Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
observed by contracting states. Actual penalties have been imposed only very
rarely in the practice of international environmental treaty regimes. Yet, it is
important to keep in mind the warning from the enforcement school: the
more the obligations demand from states, the less we should expect them to
abide by the provisions. It is crucial to fi nd a solution to this dilemma since
there are clearly problems in ensuring the mitigation obligations of the most
ambitious international environmental treaty regime to date, the climate
change regime, are observed. To date many states have either not observed
the legally binding reduction obligations assumed in the Kyoto Protocol,
or have opted out of the Protocol (Canada, for example) or its second
commitment period (the Russian Federation). Moreover, the United States
did not even become a party to the Kyoto Protocol, and major greenhouse
Can international environmental law really resolve
There is an important distinction to be made between compliance with an
environmental treaty and whether the treaty has the capacity to solve an
international environmental problem in the fi rst place. The risk is that the
confl icting interests of the parties negotiating an environmental treaty can
result in such compromised obligations that they are too weak to solve the
problem that the treaty is intended to address. For example, in 1997, the
negotiations resulting in the Kyoto Protocol linked to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change were a diplomatic accomplishment in their
time, but it was already known that the proposed 5 per cent reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions from the levels registered in 1990 would not be
suffi cient to stop global warming and prevent climate change.
Another risk is that the environmental treaties that governments negotiate
remain so ambiguous as to allow the parties enough room to interpret the rules
in order to suit their own interests. Furthermore, environmental treaties rarely
regulate military operations; governments have frequently specifi cally elimi-
nated armed forces from the scope of application of an environmental treaty.
This is problematic, since military operations are detrimental to the environment
during times of peace as well as in times of war.
On the whole, we have reason to exercise a healthy degree of scepticism
about the ways in which states have endeavoured to solve international environ-
mental problems. Empirical research indicates that the ecological status of our
environment is in a state of continual deterioration despite the enormous
number of environmental treaties and other instruments directed towards envi-
ronmental protection. This does not, however, mean that environmental treaties
are meaningless. Many environmental problems have been contained and even
eliminated by such agreements. Governments have proved themselves capable
Search WWH ::
Custom Search