1a.

The course examined a broad range of principles, approaches and frameworks

in global environmental governance and sustainable development in various issue-
areas. What are some of best and worst principles, policies, and practices in
global governance and sustainable development? Why? What lessons, if any, can we
learn from these examples?

Global environmental governance refers to the sum of organizations, policy

instruments, financing mechanisms, rules, procedures and norms that regulate global

environmental protection. Within the context of the evolution of global environmental

politics and policy, the end goal of global environmental governance is to improve the

state of the environment and to eventually lead to the broader goal of sustainable

development.

The principles of International environmental law are the worst and most problematic

principles in global governance. These sources of law are often vague and almost always

controversial. Many scholars have argued the main issue of international environmental

law is that it heavily relies on its traditional foundations of self-interest, reciprocity, and

consent. Moreover, International environmental law has been argued to be ineffective and

this is due in large part to the lack of consensus surrounding existing norms of

international environmental law. Many of the customary norms created by the

industrialized capitalist countries are challenged by the developing countries. In such

cases, it is difficult to prove the existence of binding legal rule. When accused of

violating a customary norm, a state may claim that no such norm exists or that it never

accepted nor agreed to the norm and therefore is not bound by it. For example, the former

Soviet Union denies liability for damages to other states caused by the Chernobyl
accident. Although attempts have been made to apply customary rules and general

principles of international law, the results have been stagnation and indetermination.

The predominant sources of the law governing creation of international agreements

are the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Vienna Convention on

the Law of Treaties Between States and International Organizations between

International Organizations. The first applies to agreements between states, and the

second applies to agreements involving international organizations; however, they are

virtually identical in substantive law. Under both conventions, states and international

organization have the capacity to enter binding agreements but they cannot be bound by

any agreement without their consent. The Vienna Conventions do not stipulate any

particular ratification process nor do they require any action to comply with the

agreement during the ratification process. It is true that each state that signs an agreement

has an obligation to agreement, but the details of the agreement remain vague. As a

result, international law is criticized as soft law. The realm of soft law begins once

legal arrangements are weakened along one or more of the dimensions of obligation,

precision, and delegation. Soft law has been widely criticized and even dismissed as a

factor in international affairs.

Another problem with the International Environmental law is the problem with

legitimacy. Bodansky (1999) contends states have negotiated and adopted international

rules that they believe are in their self-interest, rather than recognize the rulemaking

authority of international institutions. Generally, concerns about the legitimacy of

international environmental regimes have related to one or both of these bases of

legitimacy: state consent and legality. They realize that they cannot solve some

transnational or global environmental problem through individual action, so they agree to

collective action by means of a reciprocal exchange of promises-they agree, for example,

to limit their use of ozone-depleting substances or to impose restrictions on the import

and export of endangered species. Moreover, the challenge by Malaysia and other

developing countries to the legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), for

example, concerns the former. At root, the issue is whether the decisions of the Antarctic

Treaty parties have legitimacy vis a vis states that have not consented to the regime.

Correspondingly, many international relations scholars (and some critical legal scholars)

hold the more skeptical view that international law is wholly beholden to international

power. Powerful states have greater control over international outcomes, are less in need

of protection, and face higher sovereignty costs. Furthermore, they have less need for

legalization and more reason to resist it, even though their adherence is crucial to its

success. For these reasons, realists see international law largely as epiphenomenal,

merely reelecting the distribution of power. Needless to say, the principles of

international environmental regime are problematic and are in need of reforms in order to

provide an effective framework for global environmental governance.

The major limitation with international environmental law is that it lacks a global

demos that makes suggestions to establish a global parliament or to hold global

referenda. In addition, other major limitations are it lack of implementation and

enforcement powers at the global level. However, despite problematic principles, the
takeaway of international environmental law is that it offers a preview of the sorts of

concerns that are likely to emerge if problems such as climate change and loss of

biological diversity intensify in coming years, and pressures grow to develop stronger

international institutions in response-institutions with real authority to develop, apply,

and enforce legal rules. In order to do this, effective domestic laws within an international

framework of regulations would be an ideal situation in which to regulate and enforce

international environmental law. Infringement upon state sovereignty is a major

stumbling block in treaty negotiations and enforcement efforts. Thus, the enforcement

laws would be those of the sovereign state, as states could monitor their own compliance

without harboring the paranoia and stigma that come with international policing. These

enforcement mechanisms would encourage compliance and speedy resolution of treaty

disputes.

