Comparative
International
Relations
(International and Cross-Cultural Relations)
Final Thesis
The Path towards Sustainability:
the Least Developed Countries and
the Climate Regime
Supervisor
Prof. Sara De Vido
Assistant supervisor
Prof. Stéphanie Novak
Graduand
Gennaro Stefanelli
Matricolation number 870246 Academic Year
Abstract………1
Introduction……….7
The Environment as an International Public Good ... 13
1. Global Public Good ... 13
1.1 The International Community on Common Areas ... 15
2. GHG Emissions: a Transboundary Issue ... 18
2.1 Westphalian Dilemma in International Pollution ... 21
2.2 Contemporary Statehood ... 27
2.3 Modern International Institutions ... 30
3. The Evolution of International Environmental Law ... 32
3.1 Treaty-Making Development ... 35
3.2 Customary Law and General Principles in International Environmental Law .. 38
3.3 Elements of International Climate Change Law ... 42
4. Equity and Fairness in MEAs ... 44
5. Climate Clubs to Counter Free-Riding Behavior in the International Legislation .. 46
5.1 The Importance of Coalitions in MEAs ... 50
5.2 The Negotiation Process in a Climate Regime ... 54
The Least Developed Countries in the Climate Regime ... 57
1. The Least-Developed Countries... 57
1.1 International Support Measures for the LDCs ... 59
1.2 Inclusion and Graduation Process ... 62
2. The Least Developed Countries and Climate Change ... 63
2.1 LDCs as an International Coalition ... 70
3. From Commitments to Compliance ... 74
3.1 Implementation and Compliance under the Climate Change Regime ... 78
3.2 Compliance and Implementation Mechanisms for LDCs ... 87
3.3 Triggering Non-Compliance Procedures ... 93
4. LDCs' Adaptation to Climate Change... 98
5. Climate Change to Interfere with Human Rights in the LDCs ... 101
LDCs’ Development in the Climate Regime ... 105
1. Development and Environment ... 105
1.1 Quantifying the Interactions Between Development and Environment ... 109
1.2 The Right to Development ... 113
1.3 International Legal Implications of the Right to Development ... 115
2. Sustainable Development ... 116
2.1 Legal Status of Sustainable Development Norms ... 119
2.2 Sustainable Development Goals and the LDCs ... 121
3. LDCs' Funding ... 124
4. The LDCs and the Clean Development Mechanism ... 128
5. LDCs' Structural Transformation under the Climate Regime ... 130
6. An Unnecessary Dichotomy: Development and Environment... 137
Conclusion ... 142 Bibliography ... 146 Webliography ... 159 Table of Cases ... 164 List of Decisions ... 165 List of Acronyms ... 167
1
Abstract
L’ambiente non conosce confini. La protezione ambientale è sempre stata uno dei temi più difficili da affrontare per la diplomazia internazionale. Negli anni, gli stati hanno compreso il bisogno di stabilire soluzioni comunitarie per problemi collettivi, per questo motivo si è posta l’attenzione sui trattati multilaterali. La legislazione internazionale si è concentrata, quindi, sulle aree del pianeta che non ricadono sotto la giurisdizione di alcuna nazione, infatti, le aree comuni sono parti del mondo localizzate oltre i confini degli organi giurisdizionali nazionali. Ad esempio, un accordo che ha come obiettivo quello di salvaguardare un bene pubblico globale, come l’atmosfera, producendo quindi esternalità positive, richiede impegno e sacrifici da parte degli stati in termini di riduzione di emissioni di gas serra. Dunque, ottenere una partecipazione universale risulta molto complicato.
Di conseguenza, l’evoluzione e lo sviluppo del diritto internazionale ambientale è dipeso da due elementi che si contrappongono fra loro. Innanzitutto, il diritto internazionale in materia di trattati ambientali (e climatici) dipende direttamente dal consenso degli stati. Quindi, vi è l’impossibilità di implementare norme e leggi senza il consenso della fonte primaria di imposizione di potere ovvero gli stati nazionali. Inoltre, le competenze decisionali possono essere concesse ad istituzioni internazionali da parte degli stati per velocizzare le procedure che mirano alla creazione di un trattato. Le suddette competenze, a loro volta, possono tradursi in nuovi obblighi e doveri per gli stati con l’obiettivo di contrastare i fattori che stanno minacciando il pianeta.
Pertanto, il consenso da parte degli stati, e di conseguenza la sovranità dei medesimi, in materia di diritto internazionale ambientale sono fondamentali. Infatti, il concetto di rex
in regno suo est imperator, da sempre esistito nel sistema delle relazioni internazionali, è
stato messo in discussione a causa delle evidenti interdipendenze esistenti tra gli stati, infatti, le problematiche ambientali hanno reso gli stati più interconnessi. Questioni globali richiedono soluzioni globali. Pertanto, il sistema di Westphalia è stato contrastato dal cambiamento climato che ha ulteriolmente evidenziato le interdipendenze tra gli stati, indebolendo il concetto di sovranità che è durato per secoli. Per questi motivi, un gran numero di principi (ad esempio il principio di buon vicinato) e concetti (come il concetto
2
di abuso dei diritti) sono stati sviluppati nel quadro del diritto internazionale ambientale
e climatico. Inoltre, la struttura del diritto internazionale del sic utere tuo ut alienum non
laedas tuo è stata uno dei concetti principali nella preservazione dell’ambiente a livello
globale da ulteriori danni.
Quindi, il dilemma di Westphalia può essere risolto solo attraverso la cooperazione internazionale ed equità fra i medesimi. Da un lato, gli stati nazionali non hanno voce in capitolo sulle politiche nazionali di un altro stato, per quanto dannose ed inefficaci possano sembrare. Dall’altro lato, il processo di sviluppo (essenziale per i paesi emergenti) può risultare molto dannoso per l’ambiente se misure ad hoc non sono prese in considerazione. Ergo, i trattati internazionali ambientali (e climatici) sono uno strumento essenziale per stabilire regole e norme comuni a livello globale. Il diritto internazionale climatico si concentra su questo temi principali: l’attenuazione, l’adattamento, il supporto finanziario (assieme ad altri tipi di sussidi), e la supervisione internazionale.
