State Sovereignty in the Planetary Management of Natural Resources

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico J. Schrijver

Protagonists of global environmental governance often view the sovereign State as well as the principle of sovereignty as major stumbling blocks for effective environmental conservation and sustainable development. Some even herald the demise of the idea of the sovereign State. However, reality has it differently. Sovereignty is no longer an unqualified concept. Manifold new duties have been imposed upon the sovereign State as a result of the progressive development of international law. Much of the modern international law movement vests States with the responsibility to adopt regulations, to monitor and secure compliance and exercise justice in order to achieve its implementation, whereas supranational global environmental governance has remained notoriously weak. This article examines this proposition by reference to the environmental and developmental role of states in three landmark multilateral treaties: The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (1982), the Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity (1992) and the Paris Agreement on climate change (2015). They demonstrate that sovereignty serves as a key organisational principle for the realization of global values, such as environmental conservation and sustainable development.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Nico J. Schrijver

Protagonists of global environmental governance often view the sovereign State as well as the principle of sovereignty as major stumbling blocks for effective environmental conservation and sustainable development. Some even herald the demise of the idea of the sovereign State. However, reality has it differently. Sovereignty is no longer an unqualified concept. Manifold new duties have been imposed upon the sovereign State as a result of the progressive development of international law. Much of the modern international law movement vests States with the responsibility to adopt regulations, to monitor and secure compliance and exercise justice in order to achieve its implementation, whereas supranational global environmental governance has remained notoriously weak. This article examines this proposition by reference to the environmental and developmental role of states in three landmark multilateral treaties: The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (1982), the Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity (1992) and the Paris Agreement on climate change (2015). They demonstrate that sovereignty serves as a key organisational principle for the realization of global values, such as environmental conservation and sustainable development.


2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mukul Sanwal

The experience of the last ten years of global environmental negotiations suggests that a new and different approach to international cooperation is required if we are to achieve sustainable development. While multilateral environmental agreements have provided a valuable framework for building a consensus on broad objectives, their implementation requires a focus on the underlying activities that cause environmental degradation. Moreover, globalization encourages the development and use of innovative technologies, leading to a large degree of overlap between global environmental concerns and national sustainable development objectives. These shifts require wholly new perspectives that are based less on determining responsibilities and more on supporting mutually reinforcing transformations. The new approach also looks beyond the state to other stakeholders as contributors to achieving sustainable development.


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina M. Balboa

As the latest iteration of leveraging private resources to protect and sustain our natural resources, the environmental impact bond (EIB) reflects the growing trend in sustainable development that makes financing available to projects based on the verifiable results of an intervention. These new instruments in global environmental governance are not actually bonds but pay-for-success contracts, in which the risk of success is shouldered by the investor, and financial savings, pegged to the intervention outcome, are prioritized. This examination of EIBs through the lens of accountability aims to elicit debate on some areas of concern and consideration for the design and implementation of outcome-based financing for global environmental governance, including the prioritizing of private over public accountabilities and potential perverse incentives these instruments create. As both public and private accountability goals are evident in EIB, this governance tool runs the risk of exacerbating the paradox of increased accountability but decreased environmental gains.


Author(s):  
Melanie Zurba ◽  
Anastasia Papadopoulos

AbstractGlobal environmental governance (GEG) forums, such as those convened through the United Nations, result in the development of monumental guiding frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Conference of Parties (COPs) Aichi and post-2020 targets. The ratification of policy frameworks by member and/or signatory states can result in major shifts in environmental policy and decision-making and has major implications for Indigenous communities. In this article, we present systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on Indigenous participation in GEG forums, and focus on the specific questions: (1) what GEG forums include Indigenous participation and (2) how do Indigenous peoples participate in GEG forums, including how their perspectives and knowledges are framed and/or included/excluded within governance discussions, decisions, and negotiations. We provide a bibliometric analysis of the articles and derive seven inductively determined themes from our review: (1) Critical governance forums and decisions; (2) inclusion and exclusion of Indigenous voices and knowledge in GEG forums; (3) capacity barriers; (4) knowledge hierarchies: inclusion, integration, and bridging; (5) representation and grouping of Indigenous peoples in GEG; (6) need for networks among and between Indigenous peoples and other governance actors; and (7) Indigenous peoples influence on GEG decisions and processes. Our findings can be used to improve GEG forums by contributing to the development strategies that address the barriers and inequities to meaningful and beneficial Indigenous participation and can contribute to future research that is focused on understanding the experiences of Indigenous peoples within GEG forums.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Campbell ◽  
Catherine Corson ◽  
Noella J. Gray ◽  
Kenneth I. MacDonald ◽  
J. Peter Brosius

