The Principles of Differentiated Responsibilities - Essay Example

? The principles of differentiated responsibilities that different countries across the globe have to take different levels of responsibility in cleaning up along with protecting the environment from further degradation (United Nations Environment Programme, p.9). This is because the different countries contribute differently to the environmental degradation that the world is currently experiencing (Sands, Peel & Mackenzie, p.39). The different countries also have different technological and financial abilities with some countries being wealthy whereas others are considered to be developing (Bortscheller, p.21). The countries in the world usually experience common environmental issues despite the fact that vital differences do exist in the responsibilities that they are charged with performing. The notion has increasingly been receiving recognition in the field of environmental international law (Morosin, p.109). The international laws regarding the environment usually cover treaty laws along with customary laws that aim at protecting the environment (Honkonnen, p.28). Treaty laws comprise of many treaties which are multilateral and can be interpreted using many different methods obtained from reading the simple texts they are contained in (United Nations Environment Programme, p.13). When controversies arise due to the different interpretations that exist, different interpretations can be applied in solving the questions at hand (Morosin, p.42). On the other hand, in customary laws, the wide consensus and conviction of most governments are required before they can be legally binding on the members. They immediately become operational upon being signed by the countries and they do not remain matters to be attended to when convenient (Bonilla &Burhenne-Guilmin, p.112). There are however major controversies that exist between which laws along with policies should be followed or implemented (Bortscheller, p.67). The organization for international labour appreciates that the fact that due to the different cultures, climate, industrial traditions and economic opportunities, uniformity in the global labour conditions is quite difficult to achieve (Morosin, p.86). The environmental declaration made in Rio states that in light of the different contributions by different countries towards the worldwide environmental degradation, the countries responsibilities are different in curbing the problem (United Nations Environment Programme, p.14). However, the developed countries in the world have already acknowledged their leading role in helping to clean up the environment (Kiss & Shelton, p.76). This is because they are more advanced technologically and have adequate finances to steer their efforts towards eliminating the effects of their activities on the environment (Morosin, p.97). In addition, the climate change framework convention also stated that different countries within the globe should all participate in protecting their climatic systems based on equality (Bonilla &Burhenne-Guilmin, p.19). It also states that their activities should be performed in accordance with their diverse responsibilities along with capabilities (Bortscheller, p.112). Two major concerns are considered in the principles of differentiated responsibilities. The first concern of the principle is that the nations in the world should work together towards eliminating their common problems in protecting their environments at all levels (Morosin, p.177). Secondly, it concerns itself with the different responsibilities along with capabilities that different nations have in their activities of protecting their environment (Bonilla &Burhenne-Guilmin, p.68). The Stockholm along with the Rio declarations facilitate for the differences in finances and technology among the countries in the world that are participating in the environments protection along with cleanup (Kiss & Shelton, p.149).The declaration of Stockholm holds that the international community should consider the difference that exists in the standards of facilities between the developed and developing nations (United Nations Environment Programme, p.19). On the other hand, the Rio declaration calls for standards in the environment, management priorities along with objectives that reflect the different contexts that they are applied (Bortscheller, p.41). The notion of differentiated responsibility is aimed at promoting equality that is quite substantive between the developed and developing countries (Sands, Peel & Mackenzie, p.87). It additionally aims at ensuring that the developing countries in time comply with the set legal rules which will ensure that their efforts are eventually strengthened (Bonilla &Burhenne-Guilmin, p.116).Several treaties have assisted the developed countries in delaying their compliance to the control measures that have been put in place. A good example is the Montreal Protocol of the year 1987 that has enabled these countries to delay their compliances to the measures set (Morosin, p.185). In addition, the Framework convention formulated by the United Nations on climate change (UNFCCC), apportions the responsibilities for acting to achieve climate change to the different countries in the world based on their technological and financial abilities (Kiss & Shelton, p.79). The establishment of the Kyoto Protocol in the year 1997 also helped in assigning different countries diverse responsibilities though some of the countries that are poor were excluded. The protocol also helped in putting up targets to be achieved by various countries over time in their environmental cleanup efforts (United Nations Environment Programme, p.23). Luckily, no specific targets were created for the countries that were considered to be developing since it would negatively impact on their economies (Bortscheller, p.75). However, the rises in the emissions from countries such as India and China have brought great controversies among the developed nations regarding their respective roles along with responsibilities in cleaning and protecting the environment (Bonilla &Burhenne-Guilmin, p.188). The controversies that have arisen have been focused in issues that range from the historical, contemporary and per capita emissions that developed countries have and are allowed to emit into the atmosphere (Morosin, p.199). During the Copenhagen and Bali talks, the developed countries involved in the controversy made an agreement concerning the roles that each of them was supposed to carry out (Sands, Peel & Mackenzie, p.98). The talks brought agreements on the appropriate mitigation actions that various countries would adhere to while limitations were put on the amounts of emissions each would be allowed to generate (Kiss & Shelton, p.132). The definition of the notion of a ‘developing country’ has also been disputed by many countries across the globe (Honkonnen, p.179). Disputes have additionally arisen concerning the support along with monitoring activities of the