The Negation and Implementation of International Treaties - Essay Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2011 Introduction International environmental agreements have over the years been the central constituent of strategy for dealing with environmental challenges that transcend the capacities and boundaries of individual states. Until recently comparatively little was recognized concerning compliance and implementation of international agreements and treaties that have been negotiated. Despite the growing scientific evidence of international environmental problems, effective action has been disappointing. This particular paper therefore seeks to evaluate the whether negotiation and implementation of international agreements action has been disappointing. The scope of the analysis will be grounded reviewing a variety of literature concerning the issue. In addition a critical analysis and evaluation will be provided based on the facts derived from the presented literature. Literature Review The recognition of the significance of the environment as a matter of policy concern dates back to the Stockholm Conference of 1968. Before this particular conference a good number of declarations and agreements had been made on explicit issues such as oil pollution at sea, nuclear testing and migratory wildlife (Grubb, 1994). Speth (1992) reveals that despite the ambitious initiatives of devising international agreements and treaties the reality is that the efforts of individual players in terms of implementation of the agreements are quite meager. According to Foster, (1999) environmental challenges are founded on the problem of geopolitics. Conflict among states owing to environmental issues has frequently arisen causing failure in negotiation and finally implementation. Nikitina (1994) argues that one of the sources of conflict is attributed to the lack of understanding between actors concerning the direction to be undertaken in terms of dealing with the crisis. The dilemma on climate change for instance has brought out the greatly feared threat of equality among states. What is evident is that those responsible for causing the problem are not the same people who are the most vulnerable to the problem caused. As a result in despite of increased lobbying and signing of internationally based rules, the consequences of climate change continue to be part of the global society. In the same sense solving the climate change crisis is still governed by geopolitics (Underdal and Hanf, 2000). Weyant, (2009) studied the Kyoto protocol as an example of a legally binding international agreement that depicts the failure of implementation of environmental agreements. The protocol adopted in 1997 had the objective tackling issues of greenhouse emissions and global warming. The target agreed upon by member states was to attain a 5.2% reduction of emission levels by the year 2012. According to Zarembo (2007) these targets have not yet been attained by the signatories instead an increase in emission rates has been recorded. Zarembo (2007) reveals that India and China whose emissions easily exceed emissions of any other states are just allowed to keep on pollution the environment through increased carbon emission. Furthermore the principal polluter of all, the United States is not even a signatory of the treaty (MacKay, 2010). Weyant, (2009) attributes the failure of the protocol to geopolitical issues .This is due to the lack of understanding between actors concerning the direction to be undertaken in terms of dealing with the crisis. In addition instead on focusing on how to implement the treaty, political rivalry frequently arises among states, especially on grounds of state power and finding sources of blame or failure especially on countries that refused to ratify the treaty. Parrish (2008) highlights that countries such as Australia and the United States stated that they would not participate in the ratification of the treaty. The basic reason for their lack of consent was due to the lack of binding objectives for developing nations. Connor (2007) further reveals that too often than not a blame game arises among states who claim that the failure of the protocol is due to Austria’s and the US move of not signing up to the treaty. They argue that the Kyoto protocol was misconceived from the beginning because it was grounded on preceding international treaties to stop acid rain and protect the ozone layer. Vogler, (1999) links the disappointing nature of negotiation and implementation of environmental agreements to the differences in terms of international relations whereby rich states dominate ideologically as opposed to poor states. Brown and Jacobson, (2000) further highlights that the dominance of ideology by a certain class of states has resulted to what is referred to as the north ecological debt whereby neither the north nor the south want be accountable for the current climate crisis. Andresen (1994) etal argue that the basic reason for this is that states are not willing to acknowledge the language used in the treaty negotiations that directly make states liable for their contribution towards environmental problems. These basically give explanations to why the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference was actually a typical failure (Dvorsky, 2010). Caldwell (1991) brings to light the fact that vested interests of different economies have also played distinct roles in influencing the negotiation environmental agreements. Skolnikoff (1998) highlights that; the bargaining power of states is influenced by the countries economy. As a result countries with powerful economies have more bargaining power during negotiations as opposed to those with poor economies (Skolnikoff 1998). A case in point of influential vested interests that have been dominant in the opposition of regulations include Japanese trading companies which are actively involved in logging in regions such as Indonesia, Philippines and Papua New Guinea, in despite of the existence of regulations against deforestation (Young 1994). The challenge of implementation is an acute aspect essentially in less developed nations (UNEP1991). These nations lack the instrumental and legal frameworks not forgetting the expertise needed to implement environmental agreements. For instance the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) presumes that organizational infrastructure are essential in the verification monitoring and of international environmental agreements. Keohane and Levy (1993) articulates that developing nations face the challenge of implementation of environmental treaties due to lack of infrastructure and food to implement the treaties. In addition governments that engage in treaties in many cases enter into international agreements for the basic purpose of solidarity and prestige without the capability to implement and genuine commitment (Foster 