Introduction
Class: Global environmental politics
One of the main matters challenging environmental and international policymakers today is the lack of consensus on legal content and several normative principles, which could facilitate the systematization and formulation of international environmental regulations. It is valid to say that the development and implementation of unified international law can be possible merely when states and their representatives agree on a set of concepts requiring codification.
Considering that the exclusionist paradigm inherent with the classical economic models fails to meet the environmental protection needs, new policies and strategies are required. In this paper, it will be argued that the ecological paradigm integrating the precautionary principle and the concept of sustainability can successfully support the creation of a broad, universal international environmental law and, in this way, contribute to the promotion of global well-being.
Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle implies that people should avoid those activities, which can have irreversible adverse impacts on the environment, and take preventive measures even in the cases when there is no complete scientific evidence to verify the detrimental character of those consequences (Chasek et al. 38). In this way, the prevention of environmental deterioration is core in the given paradigm. An example of an effective referral to the precautionary principle in the case of “Gabchikovo-Nagymaros,” a Hungarian-Czechoslovakian joint venture aimed to establish hydro-electric power complexes on the Danube, when Hungary had decided to suspend cooperation with Slovakia referring to the lack of its commitment to the prevention of environmental damage.
While the implementation of the precautionary principle becomes more widespread in the international politics, some argue that since there is no high-quality evidence to support all possible economic and production activities, a lot of decisions will be based on “emotional and irrational” factors (Chasek et al. 39). The major fear of the paradigm opponents is that its universal use can interfere with economic development and growth. Indeed, some climate changes due to human activities are currently not researched comprehensively, and scientists and policymakers have low confidence in agreement on them.
For instance, there is no evidence to verify human contribution to increases in intensity and duration of drought, as well as tropical cyclone activity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 7). However, recent documents published by IPCC also provide a large amount of scientific data indicating high confidence and a very likely human contribution to such major ecological events as global warming because there is a direct link between them and the increasing volume of gas emissions throughout the 20th and 21st centuries (IPCC 13).
Overall, it can signify that the current lack of certain and reliable information about possible consequences of human activities should not be regarded as an excuse to postpone and disregard preventive and precautionary measures for environmental protection. Additionally, it is possible to suggest that potential deficits in knowledge can be eliminated through targeted research conducted before the realization of new business and production projects.
As for the concept of sustainable development, it refers to human development in harmony with nature. It is a direct opposite of the exclusionist paradigm in which humans and their activities are regarded in separation from the laws of nature. Sustainability implies the interaction among such factors as economic growth, social development, and environmental protection to meet the needs of existing and future generations (Clapp and Dauvergne 62). In the given paradigm, ecological problems are primarily viewed on a global scale. Thus, it poses some ambitious goals, which require a holistic approach and international cooperation. However, the ambiguity and uncertainty in the interpretation of the concept of sustainability create multiple barriers to its realization.
Sustainable development was initially regarded merely in the context of seeking a response to environmental deterioration, and later − as a systemic solution to distinct political, economic, social, demographic, scientific, technical, and other problems that can be found in modern civilization. Along with differences in the historical interpretation of the term, the views on sustainability can vary from one context to another.
Clapp and Dauvergne observe that many modern perspectives on sustainable development and proposed strategies lack a comprehensive approach to solving all the underlying problems (68). The disagreement on the implementation of particular sustainability strategies can be found among different states as well: some may fail to fulfill international obligations, others can “try to free-ride and enjoy the benefits produced by others without contributing their fair share,” and so on (Chasek et al. 197). The discrepancy in the understanding of the major environmental principles as well as differences in states’ capabilities to adhere to them undermines the efforts to realize the concept of sustainable development in practice.
It is true that the definition of behavioral standards largely depends on the overall ecological, legal, and other developmental factors within a particular environmental context. It means that environmental regulations enacted in advanced countries will usually be different from those employed in developing states. Nevertheless, the level of economic development should not be used as an excuse for the denial of the principle of sustainable development and should not free countries from their obligations. On the contrary, the higher the risk of significant harm resulting from a particular domestic environmental factor, e.g., overpopulation, or performance of a dominant activity, e.g., oil and gas production, the more responsibilities for compliance with the discussed ecological principles are to be given to the state to prevent trans-boundary harm to the environment.
In current conditions of growing globalization processes, the concept of sustainable development, as well the strategy integrating it, needs further development along with the concretization of relevant practical measures involved in the framework. Since the precautionary principle is more practical, the integration of the two concepts may provide a possible solution to the identified problem. Overall, the normative content of the precautionary principle includes the following elements: the need of taking into account potential threats leading to environmental damage, consideration of direct links between a threat and the possibility of serious and irreversible damage, disregard of scientific uncertainty as a basis for the refusal and postponing of preventive measures (Chasek et al. 38).
At the same time, the implementation rules relevant to this environmental principle can be formulated as follows: administration of comprehensive research of possible threats by an independent organization to clarify the degree of scientific uncertainty; assessment of potential risks and consequences of an activity, as well as a refusal of measures to minimize damage to human health and the environment; achievement of maximum transparency of conduct in the performance of all involved stakeholders.
It can be argued that the given rules and norms can be potentially practiced to solve all possible problems interfering with the achievement of greater environmental sustainability including over-consumption, industrialization, and even unequal distribution of resources. At the same time, the sustainable development paradigm can be used as a theoretical basis for policymaking: it can incorporate both anthropocentric and ecocentric understandings of nature to ensure the maintenance of conditions necessary for the realization of social and individual needs, as well as conservation of natural diversity.
When speaking about the implementation of the precautionary principle and sustainable development, it can be attained through various procedural and institutional measures. It can also be suggested to make decisions within the integrated environmental paradigm prioritizing those solutions, which receive the majority of votes, rather than by reaching a consensus. Such an approach can be observed in multiple ecological regimes, e.g., the Montreal Protocol (Chasek et al. 130).
Conclusion
According to Clapp and Dauvergne, “states are core actors in global environmental governance” (73). It means a successful global shift towards sustainable development and precaution is impossible without a purposeful system of action at both international and local levels. The development of a single environmental policy that would foster cooperation between states is pivotal. Still, it is important to take into account that present-day environmental protection efforts are conditioned by regional socio-economic processes, structures of production, uneven distribution of natural resources, traditions, etc. It is possible to say that both the discussed environmental principles address the given factors effectively.
Along with the ability to encompass a large number of potential state responsibilities and promote the welfare of the global community much better than the exclusionist paradigm, their other distinctive feature is flexibility. They do not dictate specific regulations. Thus, their use as guiding concepts in the international environmental protection policy becomes feasible. The given property is especially important when considering environmental peculiarities in every state where the unified policy will be enacted: each of them can adjust the recommended measures and norms to its own needs and national goals.