Practice question
An activity under State A's control threatens an environment beyond all national jurisdiction. A argues there can be no Principle 21 concern because no neighboring State owns the affected area. Which conclusion follows?
- The text expressly includes areas beyond national jurisdiction, so lack of a neighboring owner does not exclude the concern.
- Only privately owned areas are protected.
- A may annex the area to avoid responsibility.
- All international responsibility requires a land border.
- The environment beyond national jurisdiction is legally nonexistent.
Legal references
- Stockholm Declaration, Principle21, reproduced in UN ILC report1994: https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/reports/a_49_10.pdf
- ICJ, Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion, July23 2025, main opinion, paragraphs147–158 and precaution discussion: https://icj-web.leman.un-icc.cloud/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.