Sebbene gli accordi internazionali ambientali abbiano predisposto norme eque, differenziando gli obblighi a seconda delle circostanze nazionali, i paesi in via di sviluppo non possono comunque essere considerati come attori passivi che non seguono alcun obbligo legale. Pertanto, non c’è distinzione tra paesi sviluppati ed in via di sviluppo nella partecipazione dei trattati climatici. Il coinvolgimento di tutti i paesi del mondo è essenziale per contrastare gli effetti del cambiamento climatico. Per questo motivo, le Nazioni Unite lavorano costantemente affinché il fragile equilibro tra questioni riguardanti il cambiamento climatico e lo sviluppo dei paesi in via di sviluppo per superare gli alti livelli di povertà e vulnerabilità venga salvaguardato e tenuto presente nell’adottare le proprie politiche nazionali. Inoltre, i paesi in via di sviluppo hanno rivendicato più diritti e fondi. Infatti, il diritto allo sviluppo è attualmente riconosciuto da innumerevoli strumenti legali internazionali. Il concetto di diritto allo sviluppo comprende giustizia sociale, rispetto dei diritti umani, partecipazione globale, sviluppo integrale, cooperazione internazionale ed autodeterminazione.
Nel 1971, la Commitment for Development Policy (CDP) ha analizzato lo sviluppo di numerosi paesi che soffrono di recessione economica e sociale (che a loro volta ha causato la loro vulnerabilità a fattori ambientali). Il CDP ha creato per la prima volta la lista dei
3
Least Developed Countries (LDCs). La maggior parte di questi paesi risiede in due aree
del mondo, definite dal Report di Brandt, come le cinture di povertà (poverty belts). Questi paesi hanno tutti in comune un alto tasso di povertà, dipendenza da mercati internazionali ed un alto livello di vulnerabilità (dovuto sia a fattori ambientali che strutturali). Gli LDCs sono molto interessati da questioni ambientali, specialmente per il fatto che il cambiamento climatico ha difatti avuto un impatto importante nei loro territori. A seguito di questo, è cominciato negli anni un dialogo innovativo tra i paesi sviluppati ed in via di sviluppo sotto l’idea del principio di responsabilità comune ma con differenziazioni.
La Convenzione Quadro delle Nazioni Unite sui Cambiamenti Climatici (comunemente conosciuta come UNFCCC dall’inglese United Nations Framework on Climate Change) ha riconosciuto i bisogni specifici e le circostanze eccezionali in cui versano questi paesi in via di sviluppo. Inoltre, il Protocollo di Kyoto, gli Accordi di Marrakech, e l’Accordo di Parigi hanno tutti garantito un gran livello di flessibilità ai LDC. Conseguentemente, gli LDC hanno avuto il vantaggio di preparare e comunicare i loro progetti, strategie, e piani per le riduzioni di emissioni di gas serra in accordo coi loro bisogni. Questa flessibilità si è tramutata nei meccanismi di implementazione e di rispetto delle norme internazionali dei suddetti trattati e protocolli. Infatti, i tre principali accordi internazionali che hanno costituito il diritto internazionale climatico hanno garantito uno status particolare per questi paesi in via di sviluppo: l’UNFCCC, il Protocollo di Kyoto, e l’Accordo di Parigi. Tutti questi strumenti legali hanno stabilito importanti ed elaborate procedure che hanno aiutato gli stati a raggiungere l’obiettivo ultimo dei trattati: contrastare il cambiamento climatico.
Alla luce delle loro particolari debolezze, dinanzi gli effetti del cambiamento climatico, i trattati internazionali ambientali hanno attuato anche strategie di adattamento per i LDC. Le strategie di adattamento hanno come obiettivo quello di ridurre le presenti e futuri aspetti vulnerabilità di questi paesi. Non soltanto queste misure di adattamento hanno contribuito a superare le loro debolezze, ma hanno anche promosso politiche sostenibili. Per questi motivi, nel 2001, è stato istituito il Fondo per le Least Developed Countries (comunemente noto come LDCF) sotto l’egida della Convenzione Quadro delle Nazioni Unite sui Cambiamenti Climatici. Il LDCF ha come obiettivo ultimo quello di assistere i paesi più poveri e vulnerabili nel preparare ed implementare i propri National Adaptation
4
Programs of Actions (noti come NAPA). I NAPA, a loro volta, limitano gli impatti del
cambiamento climatico. Il Global Environmental Facility è attualmente il gestore del LDCF. Le strategie di adattamento sono risultate di vitale importanza per i paesi in via di sviluppo, specialmente per i LDC. Implementare e rispettare le norme climatiche sarebbe stato arduo, se non impossibile, per i Least Developed Countries, senza l’aiuto della comunità internazionale che ha promulgato politiche e fondi per questi paesi.
Inoltre, un ulteriore istituzione supporta i LDC, infatti, i LDC sono anche assistiti nel rispetto dei propri impegni dall’istituzione Least Developed Countries Expert Group (comunemente nota come LEG). La Conferenza delle Parti (COP) ha creato il LEG nel 2001 durante la COP 7 all’interno del quadro per gli Accordi di Marrakech. Il LEG è stato incaricato di assistere e consigliare le LDC nell’implementazione dei loro NAPA. Ad ogni modo, i meccanismi di rispetto delle norme di diritto internazionale climatico non si limitano soltanto a metodi di assistenza per aiutare i Least Developed Countries a raggiungere i propri obiettivi, nonché impegni. Vi sono anche meccanismi e procedure come il Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) che richiedono ai paesi in via di sviluppo di sottoporre le loro comunicazioni nazionali ogni quattro anni. Inoltre, la strutture del MRV include anche i Biennial Update Reports (BUR) da essere sottoposti con cadenza biennale per i paesi di sviluppo assieme alle International Counsulation
Analysis (ICA). Rispetto al resto dei paesi in via di sviluppo, i LDC hanno il privilegio di
sottoporre il loro BUR a loro discrezione in quanto a tempistiche. Inoltre, un altro aspetto da considerare sia nella relazione LDC sia cambiamento climatico è l’aspetto dei diritti umani. La comunità internazionale ha formalmente riconosciuto che il danneggiamento ambientale causato dagli effetti del cambiamento climatico abbia difatti causato ingerenze nei diritti umani, specialmente in questo gruppo di paesi.
