Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository


By Dr. Gerrit Betlem, Dr. Edward Brans, Kate Getliffe, Flore Groen, Gerrit Betlem Ll. M, Ph. D, Kate Getliffe B. Sc and Ll. M


A number of salient features emerge from the comparative research of the relevant mining (liability) laws of a number of Member States, the US and from international conventions. They are embedded in either common law rules or country-specific provisions modifying general tort law in the light of enhancing the effectiveness of the legal protection against damage caused by mining. The jurisdictions studied share rules of strict liability for damage caused by mining; the strict liability is non-exclusive in that actions based on general tort law remain possible; the liable person is the operator and/or licence holder, either to the exclusion of any other potential defendants or not. All systems provide for a form of mitigating the claimant's litigation burden. Techniques include statutory presumptions of causation, a technical advisory body providing assistance or research into the causal link between loss and event, duties to measure and monitor and disclose results to claimants. The latter is also important vis-à-vis the relief of the burden of proof of causation to the plaintiff. Furthermore, guarantor systems are created, e.g. by the obligation on individual minin

Year: 2002
OAI identifier: oai:CiteSeerX.psu:
Provided by: CiteSeerX
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.