Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
covers the entire biological diversity, thereby providing at least the potential
to consider all the agreements relating to animal and plant species and
ecosystems as part of global biodiversity law. Both treaty systems allow the
development of improved synergy.
Although international environmental protection is quite uniform in some of
its sub-branches, it is impossible to organize into a systematic whole outside of a
textbook. This is because international environmental protection depends on the
willingness of states to conclude environmental treaties. Environmental protec-
tion is just one among many interests for states. States have different priorities in
their foreign policies, and the activities of the international community do not
often lead to coordinated results in terms of environmental protection.
Most states have prioritized the establishment of free trade rules, with the
result of a more coherent regulation. The WTO dispute settlement bodies
make decisions that are also highly important for international environmental
protection; they are not expected to protect the environment but to guarantee
that free trade (and environmental protection as a spin-off) is implemented by
the WTO rules.
The extensive legal provisions related to warfare are known as humanitarian
law. Humanitarian law also sets limits on the serious and intentional destruc-
tion of the natural environment in the course of armed confl icts. Obviously,
these provisions have not been developed from the perspective of environ-
mental protection; they are just a by-product of avoiding certain methods in
warfare and protecting civilians and the wounded.
States have different levels of jurisdiction in different parts of the world.
They are not able to interfere in environmental problems on the high seas in
the same way as in the marine areas within their jurisdiction. Economic utili-
zation of the biodiversity of the high seas and exploitative fi shing are very
diffi cult issues for the international community to regulate effectively, whereas
states do have the means of managing fi sh stocks within their exclusive
economic zones in a sustainable way. The unique status of Antarctica as a non-
sovereign and demilitarized continent has allowed the development of an
effi cient environmental protection regime, while the primary authority in the
Arctic lies with each Arctic state.
Even when states do agree that intervention in a particular international
environmental problem is necessary, their views of the best possible solutions
can be diametrically opposed.
Should waste management, for example, be regulated as a distinct whole, so
that industrial nations are required to commit to considerable waste reduction in
their own territories by cutting consumption and increasing recycling?
There is no suffi cient political will to create such international regulation. We
have a fragmented set of rules to control things like dumping and burning waste
at sea and reducing the amount of waste drained in inland waterways, and an
Search WWH ::
Custom Search