Lo sviluppo rimane, quindi, la soluzione per eradicare tutti i problemi che i LDC stanno affrontando. Il concetto di sviluppo è inevitabilmente cambiato da quando è stato istituito il diritto internazionale ambientale. Gli Stati devono ora considerare innumerevoli fattori nello loro processo di sviluppo. In particolare, i LDC devono considerare i limiti del
pianeti nella loro crescita economica. Di conseguenza, molti dei LDC stanno portando
avanti una dura lotta nel loro sviluppo poiché devono adattarsi ad un cambiamento strutturale (necessario) e prendere in considerazione determinate politiche ambientali dettate dai trattati. I confini tracciati dalle norme ambientali, nei LDC, si sono tradotti sia
5
in vulnerabilità oggettive (ulteriormente accentuate) e nel loro impegno all’interno del sistema del diritto internazionale ambientale. Pertanto, la comunità internazionale ha adottato un atteggiamento proattivo nei confronti dei LDC, promuovendo strumenti legali internazionali che li permettessero di raggiungere un determinato livello di sviluppo senza compromettere l’ambiente. Le convenzioni internazionali hanno, quindi, ideato sistemi specifici di sviluppo sostenibile per i LDC. Ad esempio, il Protocollo di Kyoto ha istituito il Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
Sviluppo e ambiente sono da sempre stati considerati come due concetti inconciliabili fra loro. L’avanzamento sociale ed economico ha talvolta comportato un prezzo da pagare in termini ambientali, poiché, il più delle volte non sono state attuate politiche appropriate che hanno tralasciato l’aspetto ambientale. Sebbene alcune nazioni abbiano dato per scontato l’importanza delle risorse naturali, le conseguenze che hanno avuto nell’ambiente sono apparse catastrofiche ed irreversibili. La crescita economica è sempre stata concepita come un elemento di sconvolgimento per l’ambiente. Ciò nonostante, nelle attività economiche si è fatta strada l’idea di sviluppo sostenibile che ha contrastato l’inquinamento dovuto da attività di crescita economica. Lo sviluppo sostenibile considera tre fattori principali interconnessi fra loro: la società, l’ambiente, e ovviamente l’economia. Storicamente, la dicotomia (tra ambiente e sviluppo) sembrava essere impossibile da superare. La popolazione e la crescita economica hanno da sempre richiesto un ingente bisogno di risorse naturali. Per di più, l’aumento costante della popolazione ha fatto sì che intere comunità aggiungessero più pressione al territorio e habitat naturali.
Negli ultimi anni, i LDC hanno dimostrato un alto tasso demografico nel mondo. Questo dato è accompagnato da una costante e divulgata povertà, alto livello di disoccupazione e bassa produttività. In questo contesto, è stato necessario intraprendere azioni concrete per salvaguardare l’ambiente da degradazione e permettere condizioni di vita appropriate per le comunità presenti nei suddetti territori. Le Nazioni Unite, e la comunità internazionale in generale, si sono concentrate sullo sviluppo sostenibile come mezzo per eliminare la povertà e proteggere l’ambiente. Ad esempio, l’Agenda 2030 per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile ha considerato attentamente obiettivi mirati per diminuire le vulnerabilità dei LDC.
6
In conclusione, considerare i Least Developed Countries al centro del panorama politico-internazionale in materia di sviluppo è diventato imperativo, ora più che mai. All’interno dei territori dei LDC risiedono più di un miliardo di persone rappresentando circa il 12% della popolazione mondiale. Più della metà delle persone di questi persone vivono in condizioni di estrema povertà e più di 260 milioni sono malnutriti. La mancanza di servizi ed infrastrutture peggiora ulteriormente le loro condizioni di vita. In questo scenario, il cambiamento climatico ha aggravato la qualità di vita. Per questi motivi, le Nazioni Unite assistono i LDC con innumerevoli programmi, fondi, progetti ed attività. Per di più, lo status caratteristico che li è stato garantito ha permesso loro di svilupparsi sostenibilmente. Il riconoscimento della comunità internazionale delle vulnerabilità dei LDC ha portato organizzazioni internazionali e paesi sviluppati ad agire. Migliorare il processo di sviluppo e condizioni ambientali significa anche migliorare le condizioni di vita, dignità umana e giustizia sociale. Ancor più importante, l’azione coordinata tra Nord e Sud del mondo è l’unica possibile soluzione per contrastare efficacemente il cambiamento climatico.
7
Introduction
This dissertation examines the Least Developed Countries' implementation, compliance, and adaptation under the climate regime. In particular, this research is based on the main legal instruments within the climate regime: the United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. Consequently, the purpose of this thesis is to evaluate how the Least Developed Countries have been affected in their development process by climate norms and regulations. This dissertation has been divided into three parts. The first chapter starts with an analysis of the environment as an international public good. Common areas and resources do not solely fall under a single state’s jurisdiction. For this reason, no country is entitled to impose a particular law on the use or protection of a specific joint area. This feature makes these areas vulnerable and subject to overexploitation. The notion of common evolved into community interest over the years. Throughout the years, States have come to realize that there needs to be mutual solutions for common problems. International environmental treaties address a common-good type problem.
The dissertation, then, analyzes how common goods and sovereignty are intertwined, exposing the Westphalian dilemma. The Westphalian system, designated centuries ago, has been questioned. Sovereignty is central in international relations and international environmental law. Each State recognizes the others as authorities in their given territories, and this makes them the only actors within the system. On this basis, lawmakers identified Westphalia as the origins of sovereignty. Over the last year, many scholars have wondered whether this concept is still relevant, or if it is time to remove it as an organizing principle in international relations.
The environment knows no boundaries. However, a State's policies automatically reflect on other States. An agreement that seeks to safeguard a global public good (i.e., atmosphere), producing positive externalities, requires some sacrifices from States in terms of emissions. Environmental protection has always been one of the toughest challenges for diplomats. Hence, obtaining near-universal participation is very difficult.
8
Multilateral environmental agreements have functioned as a guiding light in international environmental cooperation to safeguard common safety. Ultimately, the evolution and development of international environmental law have depended on two contradictory principles. First, international treaty law depends directly on State consent. Thus, it is impossible to implement a norm or rules without the permission of the primary source of enforcement power: national States. Second, decision-making competencies can be granted to international institutions by States to expedite the creation of a treaty. These competencies may result in new obligations and duties for States in order to protect the environment and counter environmental issues that are threatening the earth.
In this context, State consent to environmental law is pivotal. The process of globalization made the world more interconnected but also more interdependent. Global matters require global solutions. Thus, the Westphalian system has been challenged by global climate change. Climate change increased the interdependences among States, undermining the concept of sovereignty that has lasted for centuries.
The awareness to develop universal norms and regulations to safeguard the ecological system has led States to develop a common environmental framework. International environmental law evolved rapidly throughout the 20th century. It was in this period that States realized the need for a coordinated action to avoid further harmful pollution. States have become aware that national regulations are not able to respond efficiently to the matters related to common goods such as the atmosphere, the oceans, or rivers. Changes in the temperature, rising sea levels, and drier soils are all consequences of climate change. For these very reasons, a significant number of principles (i.e., the principle of good neighborliness) and concepts (i.e., the concept of abuse of rights) have been developed. Hence, the Westphalian dilemma can only be solved through international cooperation and equity among States. On the one hand, they do not have a say of other States’ national policies. On the one hand, States' hazard policies can produce dangerous effects on their neighbors. On the other hand, the development process (essential for developing countries) can result to be harmful to the ecosystem if proper measures are not taken into account.
