Page 4 - Radioactive Cloud News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

I don't think that's the case. in 1996, the international court ofjustice in the hague, for the first time, said the protection of the environment is part of international law. so the next stage is to ask oneself the question if we're going to use the law at the international level to stop people mass killing, should we use international law — criminal law — to stop people from causing massive damage to the human — to the environment? so, who's in your notional crosshairs? is it the chinese, building their coal—fired power stations? is it the president of brazil who continues to allow ...

Disconnected from the power grid that obviously the decommissioned plant in the north of the country that was scene of the terrible nuclear radiation disaster back in nineteen eighty six . i want to bring in now senior fellow for national defense at the heritage foundation, brant sadler. brant, very good of you to be here. we know that there is obviously still radioactive material stored at chernobyl. so the power get turned off presumably as a result of some russian act. how concerned should we be? >> well, first of all, thanks for having me on . and first off, the danger of something like a ...

I don't think that's the case. in 1996, the international court ofjustice in the hague, for the first time, said the protection of the environment is part of international law. so the next stage is to ask oneself the question if we're going to use the law at the international level to stop people mass killing, should we use international law — criminal law — to stop people from causing massive damage to the human — to the environment? so, who's in your notional crosshairs? is it the chinese, building their coal—fired stations? is it the president of brazil who continues to allow loggin...

Is a waste of time. no, if that were the case i would agree with you 100%. i don't think that's the case. in 1996, the international court ofjustice in the hague, for the first time, said the protection of the environment is part of international law. so the next stage is to ask myself the question if we're going to use the law at the international level to stop evil mass killing, should we use international law — criminal law — to stop people from causing massive damage to the human — to the environment? so who's in your notional crosshairs? is it the chinese building a coal—fired sta...

Radioactive cloud passing above them. there was a case involving a british company called trafigura — the dumping of ultra—hazardous waste in peoples' communities in cote d'ivoire 15 or so years ago. obviously, there are going to be issues with climate change. the difficulty and the challenge — and i accept that challenge — is where you draw the line? am i an �*ecocider�* because i drive a car that's only partially electric? or because i'm involved as a lawyer doing cases on oil and gas exploitation? i absolutely accept that. but what i would say to you, stephen, is go back to that...