Common Concern Of Humankind Research Articles

The WTO, Natural Resources, Trade, and Sustainable Development: Commentaries on Recent Trends in International Economic Law

The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources (PSNR) has been fundamental for developing nations to realize their political and economic independence. Increasingly the principle of PSNR has been subjected to pressures which limit the rights granted to states over their natural resources. Principles such as 'common concern of humankind' and 'sustainable development' are adding new goals and limitations to PSNR. The recent case-law of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been the main forum where the principle of PSNR, sustainable development, protection of the environment, and sovereignty have been discussed and yet their repercussions remain unexplored. This research will analyze the current direction of PSNR in WTO case-law; it will identify the current developments in public international law, and it will suggest how the WTO is to develop its treatment of PSNR, bearing in mind the historical calling for PSNR to further economic development.

Researching to better understand the health co-benefits of mitigation

Introduction: The Paris agreement acknowledges that climate change is a common concern of humankind, and it respect, promote and consider the right to health. It also recognizes the social, economic and environmental value of voluntary mitigation actions and their co-benefits for adaptation, health and sustainable development. The purpose of this presentation is to provide a comprehensive methodological guidance for the identification, conceptualization and quantification of health co-benefits and their inclusion in decision-support frameworks. Methods: The identification of the health co-benefits for the consideration of indirect costs and benefits of climate change mitigation was carried out. Major categories of health co-benefits of mitigation policies in different sectors were identified in the literature, with supporting evidence. Results: Quantification of health co-benefits can enable their integration into presently used decision-making frameworks, such as cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis. The rapidly growing evidence that well-planned actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can also bring very large health gains. The most obvious gains would come through reductions in air pollution, but also in other sectors as transport, building and energy. Conclusions: Both climate-sensitive health risks, and the health benefits of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, should be central to any discussion on climate change in particular beyond Paris climate agreement.

Human Rights and Security Impacts of Climate Change and the African Climate Action Strategy

On 12 December 2015 in Paris, France, the 21st Conference of Parties to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, agreed among others, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objectives, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by: a) holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; b) increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; c) making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilient development. This agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances. (Article 2) Parties acknowledged that climate change is a common concern of humankind and should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the right of indigenous people, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.It is against this background that this paper seeks to achieve the following objectives:i. To underscore the significance of the nexus between human rights, security and climate change.ii. To highlight the implications of the effects of climate change and climate change policies on human rights and security (human and national).iii. To examine the rationale and contents of the African Climate action Strategy with a view to determining the extent of African States’ commitments to responding to the effects of climate change on the quality of life and standard of living of Africans as well as their means of livelihood/survival.iv. To conclude with some viable options for Africa.

Offline: Climate—“a common concern of humankind”