International climate change law concentrate on four fundamental issues: mitigation, adaptation, financial (and other means of) support, and international oversight.
9
Although environmental agreements envisioned equitable provisions differentiating on burdens, developing countries cannot be considered to be passive victims carrying any legally binding obligations. Hence, there is no distinction between developed and developing countries in terms of participation in climate treaties. Involvement of all countries in the world is essential to counter these effects. For this reason, the United Nations has been working to safeguard the fragile balance between climate-related issues and development to overcome vulnerability in the poorest countries. Moreover, developing countries demanded more rights and funding under their right to development recognized by several international legal instruments. The term of the right to development is comprised of social justice, respect for all human rights, global participation, comprehensive development, international cooperation, and self-determination.
The second chapter shifts the attention to the Least Developed Countries: the most vulnerable and most impoverished countries in the world. In 1971, the Commitment for Development Policy (CDP) had analyzed the development of several countries suffering from an economic and social recession, increasing their environmental vulnerability. The CPD created for the first time a list of Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Most of these countries are located in two main areas, defined by the Brandt Report, as poverty belts. These countries all have in prevailing high poverty rates, dependence on international markets, and a high level of vulnerability (due to both environmental and structural factors). The LDCs are really invested in environmental issues. An innovative dialogue started between developing countries and developed countries with the idea of common but differentiated responsibilities.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change recognized the specific needs and exceptional circumstances of developing country Parties, especially for the LDCs. Moreover, the Kyoto Protocol, the Marrakesh Accords, and the Paris Agreement have all granted significant flexibility to these countries. The LDCs had the advantage to prepare and communicate their projects, strategies, and plans for reducing GHG emissions in accordance with their unique needs. This flexibility also reflected in implementation and compliance mechanisms under the three major international climate agreements: the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. All of these
10
legal instruments established elaborate procedures that helped the States reach the ultimate goal of the agreements: countering climate change.
In light of their special weaknesses to climate change effects, international climate treaties envisage adaptation strategies. Adaptation strategies aim at reducing present and future vulnerabilities. Not only do adaptation measures contribute to overcoming weaknesses, but they can provide sustainable policies. Adaptation strategies resulted in being to vital importance for developing countries, especially for the Least Developed Countries. Implementing and complying with climate change norms would be arduous for the Least Developed Countries without the funding provided by the international community. For this reason, in 2001, under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) was created. The LDCF has the objective to assist the poorest and most vulnerable States in preparing and implementing the National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs). NAPAs, in their turn, limit the imminent impacts of climate change. The Global Environmental Facility manages the LDCF.
Addition institution supported the LDCs. In fact, the LDCs were further assisted in complying with their commitments with the institution of the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (commonly known as LEG). The COP created the LEG in 2001 during COP 7 within the framework of the Marrakesh Accords. The LEG was tasked with assisting and advising LDCs in implementing National Adaptation Programs of Actions (NAPAs). However, the mechanisms of compliance for developing countries are not limited in assistance methods to help them reach their commitments. It also includes other procedures and mechanisms such as Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV). The MRV framework requires developing parties to submit their national communications every four years.
Furthermore, the MRV framework comprehends also Biennial Update Reports (BURs) to be submitted every two years by developing countries along with International Consultation Analysis (ICAs). Nonetheless, unlike the rest of developing countries, the LDCs have the privilege to provide their BURs at their discretion. Furthermore, climate change has affected human rights in the LDCs. The international community is aware that
11
environmental harm is causing interference in the enjoyment of human rights, especially in this group of countries.
The third and final chapter analyzes on the dichotomy between development and the environment. Development remains the solution to eradicating all the problems that the LDCs are facing. The concept of development has inevitably changed since the establishment of international environmental law. States have now to consider several factors in their path towards development. In particular, the Least Developed Countries have to consider planet boundaries in their economic growth. Nonetheless, most of the LDCs have been struggling in this development process in both adapting to this structural change and take into account environmental boundaries. Environmental boundaries, in the LDCs, have translated both in their objective vulnerabilities and in commitments to international environmental law. As a result, the international community adopted a proactive attitude on LDCs envisioning international legal instruments to assist them in the development process. The international community has carefully supported LDCs' development. International conventions have designed specific systems for (sustainable) development for LDCs. For instance, the Kyoto Protocol established the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
Development and environment have been long considered as two irreconcilable concepts. Economic and social advancement sometimes have a price if proper measures are not taken into account. Although some countries take for granted the importance of natural resources, environmental consequences appear to be catastrophic and irreversible. There is a widespread acceptance of the fact that industrial development is the leading cause of environmental pollution. Economic growth has always been seen as disruptive for the environment. However, in the realm of economic activities, the idea of sustainable development counteracted these notions. Sustainable development considers three main aspects: the society, the environment, and of course, the economics. Historically, the dichotomy (environment and development) seemed impossible to overcome. Population and economic growth required an unceasing need for natural resources. Furthermore, higher population growth has pushed entire communities to put more pressure on their territory and natural habitat.
12
The instruments that have been used to analyze and assess LDCs’ implementation, compliance, and adaptation mechanisms are official reports from the principal UN Agencies. Furthermore, some scholars have examined the impacts of climate change directly on these countries. For instance, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and several other countries belonging to this group are still struggling to survive climate change impacts.
13
CHAPTER I
The Environment as an International Public Good
1. Global Public Good
Globalization has affected both positively and negatively national-policy making. Interdependence and increasing economic openness have led countries to reconsider their public policy agendas in light of factors they could not control. In this context, international coordination is essential. The concept of global (or international) public good has become known rapidly worldwide as an instrument to envisage universal policies. However, it is not always easy to qualify a public good as global or only as a regional good (to a part of the world). For these reasons, scholars explained that a global public good has to encompass three divisions: the partition of the world’s population into countries, socio-economic groups, and generations. First, a global public good covers more than one group of countries.1 Global public goods that include just a single region of the world cannot be classified as such, but they are only local public goods (for instance, they can only be part Oceania or Europe) where few countries are sharing that same good. Therefore, global public goods must be sharable universally, and their externalities (both good and bad) reflect on countries all over the world.2 Moreover, global public goods affect every socio-economic group. They do not discriminate against any population group. Finally, the need to preserve these kinds of goods for future generations is essential. For these reasons, scholars stressed the importance of safeguarding global public goods for the future distinguishing intergenerational and intergenerational global public goods.3
The environment has not always been considered a global public good. In fact, the awareness that some political agendas could affect other countries has become real in recent times. The environment knows no borders. Therefore, interdependence among States is a fact. Environmental problems are global because all countries contribute to
1 Kaul, I., Grundberg. & Stern, M. (1999). Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century. Oxford Scholarship Online. p. 1-5
2 Ibid. p. 5-6
3 Sandler, T. (1998). Global and Regional Public Goods: A Prognosis for Collective Action. Fiscal Studies, 19(3). p. 221–247.
