The Evolution of International Environmental Law
The Evolution of International Environmental Law
The Evolution of International Environmental Law
2011
This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author.
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub
ARTICLES
Introduction
I. From 1900-1972: Early Glimmers
II. From 1972-1992: Development of Basic Framework
1. 1972: The United Nations Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment
2. After the Stockholm Conference
III. From 1992-2012: Maturation and Linkage
1. 1992: The United Nations Rio Conference on Environment and
Development
2. After the Rio Conference
Concluding Observations
Introduction
In the last forty years, international environmental law has evolved rapidly, as
environmental risks have become more apparent and their assessment and man-
agement more complex. In 1972, there were only a few dozen multilateral agree-
ments, and most countries lacked environmental legislation. In 2011, there are
hundreds of multilateral and bilateral environmental agreements and all countries
have one or more environmental statutes and/or regulations. Many actors in ad-
dition to States shape the development, implementation of, and compliance with
international environmental law. Moreover, environment is increasingly integrated
with economic development, human rights, trade, and national security. Analyzing
the evolution of international environmental law helps us understand the possibil-
ities and the limitations of law in addressing environmental problems, whether
globally, regionally, or locally.
The evolution of international environmental law can be separated into three
distinct periods: from 1900-1972, from 1972-1992; and from 1992-2012. These cor-
Concern for the environment is ancient and embedded in the major religious
traditions. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, for example, God gave the earth to his
people and their offspring as an everlasting possession to be passed down to each
generations and exhorted people not to cut down fruit bearing trees during war-
fare.' Other religions similarly show respect for nature.2 For centuries, countries
have developed rules for the use of shared watercourses and rights to water.
However, before 1900 few international agreements were concerned with interna-
tional environmental issues. The prevailing rule of international law was that
of national sovereignty over natural resources within a country's territory or
jurisdiction. The few international agreements focused primarily on boundary
waters, navigation, and fishing rights. With few exceptions, they did not address
pollution issues.'
In the early twentieth century, countries concluded at least four agreements to
protect species of commercial value, including migratory birds, birds useful to ag-
riculture, fur seals, and wild animals, birds and fish in Africa.' During the 1930s
and 1940s, countries concluded several agreements aimed at protecting fauna and
flora in specific regions, namely the Western Hemisphere and Africa.' They also
negotiated agreements concerned with marine fisheries and concluded the
landmark International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.6 In the period
between 1950 and 1970, States focused on two environmental problems, marine
pollution from oil and damage from civilian use of nuclear energy, and negotiated
several agreements.7 By the late 1960s, environmental concerns had broadened.
States concluded an African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources in 1968 and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in 1971.8 Still, there
were few international environmental agreements concluded before 1972.
During these early years in international environmental law, there was little
development of international environmental rules or principles. Two famous arbi-
Canada-United States of America: Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds in the
United States and Canada, August 16, 1916, Charles Bevans, Treatiesand OtherInternational
Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949, Vol. 12, p. 375 (Treaty Series No.
628); Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture, March 19, 1902, Clive
Parry, ed., Consolidated Treaty Series, Vol. 191, p. 91; Treaty for the Preservation and
Protection of Fur Seals, June 7, 1911, Statutes at Large of the UnitedStates ofAmerica, Vol.
37, p. 1542; and London Convention for the Protection of Wild Animals, Birds and Fish in
Africa, May 19, 1900, British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 94, p. 715.
5 Washington Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western
Hemisphere, October 12, 1940, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 161, p. 193 (No. 485).
London Convention relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State,
November 8, 1933, League of Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 172, p. 241.
6 Washington International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, December 2, 1946,
UnitedNations Treaty Series, Vol. 161, p. 72 (No. 2124); Washington International Convention
for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries, February 8, 1949, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol.
157, p. 157 (No. 2053); Tokyo International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the
North Pacific Ocean, May 9, 1952, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 205, p. 65 (No. 2770).
7 For example, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil,
May 12, 1954, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 327, p. 3, (No. 4714); Tanker Owners
Voluntary Agreement concerning Liability for Oil Pollution, January 7, 1969, International
Legal Materials,Vol. 8 (1969), p. 497; Bonn Agreement for Co-operation in Dealing with
Pollution of the North Sea by Oil, June 9, 1969, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 704, p. 3
(No. 10099); Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, May 21, 1963,
United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1063, p. 265 (No. 16197), amended by the Protocol of
September 12, 1997 (consolidated text, International Atomic Energy Association Document
INFCIRC/566 (1998), Annex).
8 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, September 15,
1968, United NationsTreaty Series,Vol. 1001, p. 3 (No. 14689); Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, February 2, 1971 (amended
December 3, 1982), United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 996, p. 245 (No. 14583).
