National polarization and international agreements

The network of international environmental agreements (IEAs) has been characterized as a complex adaptive system (CAS) in which the uncoordinated responses of nation states to changes in the conditions addressed by particular agreements may generate seemingly coordinated patterns of behavior at the level of the system. Unfortunately, since the rules governing national responses are ill understood, it is not currently possible to implement a CAS approach. Polarization of both political parties and the electorate has been implicated in a secular decline in national commitment to some IEAs, but the causal mechanisms are not clear. In this paper, we explore the impact of polarization on the rules underpinning national responses. We identify the degree to which responsibility for national decisions is shared across political parties and calculate the electoral cost of party positions as national obligations under an agreement change. We find that polarization typically affects the degree but not the direction of national responses. Whether national commitment to IEAs strengthens or weakens as national obligations increase depends more on the change in national obligations than on polarization per se. Where the rules governing national responses are conditioned by the current political environment, so are the dynamic consequences both for the agreement itself and for the network to which it belongs. Any CAS analysis requires an understanding of such conditioning effects on the rules governing national responses.

Trade and Environment: A Mutually Supportive Interpretation of WTO Agreements in Light of Multilateral Environmental Agreements

<p>This paper considers how the WTO can make better use of the principle of “mutual supportiveness” as an interpretative tool. It examines the success of the WTO in enhancing the relationship between trade and environment and between the WTO agreements and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs); compares the different interpretative approaches in the United States – Shrimp and EC –Biotech; and argues that a mutually supportive approach that allows consideration of MEAs that are not binding on WTO parties does not change the rights and obligations of WTO members.</p>

Trade and Environment: A Mutually Supportive Interpretation of WTO Agreements in Light of Multilateral Environmental Agreements

<p>This paper considers how the WTO can make better use of the principle of “mutual supportiveness” as an interpretative tool. It examines the success of the WTO in enhancing the relationship between trade and environment and between the WTO agreements and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs); compares the different interpretative approaches in the United States – Shrimp and EC –Biotech; and argues that a mutually supportive approach that allows consideration of MEAs that are not binding on WTO parties does not change the rights and obligations of WTO members.</p>

Implementation of International Environmental Law

International environmental law is a key governance instrument for the protection of the environment. Countries take on a range of obligations when they join multilateral environmental agreements. This chapter presents a comparative assessment of the implementation of international environmental law in 13 countries for four agreements dealing with pollution and conservation. It offers an empirical assessment based on the Environmental Conventions Index (ECI) developed at the Center for Governance and Sustainability at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and compares performance across four key categories: regulation, management, information, and technical measures. The analysis establishes a baseline for assessing the implementation of international environmental law and explaining the impact of national characteristics, policies, and actions on the fulfillment and effectiveness of international environmental agreements.

An overview about the feasibility of the hydrogen power plants

In order to make the decision to implement a project from any domain, several aspects must be analyzed in the preliminary stage, leading to the justification of the practical realization of the project. Feasibility is based on technical-economic criteria but also involves other impact factors, such as social and ecological. In the case of hydrogen, there are not many countries with experience in the field, but in the future it is expected that hydrogen technologies will expand, from production, transport, storage, distribution and use. There are more and more factors that encourage the development of hydrogen projects and the funding proposed through European environmental agreements is a real challenge for specialists. Therefore, the authors of the paper aimed to analyze several aspects of the feasibility of hydrogen production and storage projects with the identification of implementation conditions: benefits, efficiency, costs, sources of funding, entities involved, constraints or legislative framework.

Do We Need an International Instrument for the Recognition of the Right to a Healthy Environment?

Environmental degradation is continuing globally despite various international environmental treaties. If the right to a healthy environment is recognised by a global instrument, this international recognition of this right could enhance the implementation and enforcement of various multilateral environmental agreements. Moreover, the international recognition of this right to a healthy environment could create a level playing field at the international level to ensure better balancing of competing interests. Furthermore, an international instrument for the recognition of this right is necessary to address many environmental challenges including climate change, the loss of biodiversity, marine pollution, long-range air pollution and plastic pollution which have global or trans-boundary dimensions. A second optional protocol to the ICESCR as an international instrument for the recognition of the right to a healthy environment could be adopted. It would be the best option for the adoption of an international instrument to recognise the right to a healthy environment.

The Belt and Road Initiative in North Eurasia: Changing Geographies and the UNECE Multilateral Environmental Agreements

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched by China in 2013 to increase economic and transport connectivity along the Eurasian continent and beyond, has posed unprecedented environmental and social risks, many of which are transboundary in nature. International legal tools contained in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) can play an important role in mitigating such transboundary risks across space and time, as well as reduce the negative impacts of large infrastructure projects, such as are being developed under the auspices of the BRI. However, the adoption of MEA policy tools has been very uneven across the continent. Three conventions in particular, the 1991 Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment, the 1998 Aarhus Convention, and the 1992 Helsinki Water Convention (the UNECE MEAs) - have the least amount of ratifications by BRI countries. In this paper we discuss these three conventions and demonstrate their relevance in addressing the transboundary risks of large infrastructure projects which require complex coordination and long-term planning.Extended ratification of these UNECE MEAs by nations along the BRI corridors should significantly assist in positively changing geographies by minimizing BRI environmental risks and threats on a transboundary and national dimension, but simultaneously (i) create a more unified approach towards sustainability across the BRI, (ii) raise involvement (and likely subsequent) support within communities for BRI projects, (iii) help to reduce related economic risks throughout Eurasia.