different mitigation programs that different countries may adopt in helping to protect the environment from degradation (Bonilla &Burhenne-Guilmin, p.156). For instance, the united States, Canada along with Australia have recently been declining to participate in any cleanup and protection from environmental degradations if the developing countries are not included in the activities (United Nations Environment Programme, p.86). The administrations in these countries claim that there are some developing countries that are more advanced than others and they should also responsibly be involved in the environmental protection efforts (Sands, Peel & Mackenzie, p.131). The United States later on accepted the National Mitigation Actions which is a vital step in resolving the controversies that exist in the different responsibilities that different countries should take (Bortscheller, p.69). In order to formally resolve the contentious issues that have arisen regarding the responsibilities those different countries should take in protecting the environment, the Copenhagen agreement was made (Bonilla &Burhenne-Guilmin, p.177). It improved on the contentious Kyoto protocol that absolved the developing countries off any responsibility in the protection efforts of the environment (Morosin, p.207). It suggested that developed countries would have quantified targets some developing countries could take actions whereas the countries that were least developed could also participate if they received funding from the global community (Kiss & Shelton, p.202). The greatest controversy leading to the convening of the Copenhagen conference in the month of December 2009 was the disagreements between different countries (Bortscheller, p.168). The differences that existed concerned the reporting, measuring along with verification of the mitigation actions that individual countries were undertaking (Bonilla &Burhenne-Guilmin, p.96). Some disputed the fact that they would be monitored by the international community whereas others refuted claims that they would be monitored internally by the authorities in the different countries (United Nations Environment Programme, p.215). This includes countries like China who have refused to have members of the international community come into their country for the purpose of monitoring and measuring their environmental degradation prevention activities (Morosin, p.278). The lack of commitment to previously signed and agreed protocols on the environment has been a major stumbling block to attaining the full commitment of the industrialized countries in the protection activities (United Nations Environment Programme, p.31). For instance, the United States of America has cited the inability of some advanced developing nations to commit themselves to the protection of their environment as their major reason for not ratifying the Kyoto protocol (Bortscheller, p.124). This is after the expiry of its initial phase which will happen in the year 2012. Many policies for regulating the testing of nuclear weapons that greatly degrades the environment have been put in place for the purpose of regulating the activities and emissions amongcountries dealing in them. These policies are found in different agreements such as the treaty on the non proliferation of nuclear (Morosin, p.96). The declarations contain stipulations against the development, production along with stockpiling of dangerous weapons since their emissions greatly affect the environment. They are also very harmful when utilized on human beings or in case accidents occur when they are being handled (United Nations Environment Programme, p.32). Special bodies for monitoring the activities and operations within the plants dealing with nuclear along with biological weapons have been established. This includes organizations such as the international atomic agency that is responsible for evaluating the activities and safety measures being observed in these plants (Bortscheller, p.165). According to the declaration made in Rio, the contributions countries make towards preventing global environmental degradation are classified according to their desired needs, the harm caused by their activities (Morosin, p.282). They are also classified according to the financial along with technological resources that they have at their disposal. In classifying the contributions made according to their different needs, the declaration appreciates the fact that different have diverse needs to satisfy thus cannot limit their operations (Bonilla &Burhenne-Guilmin, p.173). When classifying the contributions made by different countries in terms of the harm caused by their activities, the protocol assigns greater responsibility to the countries that are most developed (United Nations Environment Programme, p.172). This is because their activities are considered to have brought more damage to the environment and these countries ought to contribute more towards preventing environmental degradation (Morosin, p.292). Lastly, when classifying contributions made by different countries towards preventing environmental degradation according to the monetary and technological resources, the declaration stipulates that the more advanced countries ought to participate more since they have the abilities when compared to the least developed countries (Honkonnen, p.179). In conclusion, the paper looked at the definition of the principles of differentiated responsibilities and international environmental law along with their relationship. It also considered various declarations, treaties and concessions made to the environment. The paper gave some weaknesses along with strengths of the already established laws in helping to prevent international environmental degradation. It considers stipulations of declarations such the ones made in Rio and Stockholm along with policies formulated by the UN on the environment through the UNFCCC (United Nations Environment Programme, p.89). References A C Kiss & D Shelton, Guide To International Environmental Law, (2nd edn, BRILL 2007) F Morosin, Trade And Climate Change: Unveiling The Principle Of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities From The WTO Agreements, (first published 1992, John Wiley & Sons 2001). M C Bonilla and F Burhenne-Guilmin, Environmental Law In Developing Countries, (4th edn, IUCN 2004). M J Bortscheller, Equitable But Ineffective: How The Principle Of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities Hobbles The Global Fight Against Climate, (5th edn, SAGE, 2008). P Sands, J Peel & R Mackenzie, Principles Of International Environmental Law, (Cambridge University Press, 2012). T Honkonnen, The Common but Differentiated Responsibility Principle in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Regulatory and Policy Aspects, (first published 1982 Kluwer Law international, 2009). United Nations Environment Programme, The Kyoto Protocol: The Clean Development Mechanism And The Building And Construction Sector, (UNEP/ Earthprint 2009). Read More