UNGA as the Anchor: Global Environmental Conferencing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nele Matz-Lück ◽  
Liv Christiansen

The global environmental conferences convened by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) during the last fifty years have contributed to the development of international environmental law and institution-building. Yet, given the deteriorating state of the global environment they are but one element of international environmental governance. While they were important to bring environmental issues to the attention of states, the time for agenda-setting seems over. Rather the international community must move on to the implementation of existing binding and non-binding rules and principles. While the UNGA continues to play an important role in the context of sustainable development and the Agenda 2030 process and is, indeed a stable platform for international cooperation on environmental issues, it seems that the time for comprehensive global environmental conferences may have come to an end, unless more innovative mechanisms for the implementation of international environmental law and policy are brought forward.

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 1386-1411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsten Mikadze

Despite the increasing urgency of global environmental issues, international environmental law continues to struggle for relevancy and effectiveness. Even as legal efforts have intensified, the global environment has continued to deteriorate. In particular, state-centric, multilateral “hard law” instruments have proven an increasingly ineffectual means of regulating the global environment.


Author(s):  
Fernando Cardozo Fernandes Rei

The purpose of this article when it discusses the southern approaches brought to global governance gets mixed with the addressing of the challenges facing the legal science in harmony with the others sciences to deal with the complex environmental issues of the 21st century. Thinking of a successful international environmental regulation is talking about an effort to understand the need for the instrumental law to comply with its role to solve complex issues that are typical of the construction of a sustainable society. The first part of the article consider that the international environmental law has been facing the emerging global environmental issues in an innovating way, incorporating a new form of global environmental governance based on which new players are brought to the discussion and implementation of measures to face environmental problems. After that, the article highlights the southern actions in the role of the scientific expertise and in the environmental paradiplomacy, and evaluates the influence and contributions in the decision making scenario and in the news perspectives of international law. The article concludes that the southern influences suggest a more pragmatic, finalistic international law that is concerned about the results, the achievement of the goals proposed


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (14) ◽  
pp. 5636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yann Aguila

The Global Pact for the Environment is a project for an international treaty that seeks to recognize the environmental rights and duties of citizens, states, and businesses. The text of the initial Pact project was drafted in June 2017 by a network of over 100 environmental law experts from more than 40 countries. In May 2018, the United Nations General Assembly paved the way for its negotiation by adopting the resolution “Towards a Global Pact for the Environment”. These talks resulted in a recommendation for states to adopt a “political declaration” in 2022 for the 50th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference. This article retraces the origins of the Global Pact project and makes the case for its adoption. It argues that a Global Pact is the missing piece to implement the 2030 Agenda and would help to “constitutionalize” fundamental environmental principles. The article further responds to concerns raised about the Global Pact project, such as interactions with existing instruments, the applicability of broad principles at the national level, as well as the risk of regression. It ultimately asserts that all stakeholders would reap benefits from its procedural and substantive provisions, should it be adopted.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 877 ◽  
Author(s):  
Géraud de Lassus St-Geniès

In May 2018, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the resolution “Towards a Global Pact for the Environment”. This resolution established an intergovernmental working group to discuss the opportunity to open treaty negotiations to codify the fundamental principles of international environmental law into a treaty dubbed the Global Pact for the Environment. In May 2019, the intergovernmental working group completed its mandate and adopted a set of recommendations that were formally endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in August 2019. Contrarily to what the supporters of the Global Pact for the Environment project had hoped for, the working group only recommended the preparation of a “political declaration” without referring to the codification of the principles of international environmental law. This paper offers a critical commentary of the outcome of these negotiations. The analysis suggests that the decision to elaborate a Global Pact for the Environment would have entailed considerable risks for international environmental law and that if adopted, this instrument would not have necessarily helped to increase the problem-solving capacity of international environmental law. Based on the language used in the recommendation to prepare a “political declaration”, the paper also discusses some of the key elements that could shape and inform the upcoming negotiations of this declaration.


Author(s):  
Jutta Brunnée

International environmental law encompasses the legal norms and processes that address transboundary, regional, or global environmental issues. International environmental concerns generally result from human impacts on the natural environment, such as pollution or resource use related to production or consumption processes. Environmental problems pose at least five distinctive challenges for international law. First, because they typically result from private activities (Nonstate Actors) rather than from government action, international environmental law must either engage these actors directly or, as has been the predominant approach to date, prompt states to regulate private actors under their jurisdictions. Second, because international environmental problems, or scientific understanding of them, tend to evolve rapidly and sometimes unexpectedly, international environmental law often operates under conditions of uncertainty and must be adaptable to changing needs or knowledge. Third, international environmental law must deal with multiple interconnections. International environmental problems, by definition, not only transcend jurisdictional boundaries, but they also implicate social, political, and economic processes, as has come to be expressed through the concept of sustainable development (Sustainable Development). Moreover, because many international environmental problems are intertwined with one another, action or inaction on one issue implicates one or more other issues. Fourth, many international environmental issues, and virtually all global environmental concerns, require cooperation between industrialized and developing countries (History and Evolution), raising complex and highly charged questions of equity and capacity (Common but Differentiated Responsibilities). Finally, international environmental problems frequently require not only the balancing of potentially competing contemporary interests and priorities, but also have significant implications for future generations of humanity (Intergenerational Equity). The evolution of international environmental law has been shaped by these closely intertwined challenges (History and Evolution). Customary or soft law principles (Key Principles) have emerged that reflect the various dimensions sketched above. Perhaps in recognition of the fact that environmental problem-solving requires cooperation rather than confrontation, the primary role of these principles has been to help frame the negotiation and operation of international environmental agreements (Multilateral Environmental Agreements) and the activities of international institutions (International Environmental Institutions). Indeed, the bulk of international environmental lawmaking, implementation, and compliance control (Compliance Mechanisms) occurs today under the auspices of the hundreds of environmental agreements that are now in existence. International courts and tribunals (Courts and Tribunals) have played only a relatively small role in the application of customary or treaty law to environmental issues in the course of dispute settlement. Similarly, the law of state responsibility has found only limited application in the environmental context and states have preferred to negotiate civil liability regimes to address specific risks, such as those posed by oil pollution or nuclear energy production (Responsibility and Liability). This article focuses on the major structural elements and key characteristics of international environmental law rather than on developments in the various substantive issue areas.


