A lot of the so-called natural disasters (flooding, earthquakes, hurricanes) are in fact only natural events that turn into disaster as a result of human intervention. Some therefore claim that there are no natural disasters. At least the distinction between natural and man-made disasters becomes blurred. It is man who decides to build in flood-prone areas or on the slopes of a volcano.

If those disasters are at least partially also due to human intervention, that raises the question of the role of liability rules to deal with the damage which is suffered by the refugees. As an example, one can think of the massive forest fires taking place on a yearly basis on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, creating a huge haze in the neighbouring countries of Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. It is not exaggerated to argue that this haze could lead to migration and as a result to refugees who suffer substantial damage as well.
The forest fires in Sumatra are a perfect example of the hybrid nature of natural disasters.

To a large extent, it is argued that various enterprises, for example mining companies, but also those wanting to create palm oil plantations, are liable for the fires which would hence not occur accidentally, but intentionally. In Indonesia, this has given rise to the question of liability of the enterprises and their leaders for the damage caused by those forest fires.

There are even rumours that some of the companies would have bribed the authorities in order to use ineffective firefighting techniques as a result of which the fires take longer than necessary. That hence also raises the question of the international liability of Indonesia for the damage suffered in the neighbouring countries. The Trail Smelter case law may provide a solid basis for such liability as Indonesia allows the use of its territory to cause transboundary damage.

Of course, liability rules may theoretically be applied. For the potential victims of the haze that would eventually have to migrate to other areas and thus suffer substantial losses, the road to receiving fair compensation may be a long and difficult one. However, there are examples of successful cases brought by victims for transboundary pollution.

The important point is that liability rules (both liability of enterprises and state liability) may not only provide relief to refugees for the substantial damage they are suffering. More importantly, the foresight of having to compensate the damage suffered by refugees may provide incentives both to potential wrongdoers but also to states to avoid the damage and hence persons becoming refugees in the first place. It is this preventive effect of liability rules which may be important in avoiding the devastating effects of disasters.

Obviously, those are important lessons that may provide a solution in the case where lawsuits can be brought against responsible states or individual wrongdoers to provide relief for the damage suffered by refugees. However, it is to be feared that in the particular case of the refugees coming from Syria liability rules will unfortunately largely remain a theoretical option.