1999). Underdal and Hanf (2000) argue that in despite of the fact that negotiation and implementation of international agreements action have been perceived as disappointing, success has also been attained in the endeavor of negotiation and implementation of international agreements. According to the Convention Biological Diversity (2003) the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is an example of a structure of well developed international cooperation with the objective of environmental protection. The biodiversity protocol is rooted on the Convention Biological Diversity (CBD), particularly article 19.3 which necessitated parties to put into consideration setting appropriate procedures in areas of the conservation of biodiversity and the effective and sustainable use of genetic resources and sustainable. Since the adoption of the protocol in the year 2000, a lot has been done by states in terms of implementation. The Secretariat of the Cartagena Protocol reported in 2009 that a good number of states have complied with the agreements following its initiation (Convention Biological Diversity 2003). Parrish, (2008) also reveals that initiatives transition towns have been a common initiative that has been success in creation of low carbon economies. MacKay (2010) argues that in despite of the fact that claims have been made to suggest that protocols such as the Kyoto protocol on carbon reduction are not working , initiative such a transition town initiatives have been useful in carbon reduction. MacKay (2010) further highlights that transition town movement has been a practical means in which individuals have taken up action to deal with environmental threats such as carbon reduction. The initiative has been adopted in various parts of the world an implication that the implementation of environmental agreements are progressively become successful (Evens, etal 2003). Analysis and Evaluation From the above analysis what is evident is that negotiation and implementation of international agreements can be leveled as disappointing. On the other hand we can not deny that initiatives of negation have also been implemented at certain levels. However as Evens etal (2003) argue that the theoretical approach to politics of the environment is based on economic relationships and social-political forces , which is involved in the exceptional structures of every environmental agreements .What is evident is that despite the ambitious initiatives of development of environmental agreements, little has been accomplished (Evens etal 2003). The literature presented indicates that politics is a dominant factor that hinders the effective implementation of environmental agreements. According to MacKay (2010) the existence of approximately over 150 multilateral legal agreements should not be tempting factor to make us believe in the dilution that problems concerning the environment are under control. States must recognize the fact that only though the acceptance of the laid regulation and elimination of politically hindrance such as geopolitics and the north ecological debt, will effective implementation of environmental agreements be attained (Caldwell 1991). It is also essential to take note of the fact that international agreements can not work alone in solving environmental problems (Caldwell 1985). A great deal of effort is dependant on the attitudes of citizens and corporate bodies within various countries. For instance a State may sign a particular however if its citizens and businesses in the country do not adopt the proposal of the agreements then it becomes difficult to solve environmental problems (Caldwell 1985). As highlighted by the case of Japan whereby, Japanese companies have refused to comply with the anti-logging protocol. Conclusion The analysis presented has been effective in evaluating the notion that the negation and implementation of international treaties is disappointing. The findings of various literatures indicate that indeed politics is a dominant factor in contribution to the disappointment in the negotiation and implementation of international agreements. Some of the factors raised include the aspect of geopolitics, north ecological debt and economic differences. The findings however highlight that to some extent certain agreements have been implemented. It is however essential for practical and realistic action to be undertaken in order to resolve environmental challenges. References Andresen ,S, Skjaerseth ,J and Wettestad J, 1994, "Regime, the State and Society Analyzing Implementation of International Environmental Commitments". Working Paper. Brown, E. and Jacobson, K, 2000, Engaging Countries. Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Agreements, the MIT Press, Cambridge. Caldwell, L, 1991, International Environmental Policy, Duke University Press, Durham. Haas, Caldwell, L, 1985, Cooperation and conflict: international response to environmental issues. Environment. Convention Biological Diversity, 2003, The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Connor, S, 2007, Scientists say Kyoto protocol is 'outdated failure' Dvorsky, G, 2010, Five Reasons the Copenhagen Climate Conference Failed, Sentient Developments Evens, P, Jacobson, H and Putnam, D, 2003. Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Grubb, M, 1994, Global environmental change and international agreements, conven-tions and protocols. Foster, Bellamy, 1999,“The Vulnerable Planet’’ The Economic Journal . Keohane, R and Levy, A, 1993, Institutions for the Earth. Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection, Environmental Management, Cambridge. MacKay, D, 2010, Carbon Reduction: The Reason for Reducing Carbon Emissions, International environmental co-operation: retrospect and prospect. Nikitina, E., 1994. ‘‘National Implementation of International Environmental Commitments: A Review of Soviet Literature," Working Paper, IIASA. Parrish, B., 2008, Sustainability-Driven Entrepreneurship: A Literature Review. Sustainability Research Institute, Working Paper. Skolnikoff, E, 1998, The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Speth, J, 1992, A post-Rio compact. Foreign Policy, Rittberger, V, 1993, Regime Theory and International Relations, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Young, R, 1994, International Governance. Protecting the Environment Cornell University Press. UNEP, 1991, Register of international treaties and other agreements in the field of the environment, Nairobi Underdal, A and Hanf, K, 2000, International Environmental Agreements and Domestic Politics. , Environmental Management. Vogler,J.(1999). The European Union as an actor in international environmental politics. Environmental Politics,8(3). Weyant, J, 2009, "The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation". Energy Journal Retrived Zarembo, A, 2007, Kyoto’s failures haunt new U.N. talk , loss Angles times Read More