR.2302, A/CN.4/SR.2303, A/CN.4/SR.2304, A/CN.4/SR.2305, A/CN.4/SR.2306 and A/CN.4/SR.2318, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1993, vol. I)

International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law.  Titles and texts of articles adopted by the Drafting Committee: articles 1, 2, 11, 12 and 14 - reproduced in document A/CN.4/SR.2318, para. 58 (A/CN.4/L.487, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1993, vol. 1, 13 July 1993)

Tenth report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/459, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, vol. II, Part I, 4 April 1994)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-fifth session (1993): Topical Summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its forty-eighth session prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/457, 15 February 1994)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session, 2 May - 22 July 1994, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-ninth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/49/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2351 and 2362 to 2366, held, respectively, on 10 June and from 8 to 13 July 1994 (A/CN.4/SR.2351, A/CN.4/SR.2362, A/CN.4/SR.2363, A/CN.4/SR.2364, A/CN.4/SR.2365 and A/CN.4/SR.2366, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, vol. I)

Titles and texts adopted by the Drafting Committee at the forty-fifth and forty-sixth sessions of the Commission: articles 1, 2 (subparas. (a), (b) and (c)), 11-14 bis [20 bis], 15-16 bis and 17-20 - reproduced in documents A/CN.4/SR.2362 to SR.2365 (A/CN.4/L.494 [and Corr.1], reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, vol. I, 8 to 13 July 1994)

Texts of draft articles with commentaries thereto, provisionally adopted by the Commission at its forty-sixth session: articles 1, 2 (subparas. (a), (b) and (c)), 11 to 14 bis [20 bis], 15-16 bis and 17-20 - reproduced in Yearbook 1994, vol. II (Part Two) (A/CN.4/L.503 and Add.1 and 2, reproduce in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1994, vol. II, Part II)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 16 to 28, 30 to 32 and 40 to 41 of the forty-ninth session, held, respectively, from 24 to 31 October and from 1 to 29 November 1994 (A/C.6/49/SR.16, A/C.6/49/SR.17, A/C.6/49/SR.18, A/C.6/49/SR.19, A/C.6/49/SR.20, A/C.6/49/SR.21, A/C.6/49/SR.22, A/C.6/49/SR.23, A/C.6/49/SR.24, A/C.6/49/SR.25, A/C.6/49/SR.26, A/C.6/49/SR.27, A/C.6/49/SR.28, A/C.6/49/SR.30, A/C.6/49/SR.31, A/C.6/49/SR.32, A/C.6/49/SR.40, A/C.6/49/SR.41)

General Assembly resolution 49/51 of 9 December 1994 (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session (1994): Topical Summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its forty-ninth session prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/464 and Add. 1 and Add. 2, 21, 28 December 1994 and 22 February 1995)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-seventh session, 2 May - 21 July 1995, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fiftieth session, Supplement No.10 (A/50/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1995, vol. II, Part II)

Eleventh report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/468, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1995, vol. II, Part I, 25 May 1995)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2397 to 2399 and 2413 to 2416, held, respectively, from 8 to 13 June and from 7 to 13 July 1995 (A/CN.4/SR.2397, A/CN.4/SR.2398, A/CN.4/SR.2399, A/CN.4/SR.2413, A/CN.4/SR.2414, A/CN.4/SR.2415 and A/CN.4/SR.2416, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1995, vol. I)

Survey on liability regimes relevant to the topic International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law: study prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/471, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1995, vol. II, Part I, 23 June 1995)

Titles and texts adopted by the Drafting Committee at the forty-seventh session of the Commission: articles A(6), B(7), C(8 and 9) and D(9 and 10) (A/CN.4/L.508, 23 June 1995)

International Law Commission, Report of the Working Group on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law (A/CN.4/L.510, 5 July 1995)

Text of draft articles adopted so far by the Commission on first reading (A/CN.4/L.519, 18 July 1995)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 12 to 25 and 44 of the fiftieth regular session, held, respectively, from 12 to 30 October and on 22 November 1995 (A/C.6/50/SR.12, A/C.6/50/SR.13, A/C.6/50/SR.14, A/C.6/50/SR.15, A/C.6/50/SR.16, A/C.6/50/SR.17, A/C.6/50/SR.18, A/C.6/50/SR.19, A/C.6/50/SR.20, A/C.6/50/SR.21, A/C.6/50/SR.22, A/C.6/50/SR.23, A/C.6/50/SR.24, A/C.6/50/SR.25 and A/C.6/50/SR.44)

