Effective non-compliance procedures have been more the exception rather than the rule in multilateral environment agreements
The international environmental laws that were produced in the 1992 Kyoto Protocol is one that continued to establish over the years in their non-compliance. The agreement for international law has shown that while there may be an international protocol to follow, individual laws with regards to the decisions of the country for their own safety are also in effect. The agreements are done through legal claims which is held and recognized internationally. Moreover, international laws are also based on the hold of the United Nations Organization when it comes to the membership of the people. In the United Nations Environment Programme discussed the ideas of non-compliance especially with regards to the decisions of the Parties and how this can be practiced depending on the country’s policies. In the effect of non-compliance, it is not the rule of the higher organizations to focus on, yet it is based on the ideas of the government on how the corporations are able to meet the requirements of the country’s environmental law. Multilateral environmental agreements depend on the relationships and the arrangements made by several countries especially as based on their findings. Such of the discussed subjects were the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants[1] and Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.[2]
Companies that do not comply to the procedures that were given to them shows that they are more likely to focus on the environmental problems that the people are having. Sand[3] pointed out that the environment is everyone’s concern especially in providing for climatic security, biological security, and chemical security. Such may be achieved by enforcing such laws within the country. Environmental consciousness is becoming one of the most discussed subjects in countries, one of which is Australia which has also taken part of. The method that is being used here is more on the federal ruling rather than the absolute enforcement, thus showing that there is more focus on the exception.[4]
While taking part in the effort to ensure the environmental security of the country, Australia also takes part in establishing the ways in which they can ensure the safety of their own area, especially by focusing on the international laws that have been established within the country and also the ones that were placed on them as mandated with their multilateral environment agreements. There are some methods in dealing with the non-compliance of the environmental treaties especially with the multilateral environmental issues.[5]
One of the advantages of the multilateral environmental agreements is that the shared vantage of the point gives more advantage regarding the ideas that the countries and the organizations may use, and thus they may effectively ensure the security of the methods that they may use for the protection of the country, especially as based on their co-existence in a pre-defined space. By being vigilant in their investigations, the members of the organizations will be able to determine the methods that may be used in the establishment of their powers. Saunders[6] elaborated the constitutional treaties within the Australian continent and the legislations as based on the various ways that the state can exercise their power. One of the discussed subjects is the inconsistency of the legislation concerning the discussion of their laws, especially when it comes to the determination of the validity of some claims. Moreover, it was also pointed out that there have been questions on the validity of some claims when it comes to the responsibilities of states and the ways that they believe they should take care of their environment.
It is the need for the responsible take that the government have on their assigned turfs. Enforcement of legislations should be followed by the different states and also the agreements must be based on the established acts that are already being enforce within their own states. This lessens the confusion that the other states may have when it comes to dealing with the policies of other states and also gives a relative basis on the similarities of their environmental capabilities.
Information flow is also one of the most major concerns, and the exchange of knowledge has to be established as based on the agreement. In doing so, there is also the need for the agreement regarding the scientific developments and researches that the countries are having. It was pointed out, however, that such agreements are more likely to be established based on the economic advantages rather than the environmental advantages that these may bring to the states.[7] The flow of information between the stipulated states may give the legislators the idea on how to handle the precarious differences that states hold on their laws.
The exception rule that the Australian government has focused is one that shows an almost passive reaction to problems that are currently showing. Scientific researches have continued to reiterate the great changes that have been occurring over the years and how they will affect the different parts of the world, yet this has been treated as more of a warning rather than a real occurrence. The specific enforcement of the legislation may send message to the people regarding their lack of actions regarding the matter, especially when it comes to the dissemination of information that may be helpful for the outcome.
At the same time, exception may also bring some problems regarding the possibility of sustainable development that the country may have, especially in taking advantage of the knowledge that are given. While it has been given that Australia has several resources that can be protected, these knowledge that are continuously being discovered can be used to establish better protection and security for the environment while also establishing a way that they can continue to support the demands of the people. At the same time, the availability of information and new regulations that will control not only the environmental use but also the abuse of the resources may be helpful. This is not simply the question on whether these should be the decisions of other states within the agreements but they are all part of the decisions that the legislators have to decide on for the future of the country and—more importantly—the people.
References
“Australia” in Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 1998 ed.
Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. 2001, December 11, [on-line]; available from http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm
Holland, K. M. (1996). “Introduction.” In Federalism and the Environment: Environmental Policymaking in Australia, Canada, and the United States, ed. Brian Galligan, Kenneth M. Holland, F. L. Morton, 3-16. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Palmer, Geoffrey. 1992. New Ways to Make International Environmental Law. American Journal of International Law 86: 259-283.
Redgewell, Catherine. n.d. Non-Compliance Procedures and the Climate Change Convention [on-line]; available from http://www.geic.or.jp/climgov/03.pdf
Saunders, Cheryl. 1996. The Constitutional Division of Powers with Respect to the Environment in Australia. In Federalism and the Environment: Environmental Policymaking in Australia, Canada, and the United States, ed. Brian Galligan, Kenneth M. Holland, F. L. Morton, 55-76. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. 2001, May 22. [on-line]; available from http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/ September2003/report.htm.
[1] Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. 2001, May 22. [on-line]; available from http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/September2003/report.htm.
[2] Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. 2001, December 11, [on-line]; available from http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm
[3] Palmer, Geoffrey. 1992. New Ways to Make International Environmental Law. American Journal of International Law 86: 259-283.
[4] Holland, K. M. (1996). “Introduction.” In Federalism and the Environment: Environmental Policymaking in Australia, Canada, and the United States, ed. Brian Galligan, Kenneth M. Holland, F. L. Morton, 3-16. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
[5] Redgewell, Catherine. n.d. Non-Compliance Procedures and the Climate Change Convention [on-line]; available from http://www.geic.or.jp/climgov/03.pdf
[6] Saunders, Cheryl. 1996. The Constitutional Division of Powers with Respect to the Environment in Australia. In Federalism and the Environment: Environmental Policymaking in Australia, Canada, and the United States, ed. Brian Galligan, Kenneth M. Holland, F. L. Morton, 55-76. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
[7] “Australia” in Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 1998 ed.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment