The And Non Binding International Environmental Policy Agreements Implemented Over The Last 40 Years

The struggle between capitalism, national sovereignity, human rights, and environmental protectionism is a constant struggle. International Nongovernment Organzations (INGO) serve an important role in watching the process unfold. Unfortunately, the history of the world is filled with conflict and no one person or group has the answer as to the outcome.

In conversations globally the environment is a hot topic. Issues with the ozone layer, depleting natural resources, and health risks associated with emissions and changes in climate coupled with its resulting natural disasters; have pushed conservation issues into the spotlight. The environmental issues presented today are not the result of one country, one type, or one-industry actions but a communal failure of a mixture of several. With that said many countries and industries are going through policy changes to combat environmental issues that will hopefully benefit the environment, the consumer, and industries.

Over the years the United States ' environmental policies have expanded as well as the awareness of the public and the opinions of many party members, interest groups, and those directly effected by the environment 's decline. There are many institutions that have an effect on environmental policy like congress, many federal agencies, the office of management and budget and the executive branch, nongovernmental forces, individual citizens, and the main one, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Cohen, Steven). America 's general belief is more contrary to objective reality. Many Americans fear sever water and air pollution over the next 50 years. This is because of industrialization, population growth, and mass consumption. The public have recently started pushing environmental problems to the top of the political agenda.

International law has relatively little relevance for environmental law, the standard of justice revolves around the advancement of peace and respect for basic human rights. The absence of mechanisms under international law does not seem to be unjust, as it does not impinge on international peace and security or the enjoyment of human rights, at least not directly. A wide variety of positions on global justice and fairness support normative obligations for outsiders to compensate rainforest states for protecting their forests, obligations that may well have to be translated into binding law. International law should take into account, much more than is now the case, positive obligations of international solidarity, including the protection of the global commons.

Environmental issues have been a part of living on earth since the beginning of time. The only issue with this however, is that resolutions have only just recently been put in place. Environmental concerns have only been discussed since the last half of the twentieth century. While some small steps were taken here and there, The European Union was the first to deliberate environmental policy in an attentive and compulsory nature. The European Union has some of the highest environmental standards to date. These standards have been evolving since the Paris Summit meeting of the European Community that took place in October 1972. The Paris Summit of 1972 was the first to introduce environmental policy on such a vast scale. One outcome of the summit was a declaration on environmental and consumer policy which gave the Environmental Commission the authority to establish the First Environmental Action Programme (EAP) to implement environmental policy. An EAP is essentially a strategic policy document which reflects the fundamental elements of contemporary environmental thinking and problem perceptions, as well as strategic policy orientation. (http://wwweeborg/publication/chapter-3pdf) It is based on a proposal from the Commission, but is now subject to a full legislative procedure leading to agreement between

Environmental change is a logical certainty, and progressively a lived human concern. However, it is not yet what everybody should call social-global problem in one voice. It's not an essential almost we shape our social practices, nor a sufficiently huge social standard to go about as an imperative on our conduct. Around the planet there is developing energy to characterize environmental change as a security issue and thus as a motivation topping issue that merits noteworthy consideration and assets. Calls for movement are developing - yet at the same time outlined activities to address the issue has a cost or weight that will hamper business and go about as a drag on the economy.

In what ways is the environment affecting the way countries are being run? What the causes of these environmental issues? Explain if the states are helping or causing these issues. What does this mean for the future? Provide with examples for each question.

Institutionalism sees our current environmental stress as being due to “weak institutions and inadequate global cooperation to correct environmental failures” (Clapp and Dauvergne, pp. 14). In this view, better communication between countries and negotiation through treaties and protocols will create a new set of global norms which will better guide us away from overpopulation, pollution, and resource depletion. While they are generally in

On December 12 of 2015, 195 countries made history by committing to the first truly global international climate change agreement (Paris Agreement, 2015). This agreement took place in Paris and was adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The outcome of the Paris Conference on Climate Change was described as “revolutionary” (Venezuela) “marvelous act” (China) and as “a tremendous collective achievement” (European Union) that introduced a “new era of global climate governance” (Egypt) while “restoring the global community’s faith of accomplishing things multilaterally” (USA) (Paris Agreement, 2015).

