The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCOFTA) came into force in August 2011 amidst concerns that the provisions protecting Canadian investment in Colombia could exacerbate the precarious human rights situation. The Agreement concerning Annual Reports on Human Rights and Free Trade between Canada and Colombia was negotiated to address such concerns by enshrining the first ever human rights impact assessment (HRIA) of a free trade and investment agreement (TIA) in an internationally binding instrument. This thesis builds on a growing body of international legal scholarship that has considered the duty of home states of private investors to regulate their activity in the host state so as to prevent them from causing or contributing to human rights and environmental harm. It examines state obligations found in human rights, environmental and general principles of international law to propose that while an obligation might exist for the home state to exercise unilateral regulation of its investors, in the presence of a TIA that could cause or enable private human rights or environmental harm, investor regulation through the TIA can be seen as duty for both the home and host states. In view of the absence of such regulation in the CCOFTA, this thesis will consider if the annual HRIA mechanism is an alternative for preventing human rights and environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA. It is submitted that while HRIAs of TIAs are a novel concept for which little international practice exists, this mechanism has the capacity to provide concrete evidence of human rights or environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA, but only if based on a methodological model that uses existing state international human rights law obligations as indicators to measure a change in the human rights situation, draws unequivocal causal links between the investment protection provisions and human rights indicators, and allows for broad public participation, especially from the most marginalized and underrepresented groups in the host state to validate its methodology and findings. While under international law all investment-exporting states might have a duty to conduct HRIA on the effects of a proposed TIA as part of the due diligence to prevent transnational harm, the enshrinement of such assessments in an internationally binding instrument triggers a duty for the home state to, on one hand use the HRIA mechanism to prevent transnational human rights or environmental harm and, on the other hand, structure its annual assessments according to the described model in order to give effect to the duty to prevent. Broad and inclusive participation of the local affected communities from the host state in the HRIA becomes an integral component of the home state duty to prevent that can be expected to reveal any negative effects on the human rights situation from the TIA provisions, as well as the type of action required from both states parties to address them.

The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCOFTA) came into force in August 2011 amidst concerns that the provisions protecting Canadian investment in Colombia could exacerbate the precarious human rights situation. The Agreement concerning Annual Reports on Human Rights and Free Trade between Canada and Colombia was negotiated to address such concerns by enshrining the first ever human rights impact assessment (HRIA) of a free trade and investment agreement (TIA) in an internationally binding instrument. This thesis builds on a growing body of international legal scholarship that has considered the duty of home states of private investors to regulate their activity in the host state so as to prevent them from causing or contributing to human rights and environmental harm. It examines state obligations found in human rights, environmental and general principles of international law to propose that while an obligation might exist for the home state to exercise unilateral regulation of its investors, in the presence of a TIA that could cause or enable private human rights or environmental harm, investor regulation through the TIA can be seen as duty for both the home and host states. In view of the absence of such regulation in the CCOFTA, this thesis will consider if the annual HRIA mechanism is an alternative for preventing human rights and environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA. It is submitted that while HRIAs of TIAs are a novel concept for which little international practice exists, this mechanism has the capacity to provide concrete evidence of human rights or environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA, but only if based on a methodological model that uses existing state international human rights law obligations as indicators to measure a change in the human rights situation, draws unequivocal causal links between the investment protection provisions and human rights indicators, and allows for broad public participation, especially from the most marginalized and underrepresented groups in the host state to validate its methodology and findings. While under international law all investment-exporting states might have a duty to conduct HRIA on the effects of a proposed TIA as part of the due diligence to prevent transnational harm, the enshrinement of such assessments in an internationally binding instrument triggers a duty for the home state to, on one hand use the HRIA mechanism to prevent transnational human rights or environmental harm and, on the other hand, structure its annual assessments according to the described model in order to give effect to the duty to prevent. Broad and inclusive participation of the local affected communities from the host state in the HRIA becomes an integral component of the home state duty to prevent that can be expected to reveal any negative effects on the human rights situation from the TIA provisions, as well as the type of action required from both states parties to address them.

L’interdépendance de l’environnement a mis en évidence le besoin de la communauté internationale de trouver des mécanismes capables de dépasser les frontières et de protéger les biens naturels d’intérêt commun. Étant donné l’inefficacité du concept de patrimoine commun de l’humanité en ce qui a trait à la protection des biens soumis à la souveraineté d’un État, cette étude analyse l’application de la responsabilité internationale au « dommage transfrontière médiat » (c’est-à-dire, le dommage environnemental qui a lieu à l’intérieur d’un territoire étatique, mais qui caractérise une perte au patrimoine environnemental planétaire) comme mesure capable de surmonter les frontières et de protéger l’environnement. La responsabilité internationale se présente sous deux formes en droit international public général, soit la responsabilité des États pour les activités non interdites par le droit international (ou la responsabilité objective), soit celle découlant d’un fait internationalement illicite. Cette dernière comporte encore deux subdivisions : celle ayant pour cause une « violation d’une obligation internationale » et celle pour une « violation grave d’obligation découlant de normes impératives du droit international général ». L’analyse des principes de droit environnemental international et du principe de la souveraineté démontre que le « dommage transfrontière médiat » pourrait, en théorie, être considéré comme un fait internationalement illicite permettant donc la responsabilisation d’un État. / The interdependence of the environment has highlighted the need for the international community to find mechanisms that are able to work beyond national borders and protect the natural assets of common interest. Given the inefficiency of the concept of common heritage of mankind for the protection of the natural assets subject to the sovereignty of a State, this study provides an analysis of the application of international responsibility to mediate transboundary harm (e.g. the environmental harm taking place in State’s territory that causes a loss to the planetary natural heritage) as a mechanism that can overcome borders and protect the environment. There are two types of international responsibility in general public international law. The first one consists of the State responsibility for activities not prohibited by international law; and the second one deals with the origin of an internationally wrongful act, which, in turn, has two subdivisions: one due to "violation of an international obligation" and another caused by "serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law." The analysis of the principles of international environmental law and the principle of sovereignty demonstrate that “mediate transboundary harm” could in theory be considered an internationally wrongful act, therefore allowing the accountability of a state.