4 Edith Brown Weiss
trations took place, the Trail Smelter Arbitration' between Canada and the United
States, and the Lac Lanoux Arbitration between France and Spain. 0 The former
dealt with the obligation not to cause transboundary harm, and the latter with pro-
cedural obligations of prior notification, consultation, and negotiation. These deci-
sions have been cited repeatedly in later writings on international environmental
law, in part because few other relevant decisions exist during this period.
This period begins with the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment and includes the many developments that took place up until the
1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
The year 1972 was historic, because for the first time countries across the
world came together to identify and address environmental problems. The United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972, was
the first international intergovernmental conference to focus on environmental
problems. The preparations for the Conference, the Conference, and the period
immediately following the Conference had lasting consequences for the course of
international environmental law.
Perhaps the most central issue that arose in the preparations for the Stockholm
Conference was the need to address the potential conflict between economic de-
velopment and environmental protection. Developing countries were especially
concerned that an international effort to protect the environment would come at
the expense of their own development. Shortly before the Conference, a group of
experts from governments, academia, and nongovernmental organizations met in
Founex, Switzerland, to discuss the conflicts and develop a conceptual framework
for reconciling environmental protection and economic development. The Founex
report recognized that environmental protection and economic development could
and should proceed in tandem." It laid a foundation for later acceptance of the concept
9 Trail Smelter Case (United States v. Canada),Ad Hoc International Arbitral Tribunal,
March 11, 1941, United Nations Reports of InternationalArbitral Awards, Vol. 3 (1949), p.
1938.
10 Lake Lanoux Case (France-v. Spain), Ad Hoc International Arbitral Tribunal, November
UNEP's Governing Council includes only some of the member countries. The specialized
agencies are established by international agreement and by Articles 57 and 63 of the United
Nations Charter, and are linked to the U.N. Economic and Social Council. UNEP was
established by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2997 (XXVII) of December 15, 1972, and
reaffirmed by U.N. General Assembly Resolution, U.N. Doc. A/RES/31/112, December 16,
1976. UNEP is linked to the United Nations General Assembly.
6 Edith Brown Weiss
In the two decades that followed the Stockholm Conference, international en-
vironmental agreements proliferated. By the end of the period, there were more
than 1100 international legal instruments that were either fully concerned with the
environment or had important provisions relating to the environment. This number
includes both binding agreements and nonbinding legal instruments, such as the
U.N. Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment. 7
In this period, countries became adept at negotiating new agreements in a
relatively short time frame, often less than two years. Even the intergovernmental
negotiations for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change took only 16
months to reach agreement.' Generally, it took longer for the agreements to come
into effect than to negotiate.
19 Edith Brown Weiss, "International Environmental Law: Contemporary Issues and the
Emergence of a New World Order," Georgetown Law Journal,Vol. 81, No. 3 (1993), pp.
675-710.
20 E.g., Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution,
February 16, 1976, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol.1102, p. 27 (No 16908).
21 Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air
Pollution (LRTAP), November 13, 1979, E/ECE/1010 (1979), United Nations Treaty Series,
Vol. 1302, p. 217 (No. 21623); Helsinki Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range
Transboundary Air Pollution on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or their Transboundary
Fluxes by at Least 30 Percent, July 8, 1985, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1480, p. 215
(No. 25247); Sofia Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air
Pollution Concerning the Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides or Their Transboundary
Fluxes, October 31, 1988, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1593, p. 287 (No. 27874);
Geneva Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
Concerning the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds or Their Transboundary
Fluxes, November 18, 1991, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2001, p. 187 (No. 34322);
Oslo Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on
Further Reduction of Sulfur Emissions, June 14, 1994, U.N. Doc. ECE/EB.AIR/40 (1994),
United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2030, p. 122 (No. 21623); Aarhus Protocol to the 1979
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Heavy Metals, June 24, 1998,
United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2237, p. 4 (No. 21623); Aarhus Protocol to the 1979
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Chemicals,
June 24, 1998, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2230, p. 79 (No. 21623).
8 Edith Brown Weiss
ozone,2 2 climate,23 and tobacco control. 24 However, the requirement that a State
must join a protocol when becoming a party to the framework agreement did
not survive.
As developed elsewhere in detail, the period between 1972-1992 witnessed
changes in the themes and in the focus of international environmental agree-
ments. 25 The scope expanded from agreements controlling transboundary pollution
to ones addressed to global pollution problems, such as depletion of the ozone
layer; from a focus on protecting certain kinds of wildlife to conserving ecosystems;
from controlling trade across borders to controlling activities within national
borders that threatened the environment, as by protecting natural world heritage
sites, wetlands, and biologically diverse areas. The obligations in the new agree-
ments were generally more detailed and intrusive on national sovereignty than in
previous agreements. There is no instance in which provisions in existing agree-
ments have been weakened. Rather they have been strengthened and changes
made to make them more effective.
