Introduction
The planet today is experiencing serious environmental consequences at a relatively increasing rate due to human activities and this calls for the introduction of a judicial body in the already existing international tribunals and courts. (Peck 1997).
For some years, there has not been much success in enforcing the rules concerning the international environment. Thus, there was a need to create International Environmental Courts or Tribunal (IEC) that was capable of issuing binding and enforceable decisions to those states that are defiant to the Environmental issues. (Louka 2006).
Etiology of environmental issues
Those states that support the existence of these courts may be required to convince the government of their states on some two basic factors so that they can be allowed to review or even change the international environmental courts. These key issues are that they will need to show or convince the government that the existing national and international judicial fora or tribunals are incapacitated in seeking solutions to international environmental disputes. Murphy 2000).
Secondly, they must demonstrate that the current judicial bodies are inadequate and that they can not be fixed to be made appropriate and satisfactory. In which case they would be required to come up with a new judicial system free from these inadequacies. It appears that at present, advocators of an international environmental court would have a problem addressing these issues (Murphy 2000).
It becomes difficult to come up with a new international court because the current ones are capable of dealing with the environmental disputes placed before them although few difficulties arise when dealing with international issues. For example, the international court of justice which is the Judicial Wing of the United Nation is in a position to hear environmental cases and fully attend to them. As little as filing an environmental dispute before the international court of justice may set the parties to negotiate a settlement for dispute as it happened in the certain phosphate lands between Nauru and Australia.
Just before one successfully thinks of a new international court, other factors also affect the process. Such is the UN law of the sea conventions. This one requires that the parties involved in a dispute solve their disputes and forward the results in which case if they fail the convention intervenes offering very few options. Such would be difficult to scrap or reconstitute since it is a strong body in case a new environmental court is to be constituted. (Peck 1997).
Also, to be considered in this case is the World Trade Organization. Environmental issues are closely interlinked with trade issues. This means that several environmental issues have been handled through a review of the dispute resolution process of the World Trade Organization. This means that a new international environmental court would require a chapter that will cater to the duties attended by this organization. (Cullet 2003).
Also, there is the issue of regional Fora and some other Ad Hoc Arbitration. Some of these fora exist with extensive competence over inter alie, environmental matters such as in the court of justice of the European Communities. The organization has jurisdiction not only to matters relating state to state but also to individual matters and private entities. It would be very difficult to do or to scrap such a powerful institution to rebuild it. (Peck 1997).
Also, some disputes have been known to be settled in the national court. Such is that relating to damage along the Rhine River in Europe 48 and those damages along the US, Canada border. This would make it difficult to prove that the court is unable to execute its duties. (Cullet 2003).
A new international environmental court
It becomes clear that under the first point of showing that the already existing international and National judicial fora are inadequate, it would be quite a task to prove this because the judicial tribunals happen to be very broad and dealing with almost all the disputes that would be there at different levels. If one dispute is become difficult to solve on one level, it is moved to the next. Other tribunals or institutions such as the United Nations law of sea convention required the involved parties to opt to solve the dispute. To prove such a system inadequate would be very difficult. Also, environmental law constitutes a member of subsidiaries. This means that if a new international law is to be made, it would take a long time and a lot of resources to come up with it. (Cullet 2003).
Conclusion
Therefore, the world does not need a new international environmental court but the use of the permanent court of Arbitration (PCA) which currently exists in The Hague which is a fairly inexpensive organization to look at and suggests possible solutions to disputes including environmental disputes. This proves that the world does not need a new international environmental court as it involves more tasks that look almost impossible to accomplish. It is also not clear that the new international court will be free from the problems that the current one is experiencing. (Murphy 2000).
References
Cullet P (2003) Differential Treatment In International Environmental Law. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Louka P (2006) International Environmental Law; Fairness Effectiveness and World Order. Cambridge University Press.
Murphy S (2000) The George Washington Journal Of International Law And Economics.
Peck C (1997) Increasing the Effectiveness of The International Court Of Justice, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.