Principles of international environmental protection - Introduction to International Environmental Law - page 110

climate system is protected by the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change , 29 and the ozone layer is protected by the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer, 30 and its Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 31 they are, in fact, natural systems in which the
conduct of individual states or limited regional groups of states have limited
impact. The parties to the Climate Change Convention state this pertinently:
'the change in the Earth's climate and its adverse effects are a common
concern of humankind'. Ozone depletion, climate change and POP
compounds are legally considered 'common concerns of humankind' and
problems that need to be addressed politically by the entire international
community.
This can also be applied to the loss of biological diversity. The treaty system
established to prevent the rapid depletion of biological diversity - the UN
Convention on Biological Diversity - affi rms that 'the conservation of biolog-
ical diversity is a common concern of humankind', while also affi rming that
'States have sovereign rights over their own biological resources'.
The loss of biological diversity differs from climate change and ozone
depletion because biodiversity and genetic material are usually considered
to be under the actual physical control of states. Biodiversity should there-
fore be protected differently: the goal is not merely to protect biological
diversity but also to utilize it and divide the yield fairly between states and
other parties (indigenous peoples, for example). These four global environ-
mental problems - climate change, damage by POP compounds, ozone
depletion and loss of biological diversity - are connected to such an extent
that they must all be considered common concerns of humankind, as they
cannot be resolved by individual states or any single regional group of
states.
Some argue that to use the term 'common concern of humankind' implies
that if the existence of a global environmental problem can be proven,
participation in global treaties should no longer be optional. States should
no longer have the basic right secured in international law: the liberty to
decide on participation in international treaties. However, at this time, this
view is too far-reaching to be widely accepted. Today, the term 'common
concern of humankind' suggests that no state can argue that such matters are
solely within its own jurisdiction. Every state has to contribute to the joint
action, although not necessarily by participating in international treaty
systems.
While we can criticize the USA for opting out of the binding emission
reduction obligations in the Kyoto Protocol, it is still a party to the UN
Climate Change Convention, at least making some contribution to avert-
ing climate change, mostly at state and local levels. Nearly all the states in
the world are parties to the ozone regime (196 parties), the climate regime
(195), the POP regime (176) and the biodiversity regime (193); however,
signifi cantly, the USA (one of the world's largest, most populous and most