Scientists reacted to last weekend's Paris Agreement on climate change with restrained optimism. The goal set out in the final document was strikingly clear—“holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1·5°C”. The Lancet's recent Commission on Health and Climate Change concluded that “Tackling climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century.” But the final agreement left much room for criticism amid the understandable relief that a final document was agreed at all. There are no deadlines for specific emissions targets. Indeed, there are no specific emissions targets. There is no specified date when emissions should peak. There is no plan for how the world will achieve a 1·5–2°C ceiling in temperature rise. Serious action by countries is not required before 2020 and current national pledges fall far short of what is needed to meet their stated goal. All in all, the Paris Agreement left climate scientists anxious. It was too vague on detail and too much the product of lowest-common-denominator diplomacy. And yet such circumspection would be a misreading of the Paris Agreement. Publication of the Agreement is not a final event defining the future of a climate response. It is one step only in a continuing struggle to connect the science of climate change with political and public understanding and action. The final document emerging from the Le Bourget negotiations makes clear that it is up to all those who care about climate change to engage robustly in this struggle. A close reading of the Agreement and its accompanying text should inspire confidence, not anxiety. The next 5 years will not be dormant. There will be intensive further negotiations, technical expert meetings, and high-level events, all building the argument for the benefits and co-benefits of acting faster on climate change. NGOs, the private sector, and academia are all urged to play critical parts in shaping the prevailing political conditions for action. There is special emphasis on promoting public education and participation. By the time 2020 is reached, nations must have submitted long-term strategies for reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions. Regular reports on their progress must be presented to annual Conference of the Parties gatherings. Efforts will be made to strengthen transparency and review procedures over time, with the aim of building mutual trust and confidence. Rules will be put in place for the verification of emissions reductions. There will be periodic “global stocktakes” to ensure promises are being translated into actions. The first will be in 2023, and every 5 years thereafter. A mechanism to promote compliance was established in Paris—an expert committee, whose work will be non-adversarial and non-punitive. The committee will pay particular attention to the circumstances of countries. It will report annually. Financing for climate mitigation and adaptation will be made available for developing nations. The document urges richer countries to scale up financial support to reach a goal of US$100 billion annually by 2020. Does the health community have a part to play in this struggle? Most certainly, yes. The Paris Agreement makes clear that countries, when acting on climate change, have an obligation “to protect people”, and specifically “the right to health”. At a climate and health side event, organised by WHO just before the final round of negotiations, France's Minister of Social Affairs, Health, and Women's Rights, Marisol Touraine, emphasised the importance of including environmental issues in health policy. Universal health coverage, she said, “should be a universal priority”. Hospitals should reduce their energy use, and health professionals should work harder to explain the risks of climate change to human health (“curricula in medical schools are inadequate” to meet this need, she said). The health community can intervene directly in two ways. First, mobilise its vast research capacity to provide solutions to address the climate threat. Second, strengthen independent accountability in countries to accelerate action by governments. On April 22, 2016, political leaders will come together at a signing ceremony to enact the Paris Agreement. What took place at Le Bourget last weekend was a triumph for French diplomacy. It is now up to you and I to make sure that this triumph is translated into public action.

Democratic legitimacy and new commons: examples from English protected areas

This paper explores the relationship between protected areas and commons arguing that protected areas can be seen as a form of new commons because of the different objectives and beneficiaries compared to traditional commons. If the purpose of traditional commons is sustainable resource exploitation, the primary objective of these new commons is the conservation of nature/protection of biodiversity. And if on traditional commons local resource users are the key beneficiaries, in new commons the public at large and future generations are the key beneficiaries as biodiversity is the common concern of human kind. Because of new commons’ different purposes and different set of beneficiaries, normative questions need to be asked regarding who should have a say in their management and who is able to better represent the interests of nature. To answer these questions, the paper draws on deliberative democratic theory. To ground the theoretical insights empirically it presents a comparison between English protected areas at sea and on land designated under national law.

The Kyoto Protocol and Small Island Developing States - The Mauritian Experience

It is now recognized that our planet is facing a growing range of environmental challenges. Ozone depletion, climate change, loss of bio-diversity and the depletion of fresh-water resources, all suggest that the threat to the environment is real and should be immediately tackled. response to environmental problems will determine what type of world future generations will inherit. The increase in international environmental issues is reflected in the large body of principles and rules of international environmental law which apply bilaterally, regionally and globally, reflecting international inter-dependence in a globalizing world. Of all the environmental problems facing the world, climate change is arguably one of the greatest challenges to the international community. The UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 declares that climate change is the common concern of humankind. I have taken up the challenge of contributing to the climate change debate and have chosen to assess the impact of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) on Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The latter are not only the most vulnerable to the threats of climate change, but are often given marginal consideration in many fora. The essay starts with an overview of the history, mechanisms and practices of the KP. Then, there is an expose of the role and contribution of SIDS in implementing the KP and their efforts in negotiating an equitable climate framework. This is undertaken in the light of the concept of environmental justice. Finally, for a practical assessment of the implementation of the principles and provisions of the KP by SIDS, I have conducted a case-study of the Mauritian context.

Intellectual Property Rights and the Conservation of Plant Biodiversity as a Common Concern of Humankind

AbstractThis article makes the case for the obligation to conserve plant biodiversity to be classified as a common concern of humankind, to justify and indeed prescribe limitations on private intellectual property rights over plants and related processes. Within the biodiversity regime, the notion of ‘common concern of humankind’ subjects the permanent sovereignty of states over natural resources to the interests of humanity. It shifts the obligations of states from managing their own plant biodiversity towards conserving it on behalf of humankind. In contrast, TRIPS requires states to protect private intellectual property rights with little discretion to adequately balance them with public interests. This creates a dichotomy. This article argues that rather than mobilizing state sovereignty as rhetoric to distract from addressing common concerns of humankind, it should be constructed as a concept capable of facilitating these very concerns.