International environmental law also developed significantly in several other
areas. Foremost is the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, which provides unequivo-
cally in Article 192 that states are to protect and preserve the marine environment
and in subsequent articles sets forth detailed measures to be taken in order to do
6
So.
2
Protection of the environment during warfare also emerged as an important
subject of international law, as exemplified by the Convention on the Prohibition
of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,
which prohibits the use of those techniques "having widespread, long-lasting or
severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party."2 7
22 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, March 22, 1985, UnitedNations
Treaty Series, Vol. 1513, p. 293 (No. 26164); The Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (adjusted and/or amended in London 1990, Copenhagen 1992,
Vienna 1995, Montreal 1997, Beijing 1999), United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1522, p. 3
(No. 26369).
23 United Nations Framework Convention Climate Change, supra note 18; The Kyoto
Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, December 10,
1997, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2303, p. 162 (No. 30822).
24 World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, June 16, 2003,
United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2302, p. 166 (No. 41032).
25 Edith Brown Weiss, supra note 19.
26 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Annexes and Index, December
10, 1982, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1833, p. 3 (No. 31363).
27 Article 1, Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques (ENMOD Convention), May 18, 1977, United Nations Treaty
Series, Vol. 1108, p. 151 (No. 17119). The Convention covers techniques that change
"through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes, the dynamics, composition or
EVOLUTION OF INTERNVATONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 9
Scientific uncertainty regarding the natural system, our interactions with it, and
the effect of our products on it is inherent in international environmental law. Our
scientific understanding is always changing. Early international agreements gen-
erally did not provide for adjusting to changes in our scientific knowledge of and
understanding of environmental issues. Those negotiated after 1970 increasingly
made such provision. Sometimes this took the form of provision for regular tech-
nical assessments by experts, for simplified procedures for phasing out harmful
chemicals more rapidly than initially agreed, for providing for annexes and sim-
plified procedures for adding to annexes, and for regular meetings of the parties to
address changes in scientific understandings. A major challenge is to identify,
assess and manage risks to the environment and to human health. Some interna-
tional agreements thus have provided for monitoring, early warning systems of
dangers, and prioritization of risks.
Similarly, some of the agreements during this period were directed to con-
serving ecosystems, rather than only specific pollutants or sources of pollution. For
example, the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement broadened the focus of
the 1972 Agreement from specific kinds of pollution to protection of basin-wide
ecosystems in the Great Lakes. 2 8 This led to the inclusion of a Protocol in 1987 to
address ground water pollution and atmospheric transport of pollution as issues
central to protecting the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.2 9
structure of the Earth." Article 35.3, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
(Protocol I), June 8, 1977, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1125, p. 3 (No. 17512) also
bans the use of techniques that have "widespread, long-lasting and severe damage to the
natural environment," but in contrast to the ENMOD Convention, uses the connecting
word "and" rather than "or." More recently, the International Committee of the Red Cross
compiled relevant international environmental law in the Guidelinesfor MilitaryManuals
andInstructionson the ProtectionoftheEnvironmentin Times ofArmed Conflict, International
Review of the Red Cross, No. 311 (April 30, 1996), availableat <http://www.icrc.org/eng/
resources/documents/misc/57jn38.htm>, (accessed June 14, 2011). The U.N. General
Assembly recommended the Guidelines to all States for due consideration. See, United
Nations General Assembly Resolution 49/50, 49th Sess., Agenda Item 136, Article 11, U.N.
Doc. A/RES/49/50 (1995). See also, Richard G. Tarasofsky, "International Law and the
Protection of the Environment During International Armed Conflict," in Netherlands
Yearbook of InternationalLaw, Vol. 24 (1993), pp. 17-79.
28 Canada-United States: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 1978, as amended by the
1983 and 1987 Protocols, Ottawa, November 22, 1978, United States Treaties and Other
InternationalAgreements, Vol. 30, p. 1383. This agreement was amended again in 1993.
An up-dated version is availableat <http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwqa/1978/articles.html#
AGREEMENTo20BETWEEN%20CANADA>, accessed June 14, 2011.
29 Ibid.
10 Edith Brown Weiss
This period begins with the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development and then analyzes developments during the almost two decades fol-
lowing the Conference.
* World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (1987), pp.
8-9.
