Once damage from the methane hydrates extraction process has occurred, the victims of such an event will be faced with the navigating the remedy procurement process. If we are concerned with the rules of private law, the burden is put upon the shoulders of the people who have been affected by the damage of the methane hydrates extraction event. This is true for most individuals seeking to utilize the law as a private enforcement mechanism to gain recompense for environmental damage. The subjects can seek compensation for damages by suing the polluting enterprise both individually or as an aggregate. The burden of entering the justice system in and of itself presents a hurdle to individuals who lack the means to properly establish an effective claim against an opposing party. This entrance upon victim action into the justice system naturally raises the issue of information asymmetry. First, the party must be aware of their harm. Information asymmetry refers to the fact that affected individuals may not possess the enough knowledge necessary for making accurate and rational decisions in identifying liabilities. Information asymmetry can occur in several ways. On the side of the tortfeasor, the harming party may not be aware of the existence of such victims or may even lack awareness regarding the extent of the damages caused by their own actions. On the side of the victim, the party may not have access to the information necessary to correctly identify the tortfeasor, or the accidents, that caused the damage in the first place. The issue of information dispersal and processing about the potential risks of a methane hydrate extraction operation before a catastrophic event occurs can lead to information asymmetry as well. For example, many potential victims may not even identify themselves as “victims” prior to an accident, as the actual radius of harm may be only vaguely determinable prior to an actual event. In addition, some victims may not be able to decipher any scientific content, or the complex data, in order to gain an efficient understanding of potential risks. Thus, even if the information regarding risks and hazard is made publicly available before a catastrophic event, there are serious concerns that such information may not properly induce any kind of legitimate response from the public. Lastly, victims may not be able to identify the actual tortfeasor. Since methane hydrates extraction occurs in offshore locations above the seabed, where there are no inhabitants, there is no convenient access for the surrounding public to monitor said activities; thus, there is a deep lacking awareness regarding “triggering events.” On their own accord, victims would have to find the place where the harm first occurred and then gain information using their own means. These responsibilities imposed by the nature of the judicial system would be hard for most individuals given the complex and fragmented nature of the methane hydrates extraction process. In order to solve the information asymmetry issue that would bar victims from receiving compensation for their harms, a regulatory body supervising the methane hydrates extraction process must be required to aid potential victims in their cause. Such a regulatory body can re-balance information asymmetries by storing first-hand data while fulfilling supervisory roles. In addition, a regulatory body can facilitate disputes whenever lawsuits are unlikely to be heard in court, through unifying and financing the multiple and fragmented victims. Additionally, a regulatory body may also be able to decide the claims by itself, e.g., through administrative courts, and by providing a due process of law that may otherwise be lacking. In order to even enable access to justice, regulatory bodies must be utilized to help victims overcome the hurdle of information asymmetry
PDFPDFStay tuned for news on sustainable development, environment and climate change, international trade and human rights, Chinese issues and much more!
