International Environment Policy Regime - Essay Example

With regard to environment issues and climate change, is there a Northern v Southern hemisphere division regarding the protection of the environment?What role can international law play in addressing this division? Introduction The evolution of international environment policy regime has been strongly influenced by the tensions between the industrialised countries in the global north and less industrialised countries of global south. The great environmental protection divide that exists between the global south and global north is even expressed in legal frameworks such as UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol. The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro marked a paradigm shift in the agenda setting of the international environmental protection regime. It addressed the central concern that the existence of myriad forms of global inequality in the development of technology, income and national power is a major hurdle for bringing a unified environmental protection policy in. Boydell asserts that “historic interactions between South and North have had a lasting impact on the society and economy of nations, to greater benefit of the North than the South” (Boydell, 2008, p.1). Many a theorist argues that it is colonialism that caused the present vulnerability in the realm environmental protection and climate change in the developing countries. Also, it has been noted that unsustainable production and consumption patterns prevalent in the global north are the primary culprit for the current environmental degradation. The 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm itself has been seen by the developing countries as an attempt of developed countries to block the developmental potentials of the countries of global south. Therefore, Boydell is of the opinion that “the disparities between North and South, and the interaction of poverty and environmental degradation mean that principles of equity and justice are inseparable from environmental debate” (Boydell, 2008, p.3). Divided Planet and the Uncertain Future It has been observed that there is a substantially different attitude towards environmental protection policies between the countries of the Northern and Southern hemispheres (Evans & Newnham, 1998 p. 200). The multiple ways in which concerns and policies to reduce environmental degradation as well as pollution is reacted to in the economically developed Northern hemisphere nation states compared to the economically developing or undeveloped Southern hemisphere countries (Nicholson, 2002 p. 5). There are arguably economic, political, and social factors, which when studied in combination can assist in examining whether or not there is a Northern v Southern hemisphere divisions regarding the protection of the environment (Hobsbawm, 1994 p. 495). These divisions have arguably existed for centuries yet the increasing levels of climate change might make their reduction in order to reverse environmental damage highly important (Klein, 2007 p. 105). Scientific research into the harmful consequences of climate change as well as environmental degradation has led to international agreements, yet it is debatable whether or not international law assists in the promotion of environmental sustainability (Palmowski, 2008 p. 382). There are certainly pragmatic reasons for assuming that there is a Northern v Southern hemisphere division with regard to the protection or otherwise of the global environment (Woodruff, 2005 p. 355). The countries of the Northern hemisphere are generally more economically developed than their counterparts in the Southern hemisphere (Watson, 1997 p. 320). The countries of the Northern hemisphere such as Great Britain, France, Germany, and the United States actually industrialised their national economies long before any of the Southern hemisphere nation states ever did (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 10). The industrialisation of the most advanced capitalist countries of the Northern hemisphere was indeed greatly assisted by their exploitation of natural resources both from domestic and foreign sources with virtually no regard for the environmental damage subsequently caused (Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 120). After all the nation states of the Southern hemisphere have for centuries had their labour and also their resources exploited to satisfy the high demand for commodities, consumer goods, and luxuries in the Northern hemisphere countries (Smith, 2003 p. 5). The governments as well as the populations of the Southern hemisphere countries have wanted to develop their national economies in order to catch up with the higher living standards of the developed countries, with damaging consequences in terms of worsening global climatic changes (Bannock, Baxter, & Davis, 2003 p. 180). Economic development especially via industrialisation generated wealth, increased the consumption of raw materials whilst adversely effecting the global environment. The countries of the Northern hemisphere that developed first gained the highest standards of living, consumed the most at the same time as polluting the most (Evans & Newnham, 1998 p. 150). The Southern hemisphere countries have suffered the most due to the division between the developed and the undeveloped countries, and in theory would support legal measures that increased their chances of improving their living standards whilst slowing down climate change (Turner, 2000 p. 10). In theory at least international law has the capacity to reduce the Northern v Southern hemisphere divisions that have influenced environment issues, and also climate change (Nicholson, 2002 p. 215). International law could allow the poorer countries of the Southern hemisphere to reduce their contributions to climate change by assigning technical or financial aid to them from the more developed Northern hemisphere countries (Palmowski, 2008 p.727). It would certainly be possible to use international law to increase the expertise going from Northern hemisphere countries through to Southern hemisphere states as the latter are more prone to the devastating consequences of environmental pollution and climate change (Woodruff, 2005 p. 360). International environmental conventions and agreements concerning environment issues and climate change have been adopted in the past on legal grounds or upon a voluntary basis (Nicholson, 2002 p. 25). Such international agreements might have their own legal procedures or instead have to rely upon all the countries that ratify them to voluntarily to fully comply with pollution and climate change reduction targets (Klare, 2008 p. 37). International law is frequently enacted via transnational bodies and organisations such as the UN, the EU, and the WTO that could take an interest in the Northern v Southern hemisphere division. Theoretically the UN is the main international organisation, which is in the best position to use international law in order to decrease the Northern v Southern hemisphere divisions and thus to take more effective steps to reduce climate change (Klare, 2008 p. 12). To back up such an assertation it can be pointed out that the UN was the prime mover bhind the Rio Earth Summit and the Kyoto Protocol that were convened in order to tackle increased levels of global warming. However both events are also ample demonstrations that there are limits to the capacity of international law to alter Northern v Southern hemisphere divisions in relation to climate change (Palmowski, 2008 p. 727). Although it would theoretically be possible to reduce Northern v Southern hemisphere divisions regarding climate change using international law it is unlikely to happen. The Northern v Southern hemisphere divisions have been caused by decades if not centuries of uneven economic, political and social developments that could take decades to be evened out. International law could only assist in reducing the Northern v Southern hemisphere divisions through considerable economic and financial transfers from North to South, which are very unlikely to take place. Conclusion Most of the international environmental agreements such as UN Framework Convention for Climate Change are not adequately addressing the issue of inequality. The notion of consensual sustainable development is the only solution available to the Global North-South divide in the international environment protection policy regime. For the materialisation of the sustainable development, it is necessary that the Global North must play proactive historical role in co-operation with the Global South. The responsibilities of environmental protection must be common but differentiated between Global North and Global South as the available resources and capabilities vary greatly between them. It plainly means that the duty of climate change mitigation primarily lies in the shoulders of Global North as it is the only possible way out. The stalemate created by the negative attitude of developed countries must be overcome as early as possible through the paradigm of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bibliography Bannock, Baxter, & Davis, (2003) Penguin Dictionary of Economics, Penguin, London Boydell, E. (2008). A Different Divide? Pacific Island Countries and North-South Agendas in the evolution of Global Climate Policy. Vol. IV. Cross Sections. Brown C with Ainley K (2005) Understanding International Relations – 3rd edition Eatwell R & Wright A (2003) Contemporary Political Ideologies 3rd edition, Continuum, London Engfeldt, L., (2002) ʹThe Road from Stockholm to Johannesburgʹ. 39. (3) United Nations Chronicle. Hobsbawm E, (1994) Age Of Extremes 1914 – 1991, Michael Joseph, London Klare (2008) Rising powers, Shrinking Planet, Oneworld, Oxford Klein N (2007) Shock Doctrine, Penguin Books, London Palmowski J, (2008) Oxford Dictionary Of Contemporary World History, Oxford University Press, Oxford Parks, B. and Roberts, J. T. (2006). ʹGlobalization, Vulnerability to Climate Change and Perceived Injusticeʹ. 19. (4) Society and Natural Resources Nicholson (2002) International Relations, Mac Millan. London Smith D, (2003) Easily Digestible Economics, Continumm. London Turner A (2000) Just Capital – World Economics, London Watson J (1997) Success In World History, John Murray, London Woodruff W, (2005) A Concise History of the World, Abacus, London Read More