Hands holding Earth seedling in polluted landscape.

Environmental Repair: Can We Truly Fix Our Mistakes?

Jordan Keane in Climate & Environment June 2025 • 4 min read.

"Exploring the complexities of environmental reparation in international law and innovative approaches to ecological restoration."

When it comes to drawing lines, whether on maps or in the sand, international law has traditionally focused on three core actions: setting boundaries, adjusting them, and clearly marking what's what. But what happens when these lines blur in the face of environmental disasters? Can international law adapt to effectively address environmental restoration?

In standard international law, states are usually required to make amends for damages caused by their illegal actions. This idea was famously highlighted in the 1927 Factory at Chorzów case. The court stated that reparations should, as much as possible, erase the consequences of the wrongful act and bring things back to how they were before.

However, applying this 'restore to original condition' concept becomes tricky when dealing with environmental damage. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognized this in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case, noting that environmental protection requires constant vigilance and preventative measures because environmental damage is often irreversible. This poses a significant challenge to the idea of full reparation.

Why 'Full Repair' is Often Impossible

Hands holding Earth seedling in polluted landscape.

The core issue is that environmental damage often can’t be fully reversed. Rebuilding destroyed ecosystems or cleaning up heavily polluted areas to their pre-damage state is usually not feasible. The same holds true for the extensive and far-reaching impacts of climate change, now acknowledged as a major threat in agreements like the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Similarly, figuring out financial compensation for environmental damage is also problematic. Compensation typically requires that the damage can be assessed financially. However, environmental damage doesn't always fit this mold.

Economic Costs: Some environmental damages are straightforward to value financially, like cleanup costs, property devaluation, and losses in industries like fishing.
Ecological Costs: However, it's much harder to put a price on damage to wild plants and animals, biodiversity, or entire ecosystems because these often lack a direct market value. This has led many courts to avoid ordering compensation for what's termed 'pure ecological damage.'
Even organizations like the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), which have considered compensation for ecological damage, face significant challenges in accurately assigning value.

The difficulties in reversing and valuing environmental damage create significant barriers to achieving full reparation. This has pushed international environmental law to explore beyond traditional compensation models, seeking innovative solutions to address ecological harm.

Looking Ahead: Remediation Over Reparation

The traditional methods of state responsibility are not enough to ensure environmental damage is addressed at the international level. The existing conventions are restricted to specific activities like the nuclear industry and maritime oil transportation. For now, international environmental law is attempting to develop new mechanisms of remediation aimed at ensuring the mitigation of injuries outside the formal and rigid notions of responsibility and liability.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1017/s027250370010326x, Alternate LINK

Title: Critical Assessment Of Reparation In International Environmental Law

Subject: Insect Science

Journal: Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting

Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Authors: Makane Moïse Mbengue

Published: 2016-01-01

Everything You Need To Know

How has international law typically approached environmental damage?

International law traditionally focuses on setting, adjusting, and marking boundaries. However, when environmental disasters occur, these lines become blurred. The core challenge is whether international law can adapt to effectively address environmental restoration, especially when traditional methods of state responsibility fall short.

Why is the 'restore to original condition' concept difficult to apply to environmental damage under international law?

The concept of 'restore to original condition' from the 1927 Factory at Chorzów case becomes challenging when dealing with environmental damage due to its irreversible nature. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognized in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case that environmental protection requires constant vigilance because environmental damage is often irreversible. This poses a significant challenge to achieving full reparation in environmental cases.

Why is achieving 'full repair' often impossible in cases of environmental damage?

Full reparation is often impossible because environmental damage, such as destroyed ecosystems or heavily polluted areas, cannot be fully reversed to their pre-damage state. Additionally, the extensive impacts of climate change, acknowledged in the 2015 Paris Agreement, are challenging to address completely. Moreover, assigning financial compensation for environmental damage is difficult because valuing damage to biodiversity or entire ecosystems lacks a direct market value.

Given the limitations of traditional methods, what alternative approaches are being explored in international environmental law to address environmental damage?

Traditional state responsibility methods are insufficient to address environmental damage comprehensively because conventions are restricted to specific activities like the nuclear industry and maritime oil transportation. International environmental law is exploring new remediation mechanisms to mitigate injuries outside formal notions of responsibility and liability. This includes innovative strategies like 'meta-reparation' which steps in where traditional methods fall short. Traditional methods include cleanup costs, property devaluation, and losses in industries like fishing.

What are the challenges in assigning financial compensation for environmental damage, particularly when it comes to ecological costs?

While some environmental damages have straightforward economic costs, it's much harder to put a price on ecological costs. Courts tend to avoid ordering compensation for 'pure ecological damage,' like harm to wild plants, animals, biodiversity, or entire ecosystems because these often lack a direct market value. Organizations like the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) face challenges in accurately assigning value to these ecological damages.