The current environmental matters feature a variety of players including governments, private lobbyists, and international organizations. Various countries are experiencing conflicts in their policy formulation where national environmental policies appear to be on a collision course with international standards.
The national interests of industrial countries such as Japan, China, and the United States have always served as a hindrance to international agreements on environmental policies (Black 2012). Observers have noted that the emergence of new economic powerhouses has also affected the institution of environmental regulation.
Nevertheless, the main concern when it comes to environmental policies revolves around the need to institute regulations that apply to the entire world. Consequently, some observers have argued that the success of environmental regulation lies in the worldâs ability to institute policies that have legal ramifications for all countries.
On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the problems that apply to environmental regulation are not restricted to the contemporary international system. The achievement of a world government would have far-reaching effects on environmental regulation but it is not clear whether it would solve the current problems.
Effective environmental regulation requires a major step towards attaining a world government because this move would harmonize various internal and external factors.
Globalization has been cited as one of the determining factors of environmental regulation. However, this phenomenon has had limited effects on the current patterns of environmental regulation. For instance, most of the recent environmental proclamations have been modeled around the concept of globalization. However, none of these proclamations has had any significant effect on global environmental regulation.
The Kyoto Protocol was hailed as one of the most significant environmental regulation proclamations in the globalized world. Nevertheless, this agreement has failed to achieve its fundamental goals. For instance, the Kyoto Protocol was modeled to work on the âgood faithâ of the participating countries.
Lack of a world government means that most countries are within their rights when they put their national interests ahead of international environmental commitments (Armstrong & Lambert 2012). A world government would solve this problem because the international commitments of various countries would be at par with national interests.
The auxiliary authorities that feature in environmental regulation matters are subject to a number of national and international regulatory frameworks that might be in conflict with each other. However, state authorities often have the most significant effects on environmental regulation bodies because they are backed by legal frameworks.
Consequently, most of the non-governmental organizations that are seeking to pursue international environmental policies are forced to slow down when they encounter legal roadblocks on the national level (Dryzek 2012). In addition, some nationalistic endeavors such as those of the United States and the European Union might overshadow the interests of the international systems.
Movement towards a world government would eliminate the differences that feature where big national players are involved. This problem is often manifested during international environmental regulation summits where the opposition of some countries towards certain policies can derail the efforts of the entire world.
For example, during the United Nations (UN) climate change talks in Cancun âdelegates cheered speeches from governments that had caused the most frictions during negotiations including Japan, China, and the United Statesâ (Khor 2011). Consequently, it is clear that without a world government, international policies will be at the mercy of a few major nations.
A world government would introduce equality in the actions of various countries whether they are small or big. Some developed countries are faced with the dilemma of safeguarding the interests of their industrial economies as opposed to global environmental needs. On other occasions, industrial economies have felt burdened by developing countries where the reversal of climate change is concerned and vice versa.
A world economy would merge both the interests of the developed, developing, and under-developed countries in a fair manner. International systems often serve hidden interests of the leading world economies whilst neglecting the needs of the smaller countries.
The global civil society that is charged with promoting non-partisan environmental conservation efforts is set to benefit from a world government. A world government would empower the civil societies of various countries in respect to environmental conservation efforts.
On the other hand, the environmental-centered civil societies would benefit from working in a âborderlessâ environment where most conservation interests are uniform. The current trends indicate that civil societies are the only organizations that are accomplishing their goals in respect to global environmental conservation efforts (French 2000).
A world government remains to be the most viable solution to global environmental problems. On the other hand, international systems have proved that they cannot live up to expectations when it comes to environmental conservation. In the current globalization atmosphere, the other logical step towards environmental conservation efforts is a world government.
Without a world government, the interests of the âbigâ countries will continue to dominate global environmental matters at the expense of the majority âsmallâ countries. Furthermore, civil societies would be more productive in a world government as opposed to an environment that operates under international systems.
References
Armstrong, D & Lambert, H 2012, International law and international relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Black, R 2012, Climate ship plots course through the battering waves. Web.
Dryzek, J 2012, The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
French, H 2000, âVanishing borders: protecting the planet in the age of globalizationâ, Environmental Conservation, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 86-94.
Khor, M 2011, How the Cancun conference failed to save the climate. Web.