This chapter explores alternatives to international environmental liability of the contractor. First, it argues that, although the insurability of environmental liability in DSM is controversial at a theoretical level, it is less problematic at a practical level. Second, it argues that environmental compensation funds and liability regimes share the same purpose and they are functionally complementary. Yet, funds are based on the notion of solidarity, which is fundamentally distinct from liability regimes. Particularly, it analyses the possible contributing entity/entities to an environmental compensation fund to be established in the DSM context, thereby filling in the gap left by international environmental liabilities. Insurance and compensation fund both derive from the idea of ‘allocation of loss’ which includes players other than the one liable; the practicability of these alternatives depends on the willingness of others to join the compensation regimes. Third, it argues that the administrative approach places regulator at the centre of environmental liability regime, it has practical advantages in comparison with the court-centred civil liability approach. Two scenarios for the application of this approach are examined.

This chapter discusses the right to social security and social benefits as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, other Council of Europe instruments, in EU law and in international instruments. In the final section, a short comparison between the different instruments is made.