Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
My Dutch colleague Erik Molenaar and I carried out a three-stage research
report for the WWF to consider how the Arctic governance system might
tional treaties and other regulations that could be considered to be valid and
applicable to the new emerging Arctic Ocean. We then considered how the
adjacent states could best meet the enormous challenges posed by climate
change and the emerging commercial activities that it makes possible (such
as seafaring, oil drilling). Finally, we established the basic elements of an
outline for one possible governance solution for the area: how the existing
soft-law organization, the Arctic Council, could gradually be developed by
an international treaty into an organization that could promote sustainable
development in the area.
As we began to present our ideas at international conferences, to political
decision-makers or to international organizations, we understood that this was
not the right time for a discussion about an Arctic treaty. We faced a vast
amount of misunderstanding, because the very term 'Arctic Treaty' is often
associated with the Antarctic Treaty. From one meeting to another, we tried to
explain that we certainly did not think that the Antarctic Treaty System could
be applied in the Arctic but we encountered the same opposition at the next
conference. In effect, the European Parliament had committed a disservice in
having expressly promoted an Antarctic Treaty-type administrative model in
the area.
We concluded that at the very least, we had made a contribution to the dis-
cussion. We had suggested something new to those who understood that what
we proposed was not just a transplant of the Antarctic Treaty System into a
completely different political and legal environment. When the time is ripe for
the discussion, I trust that our ideas will provide some basis for more sustainable
governance of the Arctic area.
Principles of international law and the environment
The difference between 'rules' and 'principles' has been discussed extensively,
especially within the realm of legal theory. Rules give clear instructions for
behaviour, while principles provide looser direction to act in a particular way.
Rules are either valid or not valid, applied or not applied. Principles are valid
to a lesser or greater degree and multiple principles can be used to regulate a
single situation, often in competition with one another: their mutual weight
in resolving a matter depends on their relevance to a given situation. Together,
principles and rules are referred to as 'norms'.
From the perspective of government, rules are clearer, as they distinctly state
the conduct that is required. For example, the London 1972 Convention related
to marine dumping of waste from vessels and aircraft prohibits the dumping of
any of the substances listed in its Annex I - that is, it provides rules. Principles,
on the other hand, give reasons for a decision to follow a particular course of
action but leave a government much more discretion in the implementation.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search