text: 517, The Special Rapporteur stated that article 25 intended to deal with circumstances in which there wa13 more than one State of origin whoee activities had caused transboundary harm, He suggested two ways of approaching that problem. Under one approach, States of origin were jointly and severally liable and an entire claim might be brought against any one of them. That approach was more advantageous to the affected State and the in j-me8 p:.rty,was adopted by the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by State Objects and wae more suitable for court proceedings. Under the second approach, the States of origin were liable only in proportion to the harm they had caused. It therefore allowed for each State of origin to put forward its procedural position and claims for reduction of compensation. This approach was more suitable &C~L diplomatic negotiations, Most members who spoke on this article preferred the eecond approach proposed in alternative B.In their view, it was unlikely that States would accept full liability for harm which wa@ also caused or aggravated as a result of aativitles of other States. One member felt that. the concept of joint and several liability was established in domestic law and wae more protective of the interest of the injured party without excluding the poseibility for the States of origin to apportion the damages among themselves. The concept should therefore be maintained in this article. 518. Article 26 dealt with full or partial exoneration of liability. The Special Rapporteur explained that there might be circwnsta-ices in which transboundary harm occurred due to conditions beyond the control of the State of origin or the operator, or partly due to negligence of the affected State or of the party who suffered harm. Acts of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection, natural phenomena of an exceptional character, or acts or
analysis: This text appears to be discussing international law and the liability of states for transboundary harm caused by their activities. The language used is technical and focused on legal concepts, suggesting that the text is related to international relations, law, or governance. The context of environmental harm and the discussion of liability and compensation also point towards a category related to environmental or natural resources issues.