General Assembly resolution 50/45 of 11 December 1995 (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-seventh session)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-seventh session (1995): Topical Summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its fiftieth session prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/472 and Add. 1 16 February and 10 January 1996)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May - 26 July 1996, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first session, Supplement No.10 (A/51/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, vol. II, Part II)

Twelfth report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, by Mr. Julio Barboza, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/475 & Corr.1 and Add.1 & Corr.1, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, vol. II, Part I, 13 May 1996)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2450, 2465 and 2472, held, respectively, on 28 June, 19 and 25 July 1996 (A/CN.4/SR.2450, A/CN.4/SR.2465 and A/CN.4/SR.2472, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, vol. I)

International Law Commission, Report of the Working Group on International Liability for the Injurious Consequences of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law (A/CN.4/L.533 and Add.1, 17 July 1996)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 31 to 41 and 48 of the fifty-first regular session, held, respectively, from 4 to 27 November 1996 (A/C.6/51/SR.31, A/C.6/51/SR.32, A/C.6/51/SR.33, A/C.6/51/SR.34, A/C.6/51/SR.35, A/C.6/51/SR.36, A/C.6/51/SR.37, A/C.6/51/SR.38, A/C.6/51/SR.39, A/C.6/51/SR.40, A/C.6/51/SR.41 and A/C.6/51/SR.48)

General Assembly resolution 51/160 of 16 December 1996 (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session (1996): Topical Summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its fifty-first session prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/479 and Add.1 and Corr. 1, 25 February and 1 May 1997)

Comments and observations received from Governments (A/CN.4/481 and Add.1, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1997, vol. II, Part I, 14 April and 6 May 1997)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-ninth session, 12 May - 18 July 1997, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-second session, Supplement No.10 (A/52/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1997, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2483 and 2496, held, respectively, on 27 May and 19 June 1997 (A/CN.4/SR.2483 and A/CN.4/SR.2496, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1997, vol. I)

International Law Commission, Report of the Working Group on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law (A/CN.4/L.536, 17 June 1997)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 16 to 25 and 32 of the fifty-second session, held, respectively, from 27 to 31 October and from 3 to 19 November 1997 (A/C.6/52/SR.16, A/C.6/52/SR.17, A/C.6/52/SR.18, A/C.6/52/SR.19, A/C.6/52/SR.20, A/C.6/52/SR.21, A/C.6/52/SR.22, A/C.6/52/SR.23, A/C.6/52/SR.24, A/C.6/52/SR.25 and A/C.6/52/SR.32)

General Assembly resolution 52/156 of 15 December 1997 (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-ninth session)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-ninth session (1997): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its fifty-second session prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/483, 20 January 1998)

International Liability in Case of Loss from Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary record of meeting No. 24 of the fifty-second session, held on 7 November 1997 (A/C.6/52/SR.24)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary record of meeting No. 17 of the fifty-third session, held on 29 October 1998 (A/C.6/53/SR.17)

General Assembly resolution 53/102 of 8 December 1998 (Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its fiftieth session)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fiftieth session (1998): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its fifty-third session prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/496)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary record of meeting No. 24 of the fifty-fourth session, held on 3 November 1999 (A/C.6/54/SR.25)

General Assembly resolution 54/111 of 9 December 1999 (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-first session)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-first session (1999): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its fifty-fourth session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/504)

General Assembly resolution 55/152 of 12 December 2000 (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-second session)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-second session (2000): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its fifty-fifth session prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/513)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 16 to 18 and 22 of the fifty-sixth session, held, respectively, from 2 to 7 November 2001 (A/C.6/59/SR.16, A/C.6/59/SR.17, A/C.6/59/SR.18 and A/C.6/59/SR.22)

General Assembly resolution 56/82 of 12 December 2001 (Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its fifty-third session)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session (2001): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its fifty-sixth session prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/521 and Add.1)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, 29 April to 7 June and 22 July to 16 August 2002, (A/57/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2002, vol. II, Part II)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2743 and 2744, held, respectively, on 8 and 9 August 2002 (A/CN.4/SR.2743 and A/CN.4/SR.2744, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2002, vol. I)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 21 to 26 of the fifty-seventh regular session, held, respectively, from 31 October to 6 November 2002 (A/C.6/57/SR.22, A/C.6/57/SR.23, A/C.6/57/SR.24, A/C.6/57/SR.25 and A/C.6/57/SR.26)

