International Law and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - Essay Example

International law and the UN Framework Convention on Climate change Name Course Instructor Date Introduction International organizations are international social institutions based on the international norms and rules characterizing behavior patterns, and prescribing these behavior patterns to situations that occur recurrently and cause a union of reciprocal expectations. They allow different member states to raise issues they have in common, with some bringing nations together and others dividing them. Due to this, international organizations are involved in a wide range of problems involving relationships between different people, groups, nations, blocs, states and businesses. There is no specific definition of the term international organizations but they are defined based on the unique concepts of these organizations such as actors, instruments and arenas(Rittberge, et al 2003).. As arenas, international organizations are a platform for the member states to trade information, express disapproval of or defend certain actions and also coordinate state political strategies. International organizations are instruments for the pursuit of individual member state’s interests. In this concept, the political processes of countries determine their superiority over others, with those nations having superior political processes being the most powerful. Lastly, the international organizations are viewed as actors on behalf of member nations through pooled entrustment. This makes the organization very relevant as the decisions made by the member states would have a different impact if the organization did not exist. International organizations can be categorized according to membership and competencies. In terms of membership, it can either be open or constrained. Organizations with an Open membership are open to any nation to join, like the UN, except those limited by factors such as geographical location, geological and economic factors. An example of such include the EU. Categorization in terms of competencies includes wide-ranging organizations such as the UN and those limited to a number of competencies. International organizations can further be classified based on their decision making authority, such that programs organizations are mainly concerned with the obligations of individual members, while operational ones focus on capacity for implementation. Divisions according to the degree of delegated decision making are also used to classify international organizations. Their roles include articulation and aggregation, recruitment, norms, socialization, rule making, education and application among others (Archer, 2001). International law refers to a set of rules that are accepted and have the function of binding the relations between nations and within the boundaries of the nations. Therefore, these laws serve as a guide for the practice of stable and organized international relations. Its main concerns include human rights, international crime, conduct of war, disarmament among others. It also regulates global commons such as the environment, international waters, world trade and outer space (Karns & Mingst, 2004). This paper seeks to analyze the interaction of an international organization, in this case The United Nations’ Framework Convention on climate change and international law. Background Climate change is a complex environmental problem that puts the existence of the earth at risk. The realization that these problems are not restricted to any national boundaries has made climate change a very important aspect of global politics. In the recent years, international environmental agreements have increased drastically to cover a wide range of issues, with some areas having several agreements. It has various global impacts such as economic development, sustainable development and population growth, hence the need for an international organization to intervene. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international treaty based on an international organization, The UN, formed in 1992 with the aim of working together to limit global rises in temperature and the resulting climate change, as well as coping with the impacts of climate change.it is an international agreement between nations, thus it belongs to international law. Three years later in 1995, the nations involved realized that the reduction of emissions as stipulated in the convention were insufficient. They therefore went into consultation on how to strengthen the global response to climate change. This resulted in the drafting and the later adoption of the famous Kyoto Protocol in 1997. This protocol legally binds all developed countries to reduce emissions (Taylor & Groom, 2000). Analysis According to the UN’s preamble, one of the objectives is to create conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained. However, creators of international treaties are faced with challenges regarding international law when making these treaties. Some of these challenges include designing rules and regulations that discourage defection from the treaty without preventing participation. Laws that are considered too soft encourage participation but at the same time it gives fewer incentives for the nations involved to change their behavior. Harder rules such as legally binding commitments and external monitoring, on the other hand, make avoidance difficult but also may restrict the same nations acting inconsistently with the treaty to join (Stein, 2008). Research reveals that making flexible provisions helps balance this dilemma. Stein (2008) goes further to explain that as legalization of treaties increase, nations become worried about their ability to abide by the treaties. Subsequently, the least compliant nations refrain from agreeing to highly legal agreements. He also reveals that entry into a treaty by a national depends on various factors such as costs and benefits, and rules involved, among others. The UN Framework Convention for Climate Change constitutes of two core obligations: preparation of national action plans for controlling emission and the creation of national inventories of emissions. The convention calls for Annex 1 members, mostly developed countries, to make efforts in reducing greenhouse emissions to the levels in the 90’s (UNFCCC, 1992). This is not a legally binding commitment but instead it is a principle of cooperation on the issue rather than impose any obligation on the states in this level such as the United States of America and Japan among others. As a result, highly industrialized countries which are in this category do no have to necessarily do anything about their emissions. Stein (2008) adds that some countries such as the US did not pass any legislation to ensure reduction in emissions. He compares it to the Kyoto protocol that requires the nations involved pass legislation regarding reduction of emission and also subject them to external monitoring. The UNFCCC is also not precise on its goals. It states a general goal of achieving gas concentrations that do not interfere with the climate system. It should have specified the target concentrations.this way, there would be little or no violations due to treaty ambiguities. