This chapter analyses the establishment, content and implementation of international environmental liability of the sponsoring State. First, it argues for a differentiation between State liability ex delicto and State responsibility and suggests to employ the former notion. Second, it points out the non-practicability of an application of the full reparation principle (restituto in integrum) for environmental damage and that liability of sponsoring State should be taken together with that of the contractor. Third, it argues that invocation of liability of the sponsoring State for environmental damage by the ISA is preferable to that by States (parties). As to liability of the ISA, it focuses on questions of whether and, if so, in what situations member States are held liable for the ISA. Based on analysis of the 2011 ILC Articles on Responsibility of International Organization, 1995 IDI Resolution and 2004 ILA Resolution, it finds out that there is a ‘no liability of member states’ rule which however allows for exceptions. It also discusses invocation of liability of the ISA.

While there has been global advancement in climate change litigation even amongst some developing countries, this is not currently the case in Malaysia. Even though Malaysia has shown its commitment to mitigating climate change by passing legislation and executing various policies relating to climate change, there has not been a single case brought to court on this issue. This situation is not surprising considering that environment-related lawsuits are still lacking, with only a small number of environmental cases ever been decided in Malaysia. While the litigious culture is not common among Malaysian society, factors such as the state of the judiciary, limited access to justice, limited environmental awareness, and limited recognition of environmental rights have further undermined litigation in the area of environment and climate change. This chapter aims to investigate Malaysia’s policy and law relating to climate change, and to identify areas of law which are potential tools which are directly or indirectly pertinent to climate change litigation.