text: member disagreed with this view. He felt that traditionally compensation had been provided only for damage to persons and property. The notion that compeneation should also be provided for damage to the environment b-80 was new and should therefore be stated separately. Another view was expressed that, in State practice , compensation for damage to the environment was paid only for those measures that were actually taken or were to be taken in order to restore the environment. Except for the Convention on the Regulation of (b)If the harm was caused wholly by an act or omission of a third party done with intent to cause harm. 2.If the State of origin or the operator, as the ca8e may be, prove that the harm resulted wholly or partially either from an act or omission done with intent to cause harm by the person who suffered the harm or from the negligence of that person, in which case they may be exonerated wholly or partially from their liabili’:; to such person. Proceeding& in respect of liability under these articles shall lapse after a period of [three] [five] years from the date on which the affected party learned, or could reasonably be expected to have learned, of the harm and of the identity of the State of origin or the operator, as the case may be. In no event, shall proceedings be instituted once 30 years have elapsed since the date of the accident that caused the harm, If the accident consisted of a series of occurrences, the 30 years shall start from the date of the last occurrence.‘* - 276 -Antarctic Mineral Resources Activities which provided for compeneation in ca8e it was impossible to restore the WMQ&R, no other State practice supported that view.
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international law and environmental protection, specifically in the context of compensation for damage to the environment. It mentions the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resources Activities, which suggests a focus on natural resources and environmental protection.