See e.g., Robert Kates, Thomas Parris, and Anthony Leiserowitz, "What is Sustainable
Development? Goals, Indicators, Values and Practice," Environment: Science and Policyfor
SustainableDevelopment, Vol. 47, No. 3 (2005), pp. 8-21.
32 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Report ofthe UnitedNations Conference
on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (1992).
3 UNFCC, supra note 18.
EVOLUTION OF INTERNATONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 11
the Convention on Biodiversity4 ; and the very detailed Agenda 21, which set
forth a comprehensive list of actions that States were to take. The Conference also
adopted a "Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global
Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all
types of Forests," 6 and led to the subsequent negotiation of a Convention on
Desertification.3 7 It resulted in the establishment of a new institution at the United
Nations, the Commission on Sustainable Development, to review progress in im-
plementing Agenda 21.
While governments were the formal actors in reaching agreement on these
measures, the Rio Conference is especially noteworthy for the roles that non-gov-
ernmental organizations (NGOs) and the business sector played. These groups
held a parallel forum in Rio, and the NGOs published a daily newsletter, which
kept all participants apprised of the events of the previous day. NGOs met actively
with government delegations. An NGO had represented the small island states in
the negotiations for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
In the private sector, the Swiss businessman Stephan Schmidheiny founded
the World Business Council for Sustainable Development," which blazed the path
for other business groups to become important global players in developing envi-
ronmental standards, codes, and practices. (The concern of business with sustainable
development in turn contributed to the focus ten years later at the Johannesburg
World Summit on Sustainable Development on public-private partnerships to ad-
dress environment and development problems.)
The years since Rio have witnessed major developments in international envi-
ronmental law and policy. The field has become more robust and more compre-
hensive. International intergovernmental organizations, civil society, and industry
4 Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1760,
p. 79 (No. 30619).
3 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, U.N. Doc. A/
CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (1992).
6 Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the
Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests, U.N.
Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. III) (1992).
3 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing
Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, June 17, 1994, United Nations Treaty
Series, Vol. 1954 , p. 3 (No. 33480).
3 World Business Council on Sustainable Development, see website, available at <http://
www.wbcsd.org>, accessed July 21, 2011.
12 Edith Brown Weiss
(1) Linkages
(a) Economic Law: Trade and Investment
For more than a decade before the World Trade Organization was formed, the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade had recognized environmental concerns
in its Article XX(b) and (g) exceptions, though the language does not contain the
word "environment."4 0 In 1971, the GATT Council of Representatives agreed to es-
tablish a Group on Environmental Measures and International Trade, though it did
not meet until 1991. When the WTO was negotiated in 1994, it contained in its
preamble reference to the aim of "sustainable development."" Since then, major
disputes have come before the WTO Dispute Settlement Panels and Appellate
Body that raise the potential conflict of national legislation allegedly directed to
protecting the environment with the rules of the WTO.4 2 The WTO has a Committee
3 See e.g., Norichika Kanie and Peter Haas, eds., Emerging Forces in Environmental
Governance (2004).
40 The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, United Nations Treaty Series, October 30,
1947, Vol. 55, p. 187 (No. 814).
4 Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, with Annexes, Final
Act and Protocol, April 15, 1994, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1867, p. 154 (No. 31874).
42 Appellate Body Report, United States - Standardsfor Reformulated and Conventional
Gasoline,WT/DS2/AB/R (1996) modifying the Panel Report, United States - Standardsfor
Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/R; Appellate Body Report, European
EVOLUTION OF INTERIVATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 13
on Trade and Environment, which is studying, among other topics, the relationship
between multilateral environmental agreements and the WTO. It has not reached
agreement on this or other issues."
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, Mexico
and the United States demonstrates the linkage between trade and environment.
The agreement contains an historic provision in Article 104 that if there is an in-
consistency between NAFTA and trade provisions in certain environmental agree-
ments, the latter can trump the NAFTA provisions.4 4 The three multilateral environ-
mental agreements that the countries have listed are those dealing with trade in
endangered species, in hazardous wastes, and in substances that deplete the ozone
layer.4 1
A North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada,
Mexico and the United States was negotiated at nearly the same time as NAFTA as
a way to accommodate countries' concerns about environmental protection and to
ensure that the trajectory of national protection of the environment would be
upward rather than a race to the bottom.4 6 Under the Agreement, a resident of any
of the three countries can complain to the Secretariat that a country is not enforcing
1' Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Draft of The Multilateral
Agreement on Investment (1998), available at <http://wwwl.oecd.org/daf/maVpdf/ng/
ng987rle.pdf>, accessed June 28, 2011; see also the OECD Secretariat, Relationships
between the MAI and Selected Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) (1998),
availableat <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/26/1922682.pdf> accessed June 28, 2011.