This special issue introduces readers to collaborative event ethnography (CEE), a method developed to support the ethnographic study of large global environmental meetings. CEE was applied by a group of seventeen researchers at the Tenth Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) to study the politics of biodiversity conservation. In this introduction, we describe our interests in global environmental meetings as sites where the politics of biodiversity conservation can be observed and as windows into broader governance networks. We specify the types of politics we attend to when observing such meetings and then describe the CBD, its COP, challenges meetings pose for ethnographic researchers, how CEE responds to these challenges generally, and the specifics of our research practices at COP10. Following a summary of the contributed papers, we conclude by reflecting on the evolution of CEE over time.


2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fariborz Zelli ◽  
Harro van Asselt

This article introduces a special issue on the expanding research agenda on institutional fragmentation. The term refers to the growing diversity and challenges to coordination among private and public norms, treaties, and organizations that address a given issue area of international politics. International relations scholars increasingly address this phenomenon, framing it with alternative concepts like regime complexes or polycentricity. A considerable part of the existing debate remains focused on whether a centralized or polycentric governance architecture is preferable. Instead, as this special issue shows, domains of global environmental governance—like climate change, biological diversity, renewable energy, and forestry—are already fragmented. It is time to address new, more pertinent questions and help advance institutionalist research on this phenomenon. We introduce four major research themes for analyzing the fragmentation of different domains of global environmental governance: taking stock, causes, consequences, and responses.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Verdinand Robertua ◽  
Arry Bainus

<p>Global environmental governance is deeply undermined due to the problem of overlapping function and lack of funding. It is then important to trace the history of the construction of global environmental governance as an institution. This article would like to understand the dynamics of global environmental governance from Stockholm Conference in 1972 to Rio Conference in 1992. The changes between Stockholm Conference and Rio Conference will be analyzed using English School theory. English School theory has the potential to critically engage with the taken-for-granted norms and institutions. Pluralism and solidarism as the normative wings of English School can elaborate the key driver of global environmental governance. It is expected that this article can contribute to development of environmental studies of English School theory and the formulation of global environmental governance.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong>: <em>global environmental governance, English School theory, Rio Conference, Stockholm Conference, sustainable development</em></p>


Author(s):  
مديحة بخوش ◽  
لزهر فارس

After the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the environmental dimension of development was established to achieve sustainable development. It changes the perception of organizations to harmonize their economic effectiveness with their social and environmental profitability on the one hand. Recent attention has shifted to researching mechanisms to help promote sustainable development, especially the environmental dimension, across the world on the other hand. This study details these mechanisms, in particular environmental governance and citizenship, by providing a framework known as global environmental governance and environmental citizenship. With the presentation of a number of tools that environmental governance and citizenship can activate in the service of sustainable development to allow the transition from theoretical frameworks to the application on the ground based on the descriptive analytical approach. It is expected that the study will identify these two modern concepts in studies (environmental governance and environmental citizenship) and highlights the most important tools used by these concepts in practice to increase attention to the environmental dimension of sustainable development to reach a number of results. Perhaps the most important of which is global environmental governance requires an international, local legal and institutional framework starts from the citizen. To focus environmental citizenship on pro-environmental behaviors in the public and private sectors, this concept should extend beyond the State to the adoption of general international environmental law through several dimensions, beginning with special responsibility: justice in the distribution of resources and collective action to protect the environment. The study concludes with a number of recommendations to alert the importance of these two variables in activating the environmental dimension of sustainable development around the world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document