Resolution of the United States-Canadian Conflict Over Acid Rain Controls

Abstract

The 1989 and 1990 economic summits in Paris and Houston, as well as the 1992 Rio Summit, suggest a growing global commitment to protect the environment. In this context, it is important to understand the causes of conflict among states over environmental issues as well as the factors that inhibit or facilitate dispute resolution. To that end, a number of theoretical frameworks attempt to explain the outcome of pollution-related conflicts. Four of these frameworks are assessed here for their relevance in understanding the conflict between Canada and the United States over acid rain controls and its eventual resolution. A meta-regimes analysis predicts the range of possible outcomes consistent with prevailing political and economic norms and principles. An interest-based explanation predicts the initial bargaining positions of the two countries and the decade-long intransigence to agreement within the United States. An epistemic community analysis identifies the importance of both the knowledge base and issue-area experts. Negotiations analysis, which addresses the dynamics among many of the foregoing factors, also ensures that the potential influence of all affected stakeholders is included, and incorporates nonobvious issue linkages. As the acid rain case demonstrates, each of the frameworks provides partial insights. To understand the whole it is useful to integrate the frameworks.