The best approach in global governance and sustainable development is environmental

justice as it seeks remedies or corrective action for environmental injustice.

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. It is

the principle that all citizens, regardless of ethnicity or socioeconomic class, should

equally share in the benefits of environmental amenities and the burdens of

environmental health hazards. Furthermore, environmental justice exhibits preventive,

retributive and corrective elements. Preventive characteristic of environmental justice is

exhibited in its forward-looking nature. Ikeme (3002) contends instances of the

preventive characteristic of environmental justice can be found in international law and

national environmental policy. For instance, Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of

1972, as modified by Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration recognizes the right of countries

to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and development

policies, provided that their activities do not damage the environment of other states or

the global commons. This provision is forward-looking and is geared towards preventing

the transfer of environmental burdens across national borders, which is a common source

of environmental injustice. In addition, the guidelines for Environmental Justice include

individual compliance and enforcement. Another example is the Clean Air Act, which

was amended in 1972 and now reflects a cooperative federalism structure in its

administration and enforcement mechanisms. Under the Clean Water Act, states must

develop and establish water quality standards. These standards are reviewed and

approved by EPA. If a particular water body meets the established water quality standard,

then anti-degradation policies and ambient monitoring must be employed to ensure that

this body is maintained at these standards. While the responsibility for monitoring is

generally vested in the states, EPA may step in if a state does not adequately monitor

whether its water bodies are attaining water quality standards. If a particular water body

does not meet water quality standards, then the state must develop a strategy to meet

them. The effectiveness of environmental justice depends on enforcement laws of the

sovereign states as it allows individual states to control their own resources without the

interference by other states trying to internationalize the resources.

3a. Achieving sustainability in sustainable development is not just an
environmental concern it is also a social concern. Sustainability includes wider
questions about ethics and social justice. Discuss and provide relevant examples to
support your arguments.

Sustainability is the initiatives taken in the present to improve the human condition

and the Earth system in which we live to be lasting and benefit future generations. To

achieve sustainability, decisions at all levels must consider the three interconnected

pillars of sustainable development that includes socio-cultural, economic and

environmental systems. Achieving sustainability in sustainable development means

development that promotes prosperity and economic opportunity, great social well-being,

and protection of the environment, in addition, it offers the best path forward for

improving the lives of people everywhere. Achieving sustainability is not only an

environmental concern but also a social concern as it aims to reduce some of the worlds

most pressing issues such as poverty, economic instability and social inequality. In order

to achieve sustainability, many of the scholars contend international cooperation is

crucial in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian

character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for

fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

Approximately 40 per cent of the population of the developing world lived in extreme

poverty only two decades ago. In addition, diseases such as HIV and AIDS have

paralyzed the social economic fabric of particular countries, and disparity between the

rick and the poor is increasing gradually over time. Recognizing the goals and principles

in sustainable development helps eradicate these environmental, economic, and socio-

cultural pillars. Moreover, climate change poses a growing challenge to the worlds
development objectives, thus, achieving sustainability includes wider questions about

ethics and social as it ensure that both sustainable development agenda and climate

actions are properly resourced.

The ethical dimensions of sustainable development is the belief that humans have a

moral responsibility for personal conduct with respect to natural landscapes, resources,

species and non-human organisms. Thus, ethics seek an appropriate respect for life. The

granting of moral standing to future generations has been considered necessary because

of the fact that many environmental problems, such as climate change and resource

depletion will affect future humans much more than they affect present ones.

Correspondingly, sustainability also concerns social justice as legal cases of land and

water rights also involve indigenous people in developing countries. The most

contemporary example is the case of the Kinder Morgan pipeline being built on Burnaby

Mountain by a big corporation who values investments and profits over peoples

livelihoods and environmental harm. Regardless of the consequences, Kinder Morgan is

more interested in carrying out their plans to complete the crude oil pipeline intended to

transport fossil fuels that is growing increasingly impractical, unnecessary, and

unsustainable.