L’interdépendance de l’environnement a mis en évidence le besoin de la communauté internationale de trouver des mécanismes capables de dépasser les frontières et de protéger les biens naturels d’intérêt commun. Étant donné l’inefficacité du concept de patrimoine commun de l’humanité en ce qui a trait à la protection des biens soumis à la souveraineté d’un État, cette étude analyse l’application de la responsabilité internationale au « dommage transfrontière médiat » (c’est-à-dire, le dommage environnemental qui a lieu à l’intérieur d’un territoire étatique, mais qui caractérise une perte au patrimoine environnemental planétaire) comme mesure capable de surmonter les frontières et de protéger l’environnement. La responsabilité internationale se présente sous deux formes en droit international public général, soit la responsabilité des États pour les activités non interdites par le droit international (ou la responsabilité objective), soit celle découlant d’un fait internationalement illicite. Cette dernière comporte encore deux subdivisions : celle ayant pour cause une « violation d’une obligation internationale » et celle pour une « violation grave d’obligation découlant de normes impératives du droit international général ». L’analyse des principes de droit environnemental international et du principe de la souveraineté démontre que le « dommage transfrontière médiat » pourrait, en théorie, être considéré comme un fait internationalement illicite permettant donc la responsabilisation d’un État. / The interdependence of the environment has highlighted the need for the international community to find mechanisms that are able to work beyond national borders and protect the natural assets of common interest. Given the inefficiency of the concept of common heritage of mankind for the protection of the natural assets subject to the sovereignty of a State, this study provides an analysis of the application of international responsibility to mediate transboundary harm (e.g. the environmental harm taking place in State’s territory that causes a loss to the planetary natural heritage) as a mechanism that can overcome borders and protect the environment. There are two types of international responsibility in general public international law. The first one consists of the State responsibility for activities not prohibited by international law; and the second one deals with the origin of an internationally wrongful act, which, in turn, has two subdivisions: one due to "violation of an international obligation" and another caused by "serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law." The analysis of the principles of international environmental law and the principle of sovereignty demonstrate that “mediate transboundary harm” could in theory be considered an internationally wrongful act, therefore allowing the accountability of a state.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:24:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2006-12-01Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:12:15Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 gomes_ag_me_fran.pdf: 660119 bytes, checksum: ff0ba988cb6d4b0410f985f5377bfe6d (MD5) / O estudo busca apresentar o regime geral da responsabilidade ambiental, destacando as três diferentes espécies de responsabilidades derivadas de condutas ou atividades lesivas ao meio ambiente (civil, administrativa e penal), conforme a previsão do art. 225, §3º, da Constituição Federal, e defendendo, em especial, o acolhimento, no direito pátrio, do novel instituto da responsabilidade penal da pessoa jurídica. Delineando o direito constitucional ambiental, com ênfase aos seus princípios e garantias, o estudo demonstra a ênfase dada à proteção do meio ambiente pelo ordenamento, destacando-se sua condição de bem jurídico relevante, constitucionalmente protegido. São demonstrados, também, os critérios gerais de diferenciação dos conceitos jurídicos de obrigação, de responsabilidade e de dano, com a devida referência ao direito ambiental, passando-se, então, ao cerne do estudo, com a análise do regime geral da responsabilidade ambiental (civil, administrativa e penal) gerada pela prática de condutas ou atividades lesivas ao meio ambiente. É analisada, ainda, a Lei n. 9.605/98, que prevê e disciplina a responsabilidade ambiental em nível infraconstitucional, concluindo-se, então, pela necessidade de efetivação da ampla proteção já outorgada pelo ordenamento jurídico brasileiro ao meio ambiente, propugnando-se pelo respeito ao direito posto e pela superação das controvérsias doutrinárias que geram insegurança e incerteza. / This study aims to present general regime of the environmental responsibility derivative of harmful conducts or activities to the environment, dividing it in three most relevant aspects (civil, penal, administrative), according to the prevision of the Federal Constitution, art. 225, §3rd, focusing especially on the acceptance, in the Brazilian law, of the penal liability of the legal entity. It outlines the environmental constitutional law, with emphasis on its principles and guarantees, highlighting, evidently, the election done by the constituent in relation to the environment, leading it to the condition of a relevant constitutionally protected judicial asset. The study also shows general criteria to the differentiation of judicial concepts of obligation, responsibility and harm, also taking them to the environmental law. The crucial part of this work is then reached, with the analysis of the general regimes of the civil, penal and administrative responsibilities yielded by the practice of harmful conducts or activities to the environment. It analyzes, too, the act n. 9.605/98, which disciplines the environmental responsibility in a infra-constitutional level, coming to the conclusion of the need of effectiveness of the wide protection already granted by the Brazilian law to the environment, standing up for the respect to the law in effect and for the overcoming of the doctrinal controversies which generate judicial insecurity and uncertainty.