52 See, e.g., Edith Brown Weiss, John H. Jackson and Nathalie Bernasconi Osterwalder,
Reconciling Environment and Trade (2nd ed., 2008) for a general bibliography of books,
monographs and periodicals, and relevant internet sites; Steve Charnovitz, "The WTO's
Environmental Progress," Journalof InternationalEconomic Law, Vol. 10 (2007), pp. 685-
708; Robert Housman, The Use of Trade Measures in Selected Environmental Agreements
(2005); Andreas Ziegler, Tradeand EnvironmentalLaw in the European Community (1996).
5 See, e.g., Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Steve Charnovitz and Jisun Kim, Global Warming and
the World Trading System (2009); United Nations Environment Programme and World
Trade Organization, Trade and Climate Change:A Report by the UnitedNations Environment
Programmeand the WTO (2009).
11 Dinah Shelton, "Human Rights, Environmental Rights and the Right to Environment,"
Stanford Journalof InternationalLaw, Vol. 28, (1991), pp. 103-138; Janusz Symonides,
"The Human Right to a Clean, Balanced and Protected Environment," InternationalJournal
of Legal Information, Vol. 20 (1992), pp. 24-40; Barry Hill, Steve Wolfson and Nicholas
Turg, "Human Rights and the Environment: A Synopsis and Some Predictions," Georgetown
InternationalEnvironmentalLaw Review, Vol. 16, No. 3 (2004), pp. 359-402.
1 Philip Alston, "Conjuring up New Human Rights: A Proposal for Quality Control,"
American Journalof InternationalLaw, Vol. 78 (1984), pp. 607-621; Louis B. Sohn, "The
New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals rather than States," American
University Law Review, Vol. 32 (1982), pp. 59-63.
56 See, e.g., Constitution of Chile, Article 19, which gives individuals "a right to live in an
environment free of contamination" and in Article 20 provides for an action to enforce the
16 Edith Brown Weiss
right, Constitution of Chile (1980); Article 24, Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
(1996), and Constitution of Ecuador, Article 14, Chapter Two of Title Two, Constitution of
Ecuador (2008). For a list of constitutional provisions for environmental rights and duties,
see, e.g., Edith Brown Weiss, In Fairnessto Future Generations(1998), Appendix B (also
published in Japanese, French, Spanish, and Chinese).
1 Article 24, Banjul Charter of Human and Peoples Rights (1981), InternationalLegal
Materials,Vol. 21, (1982) p. 58; availableat <http://www.achpr.org/english/_info/charter
en.html> (accessed June 29, 2011). The SERAC case holding by the African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights provides a powerful precedent for interpreting this Charter
provision. See, Social and Economic Rights Action Center & the Centerfor Economic and
Social Rights v. Nigeria, Communication No. 155/96, available at <http://www.escr-net.
org/usr doc/serac.pdf> accessed June 29, 2011.
11 Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, InternationalLegal Materials,Vol. 28 (1988), p. 156.
Article 11, "Right to a healthy environment," proclaims "(1.) Everyone shall have the right
to live in a healthy environment and to have access to basic public services and (2.) The
States parties shall promote the protection, preservation and improvement of the
environment."
9 For related analysis, see Richard Desgagne, "Integrating Environmental Values into the
European Court of Human Rights," American Journalof InternationalLaw, Vol. 89, No. 2
(1995), pp. 263-294; Daniel Garcia San Jos6, EnvironmentalProtection and the European
Convention on Human Rights (2005). The Parliamentary Assembly has made three official
recommendations (not adopted by the Committee of Ministers) for the inclusion of "Human
Right to a Healthy and Clean Environment" in the European Convention. See, PA
Recommendations 1130 (1990), 1431 (1999) and 1614 (2003).
6 Draft DeclarationofPrinciples on Human Rights and the Environment,July 6, 1994, U.N.
EVOLUTION OFINTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 17
Recently, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted two resolutions re-
lating to climate change and human rights 61 and, in 2010, a resolution on a right to
water and sanitation.6 2 States have yet to declare that the right to environment
exists as a human right. During the last two decades, the literature regarding a
human right to environment has expanded significantly.13 Moreover, certain na-
tional tribunals have recognized a right to environment as implicit in other provi-
sions of human rights incorporated in their own national constitutions.6
cluded as an aspect of national security.65 With projected climate change and an-
ticipated shortages of fresh water resources in such areas as the Middle East,
northern and eastern Africa, South Asia, among others, water is increasingly viewed
within the lens of national security.6
One aspect of the linkage between environment and security relates to the
conditions by which environmental agreements must be respected during armed
conflict. During the conflict in the Balkans, for example, World Heritage sites were
threatened or destroyed. The 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of
Justice on Legality of the Threat or Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons observed
that the issue was not whether the treaties applied during armed conflict but
"rather whether the obligations stemming from these treaties were intended to be
obligations of total restraint during military conflict."7 This question remains.