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change raised and continues to raise many justice related questions. One of them is concerned with the global efforts of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the justice in taking into account the responsibility of the developed countries in the past and increasing emissions by developing nations. These factors are not taken into consideration, hence ineffectiveness. The other concern involves the management of the results of climate change and their impact on poor nations. These nations are the most affected by climate change yet they have very little to do with this change. These nations are facing various threats to human security due to climatical changes. The Doha Climate Change Conference of 2012 did not reach a strong compromise and agreed on a new climate change agreement to be negotiated in 2015. According to Danish (2007), the reason why some developed countries are hesitant to agree to the convention is the fear of interpretation of the agreement as accepting liability for damage if a damaged country was to make an international legal claim. The international laws would require that the country emitting the gases compensate the damaged one. However, making legal claims on an issue such as climate change might be difficult. Jane McAdam (2012) writes that legal liability is not enough to show that industrialized countries are the main contributors to emissions, in history and now, leading to climate change. To establish responsibility for a wrong, it must be proved that the action was illegal at the time it was carried out. This presents difficulties as the international law did not provide rules against carbon emissions until the early 1990’s. This makes it hard to institute legal liability of emissions which occurred before the rules were passed. Even in the event of identification of an underlying wrong, there are still other legal difficulties that one might encounter while sawing. In ordinary cases, one must show that certain actions by certain people at a given time led to specific consequences to certain people or groups. However, in climate change, it might be difficult to prove whether the effects were foreseen. In the event that the effects are recognized, it might be difficult to prove that any rule was breached. This could depend on whether the court could decide whether the effects were foreseen, which could be unlikely since most research on the effects of carbon on the climate are recent. Thirdly, establishing a link between the act and the harm might also be difficult. This is because climate change is affected by several factors making it almost impossible to determine what causes these changes, and to what percentage a certain factor affects change. The international law also recognizes that more than one can contribute to damage of a specific area. However, it might be hard to establish the harm caused to a specific state. International law states that nations owe obligations to people in its territory or jurisdiction. This makes it difficult to demonstrate that emissions from one state might travel randomly and cause violations in distant nations. Recommendations International legal claims could potentially be s good option though not an easy one. It is not easy to point to a particular nation and blame them for climate change. However, claims against businesses and governments are more likely to be successful at at a national level, rather than an international level. The poor and vulnerable countries need to be given the right assistance to deal with climate change impacts. The use of transitional justice could also help. This kind of justice has been successful in addressing large-scale human rights abuse in some countries, and the right application of this principle to climate change might be successful. A world-wide insurance scheme for helping pay the reparation costs of the victims of climate change can also be set up. All participating nations would be required to pay a specified fee to ensure that enough money is raised. Litigation, though painfully slow and expensive, may be a good solution as it serves both political functions and asserting legal rights. It can help raise awareness on the impact of climate change. Conclusion It is difficult to establish a specific cause for climate change, therefore legal action might not be successful. Difficulties include inability to quantify harm cause, identifying causation between emissions and effects and establishing accountability of emissions for states. Some scholars have come up with theories of determining causation by allocating responsibility for climate related migration according to the carbon emissions. Therefore, the more highly a country is ranked in emissions, the higher the number of people migrating to this state. This suggestion faced a lot of criticism as it would be detrimental to the interests of the countries of origin and those of admission. It was also rejected due to overlooking intervening factors and actors in deciding how the effects manifest themselves in a particular area. It is therefore evident that climate change and international law are an extremely complex and quickly evolving phenomena, with jurisdiction lining often overlapping. This means that new international approaches have to be invented all the time to deal with the dynamic nature of the situation. There is also the need to deliver justice to all globally while at the same time encouraging reconciliation and cooperation in the face of climatic changes. References Archer, C. (2001). International Organizations (3rd Edition ed.). New York: Routledge. Danish, K. W. (2007). An Overview of the International Regime Addressing Climate Change. Sustainable Development Law & Policy , 67-76. Karns, M., & Mingst, K. (2004). International Organizations: The politics and processes of global governance. Boulder. McAdam, J. (2012). Climate Change, Forced Migration and international law. Oxford University Press. Rittberger, V., Zangl, B., & Staisch, M. (2003). International Organization: Polity, Politics and Policies. (A. Groom, Trans.) Stein, J. V. (2008). The International Law and Politics of Climate Change Ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 52, 243-268. Taylor, P., & Groom, A. (2000). The United Nations at the Millennium: The Principal Organs. London: Continuum. UNFCCC. (1992). UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION. Read More