I would like to address Frank Biermann’s argument for a
world environmental organization in his paper “The Case for a World Environment
Organization.” Biermann makes the argument that the current international
system as it relates to the environment is lacking in three main areas: policy
coordination, technological advancement in developing countries, and
enforcement of international environmental initiatives. I would like to discuss
the main pros and cons of Biermann’s argument and briefly present my own
viewpoint on the viability of a world environmental organization.
Biermann argues that policy coordination in the
international arena becomes difficult and quite fragmented when dealing with
environmental issues. This fragmentation is due to the fact that there is no
central governing body that deals with international environmental issues, much
as there is a World Trade Organization that governs trade and a World Health
Organization that governs health. Biermann states that the closest governing
body that exists is the United Nations Environment Programme; however, this is
merely a subsidiary body of the General Assembly and not a specialized UN
organization. The main pro of this argument is that it encourages greater
unification of international actors to work towards a common solution. On the
downside, such coordination among nations can be quite difficult when
considering something as broad a scope as climate change or transboundary
pollution, both important international environmental issues. I agree with
Biermann’s point that coordination in environmental issues can be difficult at
the international scale; however, I would like to add that such coordination is
not impossible. I also believe that UNEP, if utilized properly, could
potentially act as a strong governing body of international environmental
issues. This would require expanding its scope and mission and potentially
drawing more nations onboard.
Biermann also raises the point that it has become necessary
for developing countries to partake in “capacity-building” procedures that
would strengthen their abilities to deal with environmental problems. However,
such action would be unable to occur in today’s fragmented system of
international relations. It is such that the creation of a world environmental
organization becomes necessary to bridge the divide between the developed and
developing worlds. The main pro of this argument is that it looks at the developed
and developing world as two entities working together, rather than completely
separately. Because these two entities are required to work together, bridging
the gap between them becomes necessary. On the other hand, placing the
responsibility for the welfare of the developing world on developed countries
may seem unfair and overwhelming. I strongly agree with Biermann’s argument
that a world environmental organization becomes necessary when looking at the
current system of global development. Because developed countries such as the
US, Canada, Japan, and those of Western Europe are largely responsible for
hot-button issues such as climate change, the responsibility for lending a
helping hand to developing countries falls mainly on them. Without the assistance
of technologically-advanced nations, developing countries will never be able to
reach the point where they are able to mitigate the environmental damage that
they too create. Considering the fact that the developing world contains the
majority of the world’s population, it is clear that environmental damage
occurs in these countries as well; however, without the necessary technological
mechanisms in place, mitigating these damages becomes impossible. It is such
that a world environmental organization becomes necessary under these
circumstances.
Finally, Biermann argues that the establishment of a world
environmental organization would greatly help regime-building processes take
place and would allow for better implementation of international environmental
law. The main pro of this argument is that it would solve any enforcement
difficulties surrounding international environmental initiatives. On the
downside, bringing about such enforcement may seem far too lofty a goal to introduce
to countries that are already having trouble dealing with their own
environmental issues. This would require using UNEP as a central anchoring
point for international environmental issues. In considering this argument, it
is important understand that environmental issues are both broad in scope and various
in location. Issues such as air and water pollution, ozone depletion, and
climate change are never limited to just one area. Coal burning in China
creates smog in downtown Los Angeles. The use of aerosols in Canada depletes
the ozone layer above the North Pole. And climate change—arguably the most
pressing environmental issue we face—is a result of the collective use of
fossil fuels all around the world. No one country can be burdened with the
responsibility of dealing with these issues because they are created by all. In
addition, enforcing environmental law becomes exceedingly difficult when the
issues cross international boundaries. This problem is complicated by the fact
that each country in the world possesses sovereignty over its territory. This
means that a country has exclusive authority over what occurs within its
boundaries and that other countries cannot govern within that country’s
territory. This means that one country cannot force compliance with
environmental initiatives on another country. When we look at this fact, it
becomes clear that the development of a central governing body on the
environment is absolutely necessary. International law is difficult to enforce,
but the presence of a UN organization overseeing environmental issues would do
plenty to mitigate this difficulty.
I would like to conclude by briefly presenting my viewpoint
on Biermann’s argument. I believe that an international environmental
organization is necessary to mitigating today’s environmental crisis. However,
we must first ask: is such an organization viable? An international
organization would aid in capacity-building throughout the developing world,
solve the fragmentation problem, and help enforce international environmental
law. But international law is difficult to enforce. I believe that in order for
such enforcement to take place, countries must find a way to work together in
the international arena. With the failure of agreements such as Kyoto and
Copenhagen, it becomes unclear whether this will be possible. I believe that
with the right time and effort, an international environmental organization can
be created.
No comments:
Post a Comment