Another linkage between environment and national security arises during peace
time. Some of the policies adopted by governments during peace time to enhance
national security may be harmful to the environment.i These include ones relating
to nuclear energy, disposal and storage of wastes related to weapons, etc. This
points to the importance of integrating environmental concerns into the design
and implementation of these laws and policies.
For purposes of examining the evolution of international law, it suffices to
recognize that there is a longstanding link between environment and armed con-
flict, that this link continues to be relevant and to grow, that the link also exists
during peace time, and that the environment, and especially water resources, has
become part of the prism of national security for some, if not all, States.
65 See, for example, Thomas Homer-Dixon and Jessica Blitt, eds., Ecoviolence: Links among
Environment, Population and Security, (1998); and In-Taek Hyun and Miranda Schreurs,
eds., The Environmental Dimension of Asian Security: Conflict and Cooperation over
Energy, Resources and Pollution (2007).
6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report: Climate
Change 2007(AR4) (2007), availableat <www.ipcc.ch>, (accessed July 13, 2011). See, Jutta
Brunn6e and Stephen Toope, "Environmental Security and Freshwater Resources: Ecosystem
Regime Building," AmericanJournalof InternationalLaw, Vol. 91 (1997), pp. 26-59.
67 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, supra note 13, pp. 241-242, para. 30.
61 John McNeil and Paul Kennedy, Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental
History of the Twentieth Century World (2000).
EVOLUTION OFINTERNA TIONAL ENVZRONMENTAL LAW 19
international environmental law. These actors have significantly shaped all aspects
of international environmental law.
7 See, e.g., Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch, and Richard Stewart, "The Emergence of
Global Administrative Law," Law and ContemporaryProblems, Vol. 68 (2005), pp. 15-61.
72 International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14000- EnvironmentalManagement
(1999-2010), available at <http://www.iso.org/iso/standards development.htm> (search,
"environmental standards"), accessed June 29, 2011.
7 For example, the Forest Stewardship Council, Principles and Criteria for Forest
Stewardship (first issued in 1993; last amended in 2002) available at <http://www.fscus.
org/standards criteria/>, accessed June 30, 2011; Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
sustainable fisheries standards. The MSC was established in 1997 through the partnership
of Unilever and the World Wildlife Federation (WWF). For current MSC standards,
methodologies and directives see <http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents>,
accessed June 30, 2011.
74 International Chamber of Conunerce/World Business Organization (ICC), Business
Charterfor Sustainable Development: Principlesfor Environmental Management (1991),
available at <http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/environment/idl309/index.html>, accessed
June 29, 2011.
7 International Council of Chemical Associations, Responsible CareInitiative(1985), available
at <http://www.icca-chem.org/en/Home/Responsible-care/>, accessed June 29, 2011.
76 Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES), The Ceres Principles(1989),
availableat <http://www.ceres.org/about-us/our-history/ceres-principles>, accessed June 29,
2010.
7 Equator Principles Association, Equator Principles (2006), available at <http://www.
equator-principles.com/>, accessed June 29, 2011. The principles were initiated in 2003
and revised in 2006 to ensure that they were consistent with the new IFC Performance
Standards. The Equator Principles apply to project financing with capital costs above
$10 million.
8 United Nations, United Nations Global Compact (1999), available at <http://www.
EVOLUTION OF INTERNA77ONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAw 21
quickly, individuals will likely play an increasingly visible role in drawing attention
to environmental problems, in using law to address the problem, and in seeking
compliance with international environmental agreements (or potentially in avoiding
compliance).
and administration redress and remedy, and prior informed consent for some ac-
tivities.8 In 2010, the International Court of Justice stated that there is now an obli-
gation under general international law for States "to undertake an environmental
impact assessment where it is a risk that the proposed industrial activities may
have a significant adverse impact in a trans-boundary context, in particular, on a
shared resource." 7 The Court further noted, however, that general international
law did not "specify the scope and content of an environmental impact assessment. ""
In 1992, States acknowledged in the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development that little progress had been made since 1972 in developing interna-
tional law regarding liability and compensation for "adverse effects of environ-
mental damage" and urged States to "cooperate in an expeditious and more deter-
mined manner" to develop it. However, international environmental law related to
liability has still languished, with a few notable exceptions: the Basel Protocol on
Liability and Compensation,89 the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol
on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety," the Protocol on
Civil Liability and Compensation for Damage Caused by the Transboundary Effects
of Industrial Accidents on Transboundary Waters (to the Convention on the Protection
and use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes and the Convention
on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents),91 and the International Law
Commission's 2006 Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the case of Transboundary
Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities. 9 2 As of September 2011, none of the
Protocols had gone into effect.
