text: preventing transboundary harm and the activity is being carried out in both States, or if the State of origin can demonstrate that the affected State is benefiting without charge from the activity that caused the harm 1. ” - 272 -fully aompensated. The language, however ,was chosen 80 as to allow considerations of balancing of interests to play a role in the amount of compensation. Those considerations were strpulated in article 23. 512. Some members reiterated the view that this article ehould simply state the obligation to pay compensation. They felt the qualifying phraen “in principle” weakened the article and should therefore be deleted. These members also saw an inconsistency in the language of the article which seamed to have attempted to combine balancing interests with the principle of full compensation. The two concepts would not go together. Compensation determined on tho basis of balance of interests might never be full. The article should therefore reflect a choice. An alternative would be to begin with an article indicating the principle of full compensation, to be followed by another article which would indicate circumstances in accordance with which compensation must be reduced. This approach woul: perhaps bring more appropriately the concept of balance of interests into liability and compensation without denying the principle of full compensation. One membe- found the article, as drafted, appropriate since it presumed that the State of origin itself had also suffered damage and was thus innocent. Another member did not agree with the principle of full compensation. In his view, such a principle was not supported by State practice. The principle of full compensation confused this topic with State rtisponsibility which also called for full compensation. What were then the differences in terms of consequences between this topic and State responsibility* Another member also
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a topic related to international law, specifically the principle of compensation for transboundary harm caused by an activity. The language used suggests a focus on the relationship between two or more states, and the discussion of balancing interests and full compensation implies a concern for the consequences of the activity on the environment or natural resources.