Number Of Multilateral Environmental Agreements Research Articles

The Role of Multilateral Environmental Agreements in Armed Conflict: ‘Green-keeping’ in Virunga Park. Applying the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in the Armed Conflict of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

This article analyses the application of the 1972 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention (the WHC) in the context of the armed conflicts that have taken place in the Virunga National Park (the Park), a natural world heritage site in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the DRC). Instead of addressing wartime environmental damage under the law of armed conflict, this article seeks to establish how such damage can be addressed using multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). MEAs often consist of general principles and vague obligations and their relevance or applicability during situations of armed conflict may be questioned. However, a number of MEAs, including the WHC, authorise their convention bodies to develop detailed and substantive obligations applicable to their parties. Thus, the decisions and recommendations adopted by the World Heritage Committee, a body established under the WHC, provide substantive content to the provisions of the WHC. These decisions and recommendations may, however, run counter to the requirements of military necessity thereby affecting the application of the law of armed conflict. While the position adopted by the World Heritage Committee does not inevitably imply a clash between the obligations in the WHC and the law of armed conflict, it does raise the question of whether the outstanding values of world heritage should trump the rules of military necessity and other pressing concerns during armed conflict. On an informal basis, the World Heritage Committee and the UN peacekeeping forces deployed in the DRC have agreed to perform operations that jointly address the interconnected concerns of security and conservation of natural resources in the region of the Park. This cooperative ‘green-keeping’ operation represents a useful approach to regime interaction and the harmonisation of obligations set out in different legal regimes that are applicable to the same subject matter.

Integrated land degradation monitoring and assessment: Horizontal knowledge management at the national and international levels

AbstractThe need for improved horizontal knowledge management at the national and international levels is essential for monitoring and assessment of land degradation and desertification. At the national level, governments utilise scientific, socio‐economic and technical data and information for strategic planning, priority setting and national environment and development planning. However, challenges including the lack of capacity and lack of collaboration and sharing of information across governments affect responses to and the effectiveness of monitoring and knowledge exchange, along with the ability to effectively implement treaties. At the international level, a number of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) share cross‐sectoral themes related to research and monitoring, information exchange, technology transfer, capacity building and financial resources. The need for increased synergies stems from the similarities between the issues they address. Challenges for improving knowledge management at the international level include insufficient interaction between the scientific bodies of the various MEAs; duplication of reporting, monitoring and assessment efforts; limited knowledge management between the various assessments addressing ecosystems and biological diversity during the past decade; and insufficient collaboration between the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the UN system and the international non‐governmental organisation (NGO) community. This paper examines these challenges and offers recommendations on how monitoring and assessment knowledge can be better managed at the national and international levels. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Multilateral Environmental Agreements Up to 2050: Are They Sustainable Enough?

Today, reducing CO2 emissions is a global target which nearly all countries in the world prioritize. Some countries have ratified up to 30 multilateral environmental agreements regarding the atmosphere up to 2006. This number has been surging since 1989 after the ratification of the Montreal Protocol. Following the findings of the inverted U-shaped Environmental Kuznets Curve and applying a spline model, I can show the beneficial impact of the rising number of multilateral environmental agreements on the forecasts of CO2 emissions up to 2050. My results indicate that the number of atmosphere-related multilateral environmental agreements generates good will among global cooperation efforts towards reducing CO2 emissions and therefore provides a good basis for effective programs to stop climate change.

Environmental Goods and Services Negotiations at the WTO: Lessons from Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Ecolabels for Breaking the Impasse

This analysis looks for paths to progress in the WTO’s stalled negotiations on environmental goods and services – a set of talks that is frequently cited as trade policy’s natural contribution to climate change objectives. It surveys the experience of a number of multilateral environmental agreements – The Rotterdam Convention (Prior Informed Consent or PIC), the Stockholm Convention (Persistent Organic Pollutants or POPs) and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora – and ecolabels (looking at coffee, fisheries and the Energy Star label). The results of the survey and a new taxonomy for environmental goods are used to create six recommendations for moving forward.

Development or the Environment

Problem statement: The relationship between trade and environment is very complex though development and environment are invariably related to each other. There is a close relationship between development and conservation of the environment. The relationship between the WTO and MEAs is reducing and eliminating barriers to trade in environmental goods and services. This relation was acknowledged in 1972 Stockholm Conference on Human Environment. Over the past 20 years, an extraordinary number of international environmental agreements have been concluded. Very few MEAs actually regulate trade or contain trade-related provisions. Theoretically, MEA trade measures and WTO rules can and should interact in a positive and synergistic way. Approach: The main aim of this paper/research is to find out whether the international law has any method of dispute resolution or a systematic approach towards the ongoing debate between the environment and trade which is interlinked in a very complex manner. The resolution of these complex inter-linkages has become a challenge which we have to face. Results: The author had tried to highlight the complex relationship of WTO-MEA where both the environment and trade policy makers prefer unilateral solution for the environmental problem. Resorting to such unilateralism can pose a risk of arbitrary discrimination. The source of the conflict between the WTO and MEAs lies within the measures contained in MEA's and WTO rules. For example, the violation of WTOs non-discrimination principle by MEAs. The two vital questions that occurred were whether trade measures under multilateral environmental agreements are compatible with WTO rules and If MEA-related disputes are brought to the WTO system, should the WTO discourse on the relationship between the WTO and MEAs? Conclusion: Both trade and environment are crucial for the well being of human society. What is most important is to strike a proper balance between free trade and environmental protection. There are a large number of multilateral environmental agreements. Although Special Trade Obligations (STOs) can be found in only a minority, these MEAs usually incorporate environmental norms that may result in clashes with trade norms of the WTO. One of the major steps is to control trade, as it is contributing to environmental damage. The other is by providing additional incentives to join MEAs and restricting non-parties to trade with parties in restricted goods. e.g., Montreal Protocol bans trade with non-parties in ozone-depleting substances. If a conflict arise in the future between the WTO Agreements and other rules of international law, WTO dispute settlement bodies will have to consider recognized rules under public international law to settle the conflict. In the context of a dispute between two WTO members, any WTO member that considers that any of its WTO benefits have been nullified or impaired it has an absolute right to trigger the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and request consultations and the establishment of a panel.