2018 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 402-404
Author(s):  
Camille Goodman ◽  
Holly Matley

Abstract On 24 February 2017, a workshop entitled “Law Beyond Boundaries: innovative mechanisms for the integrated management of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction” was held in Wollongong, Australia hosted by the Oceans and International Environmental Law Interest Group of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law, in association with the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security at the University of Wollongong. The aim of the workshop was to address the question, how can international law be used in innovative ways to effectively conserve and sustainably manage marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ)? In this introduction, we briefly summarize five of the papers developed for the workshop, highlighting the way in which they address three important themes: the promise and limits of existing institutional mechanisms governing activities in ABNJ; interactions between established principles and regimes for ABNJ; and the lessons that can be drawn from existing global and regional approaches to ABNJ. We hope that the ideas developed in this article theme set will contribute to the ongoing discussions at the United Nations General Assembly, as the international community works toward the development of an international legally binding instrument to govern activities in ABNJ.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 102
Author(s):  
Sayyed Ghasem Zamani ◽  
Mohammadreza Alipour

The enhancement of environmental awareness in both domestic and international level has been accompanied by the growing number of internal authorities and international bodies within which environmentally related disputes can be addressed. Over the years, environmental issues have been discussed by different international judicial courts and arbitration tribunals. Their contribution to enhance the legitimacy of international concerns to the protection of environment is a significant one. They have acted to clarify the international environmental rules within the international legal order and have augmented the ability of domestic legal systems to deal with associated problems more effectively. The international judicial bodies as well as arbitration tribunals have been faced with a rather vague set of rules and principles that made it an enormous task to apply the law to the particular facts of a case in question. Issues relating to the existence, contents and meaning of the certain related concepts took considerable spaces in the contributions of international courts and tribunals in<em> </em>the course of developing international environmental law, particularly the concepts of environmental damage and the liable party to make reparation.<em> </em>International judicial bodies mostly relied on procedural obligations of states and arbitration tribunals on damage itself and the necessity to compensate them. While the damage is mostly confined to significant damage of value-use aspects of the environment, and liable party is focused on the damage causing activities of the operator, the reparation modes are unsteady between only financial compensation and, if possible,<em> </em>near to<em> </em>restitution.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Turner

AbstractThis article examines the manner in which ‘macro’ legal analysis can potentially assist in overcoming some of the issues that are faced in the understanding and development of global environmental governance (GEG). It argues that the analysis of law through separate and distinct disciplines – such as environmental law, trade law, corporate law, and human rights law – results in what this article refers to as ‘micro’ legal analysis. As such, it contends that this can have the effect of creating obstacles in the development of coherent and effective legal and policy choices related to the protection of the environment. It illustrates these arguments with examples of practical problems that have arisen from the separation of legal issues in practice and provides the theoretical underpinnings, based on the critique of international lawyers, for the application of ‘macro’ legal analysis. In other words, it argues for a form of analysis that would consider the entire range of relevant legal disciplines in a unitary process. It then provides a methodology for the development and application of ‘macro’ legal analysis in relation to environmental issues. Finally, it considers the potential that this approach could have within the field of GEG and comments on the implications that it could have for the way in which lawyers are trained in the future.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-181
Author(s):  
Bingyu Liu

Abstract A draft instrument, entitled a Global Pact for the Environment, was launched in Paris in June 2017, which subsequently resulted in a series of UN General Assembly resolutions, a Report by the UN Secretary General, and a report and recommendations by a specifically established ad hoc open-ended working group. Together, these processes identified a range of gaps in existing international environmental law, instruments, and governance. Though this global pact process was a significant milestone in recognising the need for improved global environmental governance, a new ‘umbrella’ international environmental law agreement such as a pact or similar—has not yet been recommended. This article argues that the time for a legally binding global pact is premature. In support of this contention, this article examines the causes leading to the current stage of the process. It does so by analysing the main disagreements and key issues that arose during three substantive meetings of an ad hoc open-ended working group in 2019. It also analyses the content of UNGA’s 2019 Resolution 73/333, which adopted the report of the working group, and considers the implications of this for the future development of the draft Global Pact. China’s growing role as an important advocate for global environmental governance is illustrated by its active engagement in the negotiation process for the Global Pact. It is suggested that China’s future participation in any follow-up negotiations relating to the Global Pact should be actively pursued, with specific reference to the concept of ecological civilization and its potentially important conceptual contribution to the substance of the final negotiation document. This would also reflect China’s commitment to the development of an ecological civilization on a global basis.


2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Bretherton

Environmental governance may be distinguished from environmental management by the implication that, in the former, some form of participatory process is involved. Here, the focus is upon the potential for women's movements and networks to influence the principles and practices of global environmental governance (GEG). It is contended that, in principle, women are uniquely placed to oppose the dominant norms informing GEG; and that women's participation would, in consequence, be crucial to the achievement of equitable and environmentally sound forms of governance. In practice, however, a number of factors combine to create divisions between women, and hence to impede transnational mobilization by women around environmental issues. This article examines these issues.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document