The Forest for the Trees

81 While traveling recently in the thick of Brazil’s western Amazon, I spotted a flash of bright color amid the blackened stumps of a vast rainforest clear-cut. It was a painted jochi. This large, guinea pig-like rodent had wandered out into the charred wasteland from the tiny remnant of forest that remained its home. It poked around, looking for food, nibbling on what used to be underbrush. A macaw swooshed overhead, not a nest to be found. As I walked out into the clear-cut, a snake slithered across the hot, dark earth, searching for insects, of which there were none. For a moment, I imagined I was standing in empty sea, drained of its waters, and its creatures—dolphins, herring, rockfish—were helplessly flailing around. Global deforestation, happening at a rate of about 32 million acres a year, impacts not just flora and fauna, but people, too. Human cultural diversity, like species diversity, gets thicker around the equator. The destruction of forests like the Amazon contributes to what amounts to an ongoing genocide. The world’s indigenous people, once hunters and gatherers living in the heart of the rainforests, are becoming “environmental refugees,” pushed into conflict with their equally poor rural neighbors, or forced to migrate into Third World urban sprawl. There, they become “pavement Indians,” unable to assimilate, begging for scraps on street corners. These charcoal-black clear-cuts, like the one I walked through, are the literal “black holes” in the international system, the places where Pandora’s Box has been opened and apparently cannot be closed. Despite four decades of the international community grappling with deforestation—from the Club of Rome commissioned 1972 book “The Limits to Growth” (which warned that exponential growth negatively interacts with finite resources like forests) to the Brundtland Commission’s 1987 report “Our Common Future” (which declared that sustainable development must “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”) to the 1992 Earth Summit’s Convention on Biodiversity (which outlined, for the first time in international law, that conservation is “a common concern of humankind”)—one startling fact remains: today, an acre of rainforest is razed every two minutes. This is because none of these approaches, conferences, or international debates has adequately addressed the basic existence of a global market failure in the forestry sector. Despite the undeniable global benefit from preserving the forests, I have seen all too often farmers and local William Powers is a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute and the author of Whispering in the Giant’s Ear: A Frontline Chronicle from Bolivia’s War on Globalization (Bloomsbury, 2006) and the forthcoming Twelve by Twelve (New World Library, 2010).

Financial Cooperation, Rio Conventions and Common Concerns

A common feature of the three Rio conventions is the introduction of financial cooperation as a means of engaging developing countries and enabling their participation. The rationale for including such financial cooperation clauses is largely based on the pronouncement that biological diversity, climate change and combating desertification are a common concern of humankind – an alternative expression of the concept ‘global public goods’. All three treaties have advanced from an initial round of institutional establishment, policy elaboration and a moderate degree of implementation, to a principal focus on implementation. Their provisions on financial cooperation are thus becoming all the more prominent. The success of implementing the three treaties will be greatly dependent on the extent and effectiveness of implementing their financial cooperation provisions. Recent international negotiations have demonstrated that any or all stakeholders – donors, recipients, intermediaries and even the convention secretariats – could become the targets of blame for any failure in these implementation phases.

Recent Developments

At the 1999 International Botanical Congress held in St Louis, Missouri, the President of the Congress, Dr Peter Raven, presented a keynote address emphasizing the importance of plants to human existence and underlined concerns that the Earth is undergoing a human-induced extinction crisis. One of the resolutions of the congress was to establish a new co-ordinating body associated with the United Nations to monitor the status of plants throughout the world and take steps to conserve them. The resolutions were followed up with a meeting in Gran Canaria on 3–4 April, 2000 when leading botanists met to formulate a declaration which could be taken forward to the fifth Conference of the Parties (CoP5) to the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Nairobi in May 2000. CoP5 recognized that plant diversity is a common concern of humankind and an essential resource for the planet, with as many as two-thirds of the world's plant species in danger of extinction, and proposed that at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP6) the establishment of a global strategy for plant conservation should be considered. A strategy with 16 targets was presented and adopted at the CoP6 meeting held in The Hague in April 2002. These targets differ from the normal approach adopted in the Convention on Biological Diversity of using general principles that can be interpreted by national policy, in that they are quantified.