14
polluting with their ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases and their actions have consequences on the other indistinctively. For this reason, the atmosphere and reductions in the use of chemicals of ozone-depleting and greenhouse emissions are considered global public goods.4
On the other hand, climate change is considered as a global public bad.5 Notwithstanding, international cooperation is not always easy to achieve in international environmental matters. States need to be willing to accept limitations in their actions in order to save the planet. Hence, global public goods cannot be preserved at a domestic level, but it requires international environmental laws due to their transboundary components. Environmental treaty systems established international environmental law able to accelerate the development of substantive regulations in order to protect common pool resources. These substantive regulations and obligations are the result of multilateral agreements. Some of the most essential conventions on environmental treaty systems (specifically on air pollution) comprise the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and its eight protocols to date, the 1985 Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (Vienna Convention), 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), the 1989 Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes (Basel Convention), the 1999 Protocol on Liability and Compensation, the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 1998 Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC and the 2015 Paris Agreement. Thus, international conventions play a crucial role in preserving both cooperation and the environment in States’ relations. International environmental treaties contain terms and conditions. On the other hand, the terms of an agreement to sustain cooperation are chosen by the signatories’ parties. Thus, negotiators and politicians play an essential role.6
Moreover, a treaty is self-enforcing therefore; it requires parties to accept the constraints not just on paper. An agreement that seeks to safeguard global public good (like the environment), producing positive externalities, requires some sacrifices from States in
4 Kaul, I., Grundberg. & Stern, M. (1999). Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century. Oxford Scholarship Online. p. 6-7
5 Barrett, S. (2003). Environment and Statecraft : the Strategy of International Treaty-Making. Oxford .: Oxford University Press, Cop. p. 313-316
6 See also Barrett, S. (1990). The Problem of Global Environmental Protection. Oxford Review of Economic
15
terms of emissions.7 Obtaining near-universal participation is very hard. Environmental protection has always been one of the toughest challenges for diplomats. Promises and threats are also part of the negotiations, but it is as harder to make them credible.8
Obtaining near-universal participation from all the states in the world is nearly impossible. This has always been one of the most significant challenges in international environmental diplomacy. Although parties can choose the terms they wish to be constrained by the treaty, the treaty mechanisms are not capable of satisfying every State’s ambition that takes part in the negotiation process. Designing an international environmental agreement is easy in theory, but not in practice. Diplomats can promise rewards for countries that are participating and punishments for those that are not, but these promises must be credible. Signatory parties need to undertake substantial abatements in their national environmental policies. For instance, the Montreal Protocol has been a template for climate change agreements. Moreover, other international actors — organizations, firms, nonprofit organizations, research communities — have also helped to determine positive outcomes.9
1.1 The International Community on Common Areas
Throughout the years, States have come to realize that there need to be common solutions for common problems. Common areas are part of the world that are located beyond the limits of national jurisprudence. Nowadays, there are just a few areas that fall into this classification: Antarctica, the high seas, and outer space. Moreover, the fact that no State can claim property right leads to common property. Furthermore, unless these areas are not adequately regulated and protected internationally, there is a potential
tragedy of commons.
Looking at the term common, international law has tried to assess what makes some issues
common, to what extent they can be considered common, and finally, whom they are
7 See Benedick, R. E. (1991). Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8 Kaul, I., Grundberg. & Stern, M. (1999). Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century. Oxford Scholarship Online. p. 19-23
9 Dorn, W. & Scott, D. (1995). The compliance provisions in the chemical weapons convention: a summary and analysis. Geneva: Programme D’Etudes Stratégiques Et De Sécurité Internationale. p. 11-12
16
familiar to.10 All these three scenarios require collective action. Common areas and resources do not fall only under a single state’s jurisdiction, and for this reason, no country is entitled to impose a particular law to the use or protection of a specific joint area11. Moreover, the notion of common evolved into community interest over the years. Although international environmental obligations have not been considered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as having erga omnes quality, the Court once confirmed in its advisory opinion in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons that the no-harm rule can also be applied in case when the interests directly affected States. The Court stated that the environment was equivalent to a living space. Its wellbeing was directly connected to present and future generations. Hence, States were obliged to safeguard the environment within their jurisdiction.12 Thus, the Court stressed
the importance of protecting the environment, focusing on States in particular on their obligations within their jurisdiction, but more importantly, on the effects their actions can have on other nations.
Furthermore, some scholars argue that States have the right to invoke responsibility for violations because this right resides in the concept of obligations erga omnes. The International Law Commission (ILC)13 split the difference into its Articles on State
Responsibility. On the one hand, the ILC acknowledged the idea of collective interest, but
on the other hand, it imposed some limitations on remedies and countermeasures. A State may invoke the responsibility of another country due to a breach of obligations, and these obligations (owed erga omnes partes) allow all parties to a convention to request compliance with its terms. Nevertheless, if a state is not “specifically affected” by the violation, it may only demand the cessation of the breach. Therefore, it may not seek reparation.14
10 See Simma, B. (1994). From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law. 250 Recueil des
Cours de l'Academie de Droit International.
11 Brunnée, J. (2007). Common Areas, Common Heritage, and Common Concern. In Bodansky, D. Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford University Press. p. 551-553
12 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion. I.C.J. Reports 1996, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 8 July 1996. p. 241-242.
13 The International Law Commission is a United Nations body. Its task is to codify and develop international laws.
14 Brunnée, J. (2007). Common Areas, Common Heritage, and Common Concern. Oxford University Press. p. 553-554
17
Thus, the legal conceptualization of the concepts of commonality and community do not find a clear response in international law as regards international environmental matters.15 It can be considered incomplete. One of the main reasons is because it is not clear yet the legal position of “humanity as a whole.” Although the ICJ and other international bodies expressed that States, and more specifically, international laws exist not only to protect the interests of countries but of all human beings, it is not clear to what extent. In terms of positive law, concepts such as “greater interests” and “humanity as a whole” find no clear correspondence on the ground covered by jus cogens or obligations erga omnes.16 Nonetheless, States are fundamental in the evolvement and enforcement of international (environmental) law. Throughout the years, collective environmental concerns have been institutionalized through treaties. Multilateral environmental agreements (MEA) represent a collection of norms, principles, and procedures where countries’ expectations come together.17 Hence, treaty regimes now deal with common areas and concerns. MEAs
have functioned as a guiding light in international cooperation. In this sense, the idea of international responsibility played a crucial role in shaping global environmental relations among States. International responsibility was not just intended as a way to take action and tackle pressing issues that could affect everyone negatively. On the other hand, this concept also introduced the South-North equity considerations: the idea of common but differentiated responsibilities. The Rio Declaration in Principle 7 (1992) expressed the purpose of sharing the burden of reducing pollution equitably.18 In fact, under this Principle the Rio Declaration confirms that the integrity of the environment is strictly connected to international cooperation. Hence, States ought to share the burdens equally. Developed countries recognized their responsibility and promoted a process of sustainable development. Technologies and financial resources play a pivotal role in countering climate change.
15 See Biermann, F. (2002). Common Concerns of Humankind’ and National Sovereignty. In Globalism:
People, Profits, and Progress: Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Canadian Council on International Law. (2002). Canadian Council on International Law. p. 158.
16 See Tams, C.J. (2005). Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17 Krasner, S. (1982). Structural Changes and Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables.36 Int’l Org. p. 185-186
18 United Nations. (1992). A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) Report of the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development. [online] Available at: https://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm [Accessed 20 September 2019].
18
Moreover, this spirit of cooperation has also been expressed in the preamble to the UNFCCC, which acknowledged that the fight against climate change required cooperation and efforts by all States. Hence, the participation by all countries is necessitated in order to adopt an international response. The UNFCCC also stressed on the importance to consider differentiated responsibilities due to heterogeneous capabilities between developed and developing countries in light of the principle of
common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.19
Thus, the concept of common concern in environmental issues pushed States to consider a principle of differentiation and moved States from a deadlock situation in environmental treaty negotiations. However, this principle of differentiation has not acquired the status of customary law.20
2. GHG Emissions: a Transboundary Issue
It is essential to understand that life can only be preserved through a fragile equilibrium between man and nature. This equilibrium also depends on the interconnection of every State in the world. There exist an interdependence that every sovereign government needs to acknowledge when in power. Territorial and national control over a State does not prevent pollution from harming oceans, air, and entire continents. Nonetheless, the world is deeply divided. The realization that all human beings from every part of the earth belong to a single system did not seem to be a good reason enough for developing and developed countries to envision a standard policy to counter climate change, at least in the beginning. Although, the possibility to use alternative technologies to reduce pollution exists, especially in Western countries, they have not been paying much attention to their overconsumption that is endangering the planet by over-industrialization and industrial pollutants. Moreover, the awareness that air pollutants played a crucial role in threatening the earth was becoming concrete to many
19 Unfccc.int. (2019). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [online] Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/ccsites/zimbab/conven/text/preamble.htm [Accessed 28 August. 2019].
20 Brunnée, J. (2007). Common Areas, Common Heritage, and Common Concern. Oxford University Press. p. 557-560
19
States around the world in the 1990s, as people were dealing with climate change and its consequences.21
As a result, States have continued to develop regulations and agreements to protect the environment. For instance, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development proclaimed principles on transboundary air pollution issues. These principles have now been recognized by many as customary international law. In particular, Principle 2 declares “the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”22 Moreover, Principle 16 declares, “national authorities should endeavor
and promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, and (…) the polluter should bear the cost of pollution.”23 Furthermore,
Principle 18 requires a State to notify immediately the other States should a transboundary emergency arise, and more importantly, it encourages the international community to assist States so afflicted.24
However, already in the 1970s, it was theorized that there were other substances (chlorofluorocarbons, also known as, CFC) that were harmful to the environment. Once again, countries started to realize that ozone depletion was not something to be discussed just in a particular area of the world. Bilateral agreements were not sufficient to protect the planet. Rowlands argued that it had no importance whether the place where a CFC molecule was released. The employment of an aerosol propellant in Canada or the dumping of a fridge-freezer in Australia will have the same impacts on the global ozone layer.25
The ozone layer plays a vital role in the planet. Its purpose is to protect life on earth from the sun’s damaging ultraviolet radiation. People would develop more likely chances of
21 Ibid. p. 561-562
22 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 (UN Conference on Environment and Development) (14 June 1992) UN Doc A/CONF.151/126/Rev.1 vol I, 3, 31 ILM 874 (1992).
23 Ibid.
24 Brunnée, J. (2007). Common Areas, Common Heritage, and Common Concern. Oxford University Press. p. 562-565
25 Rowlands, I. H. (2007). Atmosphere and Outer Space. In Bodansky, D. Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (2007).
20
diseases such as skin cancer or weakened immune systems. Ultraviolet radiations would also harm the ecological system gravely. Therefore, it is vital to protect the ozone layer. However, building a regime to protect the ozone layer has not been easy. It took several steps. This process started in 1985 when representatives from 20 states signed the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer. Although this convention did not include any legally binding obligations for reducing emissions of ozone-depleting substances, States committed to “cooperate in research, observations and information exchange, and to adopt policies to control human activities that might modify the ozone layer.”26 The international community was very committed to accomplishing these goals.
This convention laid the foundations for more negotiations on this matter. In 1987, representatives signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Scholars considered this convention as a milestone for protecting the ozone layer because it obliged industrialized states to limit their production and consumption of substances that are deemed harmful to the atmosphere. It did so by reducing quantitatively specified amounts. Moreover, this protocol also established a monitoring mechanism to control the ozone layer condition. Parson defined the Montreal Protocol as “a new model for international environmental diplomacy.”27
Over the last decennials, carbon dioxide emissions have also become an issue when it comes to global climate change. The atmosphere is composed of a range of gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, water vapor, etc.) that make the atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be. The absence of these gases (and solar radiation) would decrease the temperature of the planet, and the average temperature would be minus 18 degrees Celsius. This phenomenon, commonly known as “greenhouse,” has helped to flourish life on the planet.28 However, the threat arises when human activity increases the level of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a faster rate than the earth can absorb them. This
process is also well-known as global climate change. The leading cause of climate change
26 Anderesen, S.O. & Madhava Sarma, K. (2002). Protecting the Ozone Layer: the United Nations History. London: Earthscan. p. 64
27 Parson, E.A. (1998). The Montreal Protocol: the First Adaptive Global Environment Regime?. In P.G. Le Pestre, J. D. Reid, and E.T.Morehouse, Jr., eds., Protecting the Ozone Layer: Lessons, Models, and
Prospects. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 127
21
is the growing consumption of fossil fuels (mainly for industrial activities) that generate carbon dioxide.29
As a result, the international community has tried to find standard measures to counter climate change. At the end of the 1990s, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Although this convention did not establish quantitative commitments for reducing, or at least limit, greenhouse gas emissions, it was the first step towards a structure for international consideration of the issue. The ultimate objective of the convention, stated under Article 2, is “Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” In doing so, the convention set out principles of common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Ultimately, States have
struggled to find a common ground to cooperate. The main obstacle has been to overcome the idea that national legislations are not enough to counter international pollution. On this regard, international environmental law developed (as mentioned earlier) a set of rules and procedures through international convention to alleviate climate-related issues.
