Abstract

The Aerial Herbicide Spraying in 2013 case was associated with Ecuador and Colombia; it distinguished the two countries’ relations as unfriendly. Provoked by Colombia's anti-drug aerial spraying which utilizes the spraying of herbicide over coca plantations along the border region between Colombia and Ecuador, the cross-border conflict raised critical concerns over the effects of herbicide drift on the environment and on people's health in Ecuador. Ecuador accused spraying as causing health problems to the nationals and the environment as well, taking the row to the international level and the Organization of American States (OAS). This case had the possibilities of resolving some very fundamental questions that concern the effects of environmental degradation, health complications, sovereignty, and diplomatic relations and yet the case was withdrawn from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) due to a settlement. This also contained a decision of a ‘no spray’ zone extending for a distance of 10km from the border of the two nations and a payment of $15 million which was to be made by the Colombian government to the government of Ecuador. Although the settlement stopped the ongoing controversy, the dismissal of the case from the ICJ failed to set a very crucial precedent in the international environmental law especially when dealing with transboundary pollution and the question of national security as a valid defense for violating environment and human rights. The case could have illuminated as to how much the environment could be damaged in international law and also the necessity of defense in relation to drug related violence. Therefore, the settlement’s practicality was useful for both nations, though more complex challenges remain concerning the principles of international law involving transboundary pollution.

Keywords