The environmental movement has drastically changed over the last few decades, encompassing science, political activism and our social conscience. It is one of the fastest growing political and social movements in the world. Since the mid 1970s, this international movement has engaged the global community indluding many countries, the business world, media, and non-governmental organizations, all who have pushed for increased regulations and compliance towards protecting the environment. Nations within and outside of the UN have been pressured into pursuing a more sustainable future.Our ability to adapt, as well as to compromise, will direct the result of how we will survive in the future. States will have to cooperate and understand problems other nations are facing, and be able to commit to wanting a sustainable earth. Environmental norms are changing due to the overwhelming social push to reduce global warming, causing people to bandwagon to fight for environmental sustainability. Unfortunately, the motives for this movement are not always clear. While citizens of developed countries appear to have the right justifications for saving our planet and are attempting to address, global warming resulting in climate change, this heated political issue has provided NGO’s, governments (state actors) and corporations a platform to demonstrate interest in social issues, but also an opportunity to capitalize of for their own financial or political gain.

There have been 40 years of major UN environmental summits, within which the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has been created. The United Nation Environmental Program was created in 1972 as agency of United Nations which would be protective investigator in sphere of environment and would be able to bring positive changes in international society by making substantial moves towards sustainable development. As mentioned on UNEP 's official website, the main goal of the programme is "to provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations.”

Starting from the Kyoto protocol and culminating in the 2011 Durban agreement, world leaders have put into motion, a coordinated effort to save the world through concerted actions by their countries to reduce the carbon emissions. The reason for this agreement was the perspective that the world will not survive at the rate of the present emissions. Hence, the World Congress is has no option but to act strongly on these lines. The Kyoto protocol has extracted promises from the member nations about the extent to which they will guarantee to reduce carbon emissions by the year 2020. The experts are continuously calculating the impact of global warming on diverse situations in life, while the businessmen are calculating how it will impact their strategies for the future (Alen, D.S., 2012).

Ban Ki-moon(UN Secretary General) said after the conference in Paris : “We have entered a new era of global cooperation on one of the most complex issues ever to confront humanity. For the first time, every country in the world has pledged to curb emissions, strengthen resilience and join in common cause to take common climate action. This is a resounding success for multilateralism” (Historic Paris Agreement on Climate Change, December 2015).

One of the greatest threats to humankind present in the 21st century is climate change. Human behavior, especially since industrial revolution led “over 600 thousand tons of carbon to be emitted into the atmosphere from fossil fuels” which thus enhanced greenhouse affects, and alters the natural cycle of global warming and cooling. The consequence of such alteration has devastating effects globally as drastic “temperature increases experienced in the recent years are causing widespread damages” . Effects of climate change not only helps deteriorate the biome as “quarter of all species could be pushed to extinction by 2050” , but also poses a large threat to “living conditions and challenges existing patterns of energy use and security” Given that climate change is one of the most pressing issues experienced in the modern era “there has been little progress in the United Nations (UN) led climate negotiations” . The reason as to why states cannot come to a consensus on international climate change policy is because states reside in an anarchic international system in which states are by nature: conflictual, self-interested and focused on attaining relative gain as shown through neo-realist theory. In ability for states to negotiate a climate change action plan will be shown through states’ pursuit of relative gains in the Kyoto Protocol, the role of economic growth in terms of relative gains, and climate change lag/ state’s personal agendas, which have led to numerous

For instance, when the United States imposed a ban on tuna imports from Mexico in 1991 due to their findings that Mexicans were using nets which often threatened dolphins, the GATT considered the ban as a violation (French, 2003:467). Despite the fact that the GATT and the WTO ostensibly supports the rights of countries to protect the environment, this case showed that the rule only applies to activities within their the borders (French, 2003:467). Considering that environmental problems transcend national borders and cannot be resolved by national governments individually, the GATT rule imposes a significant restriction on protection of the environment. Moreover, there is a clear inconsistency between climate change discourse and the WTO’s provisions. In 1992, The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development declared that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (French, 2003:470). On the other hand, the WTO’s provisions “require that health and safety laws be based on scientific principles and not be maintained with insufficient scientific evidence” (French, 2003:470). The EU law