Another example that questions social justice and sustainable development is gender

equality and empowering women and girls. While the world has achieved progress

towards gender equality under the UN Millennium Development Goals, women and girls

continue to suffer discrimination and violence in every part of the world. As a result,
achieving sustainability is a means to eliminate discrimination against women and girls,

empower all women, and achieve equality between women and men as partners and

beneficiaries of development, human rights, humanitarian action, peace and security.

Our last example is the case of the Aboriginal peoples in Canada, which illustrates the

perspective of the rights of indigenous people and questions human rights and the

environment. This case is particularly revealing as the Aboriginal community have acted

as custodians of the land well before the arrival of the Europeans. At that point, however,

they lost the power and ability to govern their land. During the early period of Canadian

settlement, the government took control over the future of the Aboriginal people and

proceeded to establish a system that was as far-reaching as to define the status of an

Indian. The government required Aboriginal children to attend residential schools where

English was the only language permitted to be spoken, and Christianity was forcibly

practiced. Furthermore, they outlawed certain spiritual/religious practices, and created the

reservation system where Aboriginal People were physically confined to limited territory

and organized in ways that did not allow for their law and governance system to be

recognized. As a result, this physical confinement of reserves led Aboriginal

communities to experience impropriate amount of the negative impacts of environmental

hazards. Tsawwassen First Nation provides such an example, where the construction of

the Robert Banks coal super port and ferry terminal in Vancouver, British Columbia, has

led to extensive environmental damage to the habitat of the Tsawwassen reserve. The

complete lose of rights of the Aboriginal people was further exemplified by their inability

to protest the new and imposed policies which actively created hazards for their health
and well-being. However after much political social strife, they are slowly being granted

their rights to self-determination and self-governance, officially recognized in Article 25

of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Promotion of appropriate governance is

key to achieving sustainability in sustainable development, and the preservation of

Aboriginal culture and beliefs. Due to the long effort the Canadian government has

undergone in recognizing the right to self-governance and providing the resource that

would enable such a state, advancement towards sustainable development goals has been

prolonged.

The examples discussed above explain how sustainable development calls into

question of ethics and social justice because the groups who are most immediately and

profoundly affected by environmental destruction are those who face systems of

oppression. These include women, the poor, and people of color and people who reside in

nations of the Global South. Furthermore, without the legal checks on corporate powers

and government authorities, the wealthy and those in power will continue to enjoy

unfettered access to land and other natural resources, while socio-economically and

historically disadvantaged groups will continue to suffer disproportionately as a result of

negligence, greed and selfishness.

Bibliography

* Daniel Bodansky (1999) The Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming

Challenge for International Environmental Law? The American Journal of International
Law, 93, 3: 596 624

* Kenneth W. Abbott and Duncan Snidal (2000), Hard and Soft Law in International
Governance, International Organization 54: 421-456

* Jekwu Ikeme (2003), Equity, Environmental Justice and Sustainability: Incomplete

Approaches in Climate Change Politics, Global Environmental Change 13:195206

* Redclift, Michael (2005), Sustainable Development (1987-2005): An Oxymoron

Comes of Age, Sustainable Development, 13: 212-227.
* Agyeman, Julian, R. D. Bullard and Bob Evans (eds.) (2003) Just
Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World (London: Earthscan) Introduction
and Conclusion
* Williams, C.C. and Millington, A.C., (2004) The Diverse and Contested Meanings of
Sustainable Development, The Geographical Journal 170, 2: 99-104.

* Sneddon, Christopher S. (2000). Sustainability in Ecological Economics, Ecology

and Livelihoods: A Review, Progress in Human Geography, 24(4): 521-549.

* J. Busumtwi-Sam (2013), International Cooperation in Sustainable Development, in

Lawrence. C. Nkemdrin, ed., Regional Sustainable Review, (Oxford: UNESCO-Eolss)
pp. 40-79