6 For Japanese scholarship on this development, see, e.g., Toru Iwama, "The Principle of
Public Participation in the Management of Natural Resources Embodied in International
Environmental Instruments," Seinan-gakuinDaigakuHogaku Ronsbu [Seinan Law Review],
Vol. 33 (2001), pp. 33-66.
87 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina/Uruguay),I.C.J. Reports 2010, para. 204.
8 Ibid., para. 205.
9 Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation, December 10, 1999, availableat <http://
www.basel.int/pub/protocol.html>, accessed July 23, 2011. It is not yet in effect.
9 Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety, October 15, 2010, availableat <http://www.bch.cbd.int/protocol/
NKL>, accessed July 23, 2011.
91 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Protocol on Civil Liability and
Compensation for Damage Caused by the Transboundary effects of Industrial Accidents on
Transboundary Waters, May 21, 2003, available at <http://www.unece.org/env/civil-
liability/protocol.html>, accessed July 23, 2011.
92 International Law Commission, Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of
TransboundaryHarm Arising out of Hazardous Activities (2006), submitted to the United
Nations General Assembly, which recommended them to governments. Report of the
InternationalLaw Commission, U.N. Doc. A/61/10 (2006), pp. 106-110.
24 Edith Brown Weiss
Within the last decade, discussions regarding accountability and good gover-
nance have raised the question of whether international law may be expanding to
encompass these concepts as obligations. To date, there is no consensus on what
constitutes good governance, although some core aspects can be identified." While
the term "accountability" appears increasingly in legal literature and is a goal in
many international agreements, there is not a consensus on its origin or form. Civil
law legal scholars may view accountability as an aspect of responsibility, and
hence question separate treatment of it.
Within the last two decades, soft law instruments (or non-legally binding in-
struments) related wholly or in part to environmental concerns have also increased
significantly in number. This reflects a broader trend in certain areas of interna-
tional law. The Arctic Council, for example, was established by a non-legally
binding instrument: the Declaration of the Establishment of the Arctic Council,
1996." There is still no treaty on the Arctic.
There are many reasons to use "soft law." In some cases, events unfold so
quickly that it is preferable to agree upon a non-legally binding instrument than to
endure the long process of negotiating a binding one. In other cases, soft law may
be a prelude to a later binding agreement. Usually it is easier to reach agreement
when the provisions are non-binding and do not have to be consented to by a
parliamentary body."
9 See Edith Brown Weiss and Ahila Sornarajah, "Good Governance," in Rudiger Wolfrum,
ed., Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public InternationalLaw (Online ed., 2010).
Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council, September 19, 1996, International
Legal Materials,Vol. 35 (1966), p. 1382.
9 For discussion of the role of non-legally binding instruments, see Edith Brown Weiss,
ed., InternationalCompliance with Nonbinding Accords (1997); and Dinah Shelton, ed.,
Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-binding Norms in the InternationalLegal
System (2000).
EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IAW 25
tries approach Rio+20, some of the same issues remain, and there is again talk
about "treaty congestion."
Partly as a result of the negotiation of many new agreements during the pre-
vious decade before the Rio Conference, a new focus emerged in the scholarly lit-
erature and within the United Nations Environment Programme on strengthening
implementation of and compliance with existing agreements and on providing
ways to do so with future agreements." The United Nations Environment Programme
adopted Guidelines on Compliance with and Enforcement of Multilateral Environmental
Agreements and in 2006 published a Manual on the subject.17 Increasingly parties
to multilateral environmental agreements have established implementation and
compliance committees to address problems of noncompliance. They generally let
parties address specific cases in flexible ways to meet the underlying reasons for
noncompliance and to bring the party into compliance.
Another new approach to strengthening the implementation of multilateral
environmental agreements has been the use of market mechanisms. This is espe-
cially apparent in the measures available for implementing the Kyoto Protocol to
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: joint implementation, clean
development mechanism, and emissions trading.98 The underlying assumption is
that by using market mechanisms, countries may be able to implement and comply
with the obligations in the agreement with less cost and greater efficiency. Twenty
years ago, countries other than the United States were quite skeptical about the
use of such market mechanisms. Now, market mechanisms have become part of
the implementation armor for international environmental agreements, though
they remain controversial, especially on grounds of whether the burden of pol-
lution reduction is borne equitably and of whether they in fact are effective in re-
ducing the targeted pollution.