2.1 Westphalian Dilemma in International Pollution
Sovereignty is central in international relations. Hence, it is necessary to analyze how the idea of sovereignty originated and evolved in time, in order to understand the impact it had on international environmental (and climate) law. The concept of rex in
regno suo est imperator has always existed in theory and practice in States’ systems.
Moreover, as John Ruggie affirmed, “Sovereignty signifies a form of legitimation.”30
Each State recognizes the others as authorities in their given territories, and this makes them the only actors within the system. On this very basis, lawmakers identified Westphalia as the origins of sovereignty: a formal statement of that principle.31
29 Ibid. p. 335
30 Ruggie, J. G. (1993). Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organizations, Vol. 47. The MIT Press. p. 139-145
31 Croxton, D. (1999). The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty. The International
22
Eventually, the concept of sovereignty evolved, but it still kept its core principles. The United Nations Charter (1945) stated that articles within the Charter do not authorize the United Nations in intervening in matters that strictly related to national jurisdiction.32 The Peace of Westphalia, also known as the treaties of Münster and Osnabruck signed in 1648, not only did the end represent of the Thirty Years War, but also the legitimacy of sovereign States in a modern international system. The critical issue of sovereignty goes back in time: any ruler was likely to claim authority on his territory and neglect the same degree of power to its neighbors, whereas it was not as more natural to find a group of rulers that recognize each other’s sovereignty. This brought a lot of instability in international relations. In fact, the idea of final authority was a given to the Church (as God was the authority), but not to the other kingdoms. Although sovereign States existed, they were not considered as such.33
In time, the international system evolved due to the decrease and increase of power of international actors, wars, and political thinking. All of these elements brought to the Peace of Westphalia. Although the concept of “Peace of Westphalia” refers the Treaty of Peace between the Holy Roman Empire and France and the Treaty of Peace between Sweden and the Holy Roman Empire, its legacy has lasted for centuries. Westphalian order has been representing international order ever since. It is now a symbol of sovereign equality of states. Westphalian sovereignty is a principle that underlies the idea that every State is entitled to sovereignty, no matter its size. It also implies that the governing actor does not have any interference from outside bodies while ruling.34
Over the last year, many scholars have been wondering whether this concept is still contemporary, or it is time to remove it as an organizing principle in international relations. The process of globalization made the world more interconnected but also more interdependent. Global matters require global solutions. For instance, States ought to coordinate and counter climate change altogether; otherwise, any sacrifice made by some State would result useless as some other States are ignoring the problem. Thus, the
32 United Nations. (1945) Charter of the United Nations. 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI
33 Croxton, D. (1999). The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty. The International
23
Westphalian system has been challenged by global climate change because it increases the interdependence undermining the concept of sovereignty that has lasted for centuries.35 Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show an increase in temperatures causing severe damages to the world itself, but also to human beings. Moreover, natural disasters are more likely to occur.36
Nowadays, sovereignty has been thoroughly codified by international law procedures. Sovereignty is identified with States’s territories. A State's territory is generally composed of three elements: terrestrial part, surrounding sea area (in case it is not a landlocked country), and atmospheric space. The atmospheric space overlies the State's land territory and territorial sea. This space is considered to be as vital importance to countries. For this reason, international law developed norms and procedures to ward air sovereignty. For instance, in light of the air defense identification zone, aircrafts need authorization from States to fly over their territories. Although conventions and agreements have codified norms to safeguard States' borders, there are still limits to these procedures.37 States have to consider the impacts of possible hazard policies on neighbor States. On this regard, the general principle of good neighborliness constrains countries to respect the environment. For these very reasons, a significant number of principles (i.e., the principle of good neighborliness) and concepts (i.e., the concept of abuse of rights) have been developed in international law framework of sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas tuo in order to preserve and to protect the environment globally from further damages. 38 These principles and concepts recognize the sovereign territorial rights of State, but these rights are subject to limitations when it comes to stability and respect of other States’ rights. For instance, international environmental law developed the preventive principle, the precautionary principle, the polluter-pays principle, the sic utere tuo principle, the concept of sustainable development, and the obligation of environmental impact assessment. Undoubtedly, these principles and concepts have shaped and influenced the States'
35 Biermann, Frank & Dingwerth, Klaus. (2004). Global Environmental Change and the Nation State.
Global Environmental Politics. 4. p. 1-22.
36 Croxton, D. (1999). The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty. The International
History Review, Vol, 21. No. 3. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. p. 577-581
37 D. Carreau & Marrella, F. (2016). Diritto Internazionale. Milano: Giuffè Editore. p. 308-320
38 Handl, G. (2007). Transboundary Impacts. In Bodansky, D. Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (2007). The Oxford
24
national policies.39 However, some scholars claim that these principles have played a minimal role in national courts.40
Moreover, scenarios regarding transboundary environmental impact have been envisaged in international environmental documents having the main goal to protect States’ interdependent ecological rights. For instance, the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (the prevention of environmental harm), the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the 2002 Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) helped with its advisory opinions in the formation of rules of international customary law endorsing the prohibition of harmful transboundary use of natural resources.
In fact, the United Nations developed the practice (that is an obligation) not to cause significant harm with the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention (UNWC).41 This obligation limits territorial sovereignty in favor of neighbor States’ rights. Eventually, this obligation translated in a broader sense in international environmental law, and it is now applied in a more comprehensive range of issues. Although some scholars argue about the no significant harm’s rule customary status, this rule “seeks to reconcile one State’s sovereign right to use its territory and resources with another State’s defensive invocation of the very same sovereignty-based right.”42 Therefore, the no significant harm’s rule shows to be efficient on its own. Over the years, state practice refined this rule and used this concept as a foundation for corollary rights and obligations when it comes to interdependency in both natural resources and transboundary impacts.