General Assembly resolution 57/21 of 19 November 2002 (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-fourth session)

International Law Commission, Report of the Working Group on International Liability for Injurious Consequences arising out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law (International Liability for Failure to Prevent Loss from Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities) (A/CN.4/L.627, 2002)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-fourth session (2002): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its fifty-seventh session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/529)

International Law Commission, First report on the legal regime for allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, by Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/531, 2003)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2762 to 2769, held, respectively, from 23 May to 6 June 2003 (A/CN.4/SR.2762, A/CN.4/SR.2763, A/CN.4/SR.2764, A/CN.4/SR.2765, A/CN.4/SR.2766, A/CN.4/SR.2767, A/CN.4/SR.2768 and A/CN.4/SR.2769, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2003, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, 5 May to 6 June and 7 July to 8 August 2003, (A/58/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2003, vol. II, Part II)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 16 to 19 of the fifty-eighth session, held, respectively, from 29 to 31 October 2003 (A/C.6/58/SR.16, A/C.6/58/SR.17, A/C.6/58/SR.18 and A/C.6/58/SR.19)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-fifth session (2003): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its fifty-eighth session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/537)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2804 to 2809, held, respectively, from 26 May to 3 June 2004 (A/CN.4/SR.2804, A/CN.4/SR.2405, A/CN.4/SR.2406, A/CN.4/SR.2407, A/CN.4/SR.2408 and A/CN.4/SR.2809, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2004, vol. I)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2815 and 2822, held, respectively, on 9 and 23 July 2004 (A/CN.4/SR.2815 and A/CN.4/SR.2822, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2004, vol. I)

International Law Commission, Summary records of meetings Nos. 2828 and 2829, held, respectively, from 4 to 5 August 2004 (A/CN.4/SR.2828 and A/CN.4/SR.2829, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2004, vol. I)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, 3 May to 4 June and 5 July to 6 August 2004, (A/59/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2004, vol. II, Part II)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 17 to 20 of the fifty-ninth regular session, held, respectively, from 1 to 3 November 2004 (A/C.6/59/SR.17, A/C.6/59/SR.18, A/C.6/59/SR.19 and A/C.6/59/SR.20)

General Assembly resolution 59/41 of 2 December 2004 (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-sixth session)

International Law Commission, Report of the Working Group on International Liability for Injurious Consequences arising out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law (International Liability for Failure to Prevent Loss from Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities) (A/CN.4/L.661 and Corr.1, 2004)

International Law Commission, International Liability for Injurious Consequences arising out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law (International Liability for Failure to Prevent Loss from Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities), Preamble, titles and texts of draft principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, adopted by the Drafting Committee (A/CN.4/L.662, 2004)

International Law Commission, Second report on the legal regime for the allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, by Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/540, 2004)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-sixth session (2004): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its fifty-ninth session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/549 and Add.1)

International Law Commission, Survey of liability regimes relevant to the topic of international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (international liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities), Prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/543, 2004)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, 1 May to 9 June and 3 July to 11 August 2006, (A/61/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2006, vol. II, Part II)

Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Summary records of meetings Nos. 10 to 12 of the sixty-first session, held, respectively, from 25 to 27 October 2006 (A/C.6/61/SR.10, A/C.6/61/SR.11 and A/C.6/61/SR.12)

General Assembly resolution 61/34 of 4 December 2006 (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-eighth session)

General Assembly resolution 61/36 of 4 December 2006 (Allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities)

International Law Commission, Third report on the legal regime for the allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, by Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/566, 2006)

International Law Commission, International Liability for Injurious Consequences arising out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law (International Liability for Failure to Prevent Loss from Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities), Title and texts of the preamble and the draft principles on the allocation of loss arising out of hazardous activities adopted by the Drafting Committee on second reading (A/CN.4/L.686 and Corr.1, 2006)

International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (International liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities), Comments and observations received from Governments (A/CN.4/562 and Add.1, 2006)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-eighth session (2006): Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its sixty-first session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/577, Add.1 and Add.2)

General Assembly resolution 62/68 of 6 December 2007 (Consideration of prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities and allocation of loss in the case of such harm)

General Assembly 65/28 of 6 December 2010 (Consideration of prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities and allocation of loss in the case of such harm)