91 See, e.g., Abram Chayes and Antonia Chayes, The New Sovereignty: Compliance with
Treaties in InternationalRegulatory Regimes (1995); Edith Brown Weiss and Harold K.
Jacobson, eds., Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International
EnvironmentalAccords (1998), see especially for Japan, James Feinerman and Koichiro
Fujikura, "Japan: Consensus-Based Compliance," ibid., pp. 253-290.
9 The Guidelines have two parts: 1) Guidelines on Enhancing Compliance in Multilateral
Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and 2) Guidelines for National Enforcement and
International Cooperation in Combating Violations of Laws Implementing Multilateral
Environmental Agreements (MEAs). United Nations Environment Programme Guidelines
on Compliance with and Enforcement of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, adopted
by UNEP decision SS.VII/4; United Nations Environment Programme, Manual on
Compliance with Enforcement ofMultilateralEnvironmentalAgreements (2006).
98 Articles 6, 12 and 17 of The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, supra note 23.
26 Edith Brown Weiss
Concluding Observations
In June, 2012, countries will again meet in Rio to celebrate the 20th anni-
versary of the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. Countries
will focus on two aspects: 1) development and use of green technology and 2)
governance and institutional issues. The field has come far since 1972. Forty years
ago, environment was still a relatively obscure subject, and unknown in many
countries. In the United States, the first major piece of federal environmental legis-
lation, the National Environmental Policy Act, which initiated the environmental
impact assessment, was adopted only in 1969. Most countries had yet to adopt do-
mestic environmental legislation and, as indicated, international agreements were
few. This echoed the relatively rudimentary understanding of the environmental
system and the impacts that our actions had on the environment. For example,
Rachel Carson published her famous book Silent Spring, which alerted the public
to the internationally devastating effects of certain chemicals on wildlife, only in 1962.99
The subject of human ecology was only beginning to emerge, and did not
become fully ensconced as a scientific discipline until the next decade or so.
Effects on economic development were only beginning to be identified and appre-
ciated. Thus it is not surprising that there was little international (or national) envi-
ronmental law before 1972, and that much of it focused on the use and conser-
vation of particular species. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in 1971 was a
sharp departure from the more traditional approach at that time. To the surprise of
some, in just forty years, environment has become an important component of in-
ternational law, and of domestic laws within countries. Every country now has one
or more pieces of environmental legislation or regulation. And as indicated previ-
ously, there are now hundreds of bilateral and multilateral environmental agree-
ments or significant non-legally binding instruments concerned with environment.
This reflects advances in scientific understanding of the environment, both globally
and locally, a recognition of the economic costs of environmental damage and the
competitive advantages of environmentally sound production, and an appreciation
of the social, health, and economic costs to communities and individuals from de-
graded environments. The environment has as its constituency the public worldwide.
It is an issue to which people can relate at the most local level, and in this sense it
is an issue that has both top-down and bottom-up elements.
Some have noted the limits of environmental law. Certainly, one can argue
that our accomplishments in ensuring a sustainable human environment lag far
behind the enormous task confronting us. While international environmental law
is much better, the environment is, at least in some aspects, worse. This leads
some to question the value of international environmental agreements.
Others would note that with environmental law, some aspects, such as air pol-
lution and the robustness of the ozone layer, have considerably improved, and that
the environment is better than it would be if we did not have environmental law.
There is a strong push for implementing and complying with the laws that we al-
ready have, both internationally and domestically. The need to strengthen imple-
mentation and compliance is an important item on the international legal agenda.
None of this should obscure the observation that from an historical per-
spective, international environmental law has evolved rapidly, and continues to do
so. The same applies generally to national environmental laws. I would argue
further that international environmental law continues to have significant impact in
helping shape countries' actions in addressing environmental problems and pro-
moting sustainable development.
As we look to the future, we can anticipate that climate change is likely to
dominate the environmental legal agenda, whether explicitly or implicitly.
International environmental law will become of necessity more concerned with
long-term risks and their assessment and management, and with issues of both
inter-generational and intra-generational equity. All of this will take place in a ka-
leidoscopic world,'0 in which individuals and ad hoc groupings as well as States,
international organizations, nongovernmental organization, private sector actors,
and networks will co-exist. Change will be rapid and constant, requiring new mea-
sures to accommodate it in order to ensure sustainable and equitable development
for both present and future generations.
'1 Edith Brown Weiss, "International Law in a Kaleidoscopic World," Asian journal of
InternationalLaw, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2011), pp. 21-32.