Moreover, the definition of significant harm might seem quite broad, but it is not. Scholars conveyed that could be considered harmful anything that is more than merely detectable. However, it requires some minimum standards. Although it is clear to define the harm in some transboundary effects, caused (for instance) by toxic or radiological factors endangering public health because of a priori harmful, for others transboundary factors it
39 Crawford, J. (2012). Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law. Oxford University Press. p. 356-364
40 Brownlie, I. (2003). Principles of Public International Law. Oxford University Press. p. 282-283 41 See United Nations. (1997). The Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International
Watercourses. UN Watercourse Convention.
25
is not often easy to define because the line between dangerous or not is quite thin.43 In other cases, States follow procedural obligations under international treaties and customary law. These instruments clarify whether the transboundary impact concerned can be considered a violation, therefore, harm to other States. Ultimately, there has been a steady increase in the use of internationally agreed environmental standards or targets, especially those applicable to air and water resources, which provide a basis for assessing transboundary effects as to their permissibility under customary international law.44 Likewise, two of the most important obligations for States are the obligation to prevent and due diligence. The responsibility to prevent requires States to take proper measures to control and regulate in advance sources that could become potentially dangerous.45 It
is seen both as a duty and as a procedure. The International Law Commission (ILC) (2001) drafted articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous
Activities. Article 1 declares the scope of the text adopted by the ILC, saying that the
articles drafted by the ILC refer to actions that are not forbidden by international law. In particular, they refer to those activities that encompass the danger of causing significant transboundary harm.46 Thus, the obligation to prevent covers also scenarios where transboundary harm is merely threatened, so, both high and low probability of causing disastrous transboundary damage. The reason why ILC decided to take so seriously this issue is that there is a low probability/ high consequence relationship and States cannot take any chances when it comes to international security.47
Nonetheless, Article 3 differentiates the kind of action a State ought to take depending on the case remarking the obligations and commitments that States have to uphold in adopting appropriate measures and to minimize the risks as much as possible. Transboundary hazards can cause severe damages to the neighbor States.48 Although
43 Handl, G. (1986). National Uses of Transboundary Air Resources: The International Entitlement Issue Reconsidered. 26 Nat. Res. J. p. 405.
44 Handl, G. (2007). Transboundary Impacts. Oxford University Press. p. 536-537
45 See Okowa, P. (1996). Procedural Obligations in International Environmental Law. 67 Br. Y.B. Int’l L, p. 275.
46 See International Law Commission. (2001). Draft articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from
Hazardous Activities, with commentaries. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its
fifty-third session.
Available at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_7_2001.pdf 47 Ibid.
26
States ought to take actions in the presence of the risk no matter of the probability, ILC recognize a differentiation between particular harm (to be prevented) and less than certain damage (to be minimized). Moreover, the international community relies also on the due diligence of States, especially when it comes to transboundary risks. ILC defined due diligence as the conduct of a State to comply with its obligations. The obligation of due diligence can be deduced from international treaties as well as resolutions and reports of international conferences and organizations. Moreover, ILC clarified that this duty, in essence, requires a “State to keep abreast of technological changes and scientific developments” (Art.3 Para.11).49
Ultimately, the evolution of new technologies and new needs have exposed States. The ICJ recognized, in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of
Nuclear Weapons, the role of international law. States must comply with general
obligations to protect and respect the environment because there are areas that are beyond national control. In this context, sovereignty, as envisaged in Westphalia treaties, has changed.50 National governments cannot take risky unilaterally decisions over their territories, but they have to consider broader contexts where their policies may reflect on other States.51 Hence, the Westphalian dilemma can only be solved through international cooperation and equity among States.52 However, international environmental cooperation is not easy to achieve. Most of the times, environmental laws remain just visions of possible efficient law mechanism due to the fact that it is arduous to find a common agreement. Ideals do not always reflect with State practice.53
In the long run, the Westphalian system reveals to be fragile. Nowadays, the consequences of climate change resulted in being more catastrophic than predicted. As evidence, in some arbitral awards, the concept of Westphalian sovereignty has to be reconsidered. In international environmental relations, it has been necessary to put aside some domestic pursues in order to safeguard the planet. The Bering Sea Fur Seals
49 Ibid.
50 See International Court of Justice (ICJ). (1996). Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use
of Nuclear Weapons. Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons: Advisory Opinion. Paragraph 27.
51 See Xue, H. (2003). Transboundary Damage in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52 Handl, G. (2007). Transboundary Impacts. Oxford University Press. p. 538-548 53 Conforti, B. (2014). Diritto Internazionale. Editoriale Scientifica. p. 235-242
27
Arbitration54 (the UK v. the USA), the Trail Smelter Arbitration (the USA v. Canada), and the Lac Lanoux Arbitration55 are all examples of how States have been mismanaging their policies damaging the environment.56
In particular, the Trail Smelter is an exemplification of how a domestic activity can harm foreign territories. A smelter's emissions, in Canadian territories, caused damage in the United States. Thus, an industry's activity in a territory produced negative externalities with its emissions of sulfur dioxide in another country. The United States was awarded damages based on international law principles. In particular, a State is not allowed to use its land in a way that would inevitably harm with fumes another State’s citizens of properties. Therefore, once clear evidence is provided, the responsible State is called to answer for its actions.57
Ultimately, the analysis of the concept of Statehood turned to be essential in international environmental law. Comprehending the real actors in the international framework is vital in developing efficient procedures to safeguard the atmosphere from climate change. Furthermore, States have to consider the effects of their policies on the environment at an international level. On this regard, developing countries (in particular) have been assisted by the international community in developing sustainably without damaging the rest of the world in the process. At the same time, they maintained control over their policies without undermining their right to self-determination and right to development.
2.2 Contemporary Statehood
The role of States has changed within the international framework. The evolution of international law led to envisage sovereignty under equality, effectiveness, and freedom amongst States. Some scholars claim that these three elements can be summarized under the laissez-faire approach. Consequently, classical international law
54 Bering Sea Fur Seals Arbitration (Great Britain v. U.S.), 1898, 1 Moore’s International Arbitration Awards 755, reprinted in 1 I.E.L. Rep.43 at 67 (1999).
55 Lac Lanoux Arbitration (Spain v. France), 24 I.R.L. 101 (1957).
56 Marauhn, T. (2007). Changing Role of the State. In Bodansky, D. Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford University Press.
