Players in Int Env Law

Question 1

UN Environment Programme

Answer 1

• est 1972 at Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment
• principal UN environmental agency
• primarily big impact on agenda setting, can promote coherent implementation
• BUT doesn’t have same particularized authority as treaty bodies (lots of env treaties establish particular governing bodies)
• has legitimacy, but tough b/c not actually charged w/ particular tasks

Question 2

UNEP - Staff/Resources

Answer 2

• many development institutions have much larger budgets + have integrated env protection into their policy (even secretaries of multilateral env agreements have more staff + resources)

Question 3

General Function of UN Subsidiary Organs/Agencies

Answer 3

• facilitate creation of most new treaty law by sponsoring scientific assessments of env issues, preparing drafts, + convening negotiations
• also contribute to dev of soft law by passing resolutions, declarations, model codes, + guidelines on env issues

Question 4

Public International Organizations

Answer 4

• like the UN
• term used to refer to bodies created by int agreements among states
• neither States nor purely non-State actors

Question 5

UNEP - Mission

Answer 5

• facilitate international cooperation in the environmental field
• keep the world environmental situation under review so that problems of int significance receive appropriate consideration by Governments
• promote the acquisition, assessment, and exchange of env knowledge

Question 6

UNEP - General Roles

Answer 6

• primary reason for being was coordination of env activities in UN system

Also expected to:
- produce scientific assessments of the state of the environment,
-provide sound technical + policy analysis, +
-catalyze env action w/in both UN system + at national level

Question 7

UN Environment Assembly - Creation

Answer 7

• prior to 2013, UNEP Governing Council was comprised of reps of 58 States selected to have geographic representation (constrained its political influence somewhat)
• after Rio+20, UN General Assembly created UN Environment Assembly (universal membership for UNEP Governing Council)

Question 8

UN Environment Assembly - Role

Answer 8

• Prof noted that there’s lots it can do, but has never really had the role of being a world env org
• concept that we have lots of treaties with their own secretariats + their own operating systems -> Prof wanted us to think if this is good or not

Question 9

UNEP - Funding

Answer 9

• generally a major challenge
• lack of sufficient funding for gen ops
• three sources: UN Regular Budget, Environment Fund (voluntary contributions to flexible funding), + Ear-Marked Contributions (also voluntary, but intended for specific things) -> approx 80% of funding = Ear-Marked

Question 10

Conferences of the Parties

Answer 10

• established by MEAs -> meet regularly, allows the MEA to operate on an ongoing basis
• reps of each state that are party to the treaty participate
• each state gets one vote
• knowledge + info disseminated re what’s going on in the sessions

Question 11

Participation in COPs

Answer 11

Lots of other entities participate beyond official parties:
- NGOs
- other indivs

Means opportunity for side events, info sessions, protests, etc. even though core decisionmakers remain state reps

Question 12

Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Answer 12

• dominant force in international env law
• result in longstanding mutual commitments + cooperation
• create institutions that coordinate science, explore new frontiers of env policy, + address intersection of env issues w/ development, human rights, + trade

Question 13

General Activities of COPs

Answer 13

• activities requiring formal consent (ex: formal amendments to treaty text)
  -> states can decide to opt out
• consensus-based activities - require only consensus, NOT formal consent, to be binding + no opt-out option for objecting states

Question 14

Consensus-Based COP Activity

Answer 14

Result in resolutions + decisions without which the treaty cannot be adequately understood

• interpret treaty obligations
• develop rules, modalities, + procedures for implementation of particular treaty provisions
• provide guidance to parties about implementation
• consider compliance + dispute resolution matters
• establish subsidiary organs
• address financial + organizational aspects of the treaty + its subsidiary organs
• set strategic frameworks for the future of the treaty

Question 15

Scope of Consensus-Based COP Activity

Answer 15

• can be internal or external
• also direct or indirect

Question 16

External Consensus-Based COP Activity

Answer 16

• directly or indirectly affects the obligations the parties have undertaken as they implement the treaty
• ex: Montreal Protocol allows COP to adopt adjustments + reductions of production or consumption of ozone-depleting substances through consensus-based procedure

Question 17

Internal Consensus-Based COP Activity

Answer 17

• addresses only the internal operation of the treaty - either the parties’ activity at the COP or the activity of subsidiary bodies to the COP
• ex: criteria used when parties vote at COP on formal amendments + instructions for work to be done by a subsidiary body

Question 18

Why do COPs matter?

Answer 18

• even if resolutions aren’t binding, the COP activity shapes substantive expectations (enforcement, compliance, agenda) -> has significance for the life of the treaty
• forum to flesh out what the treaty will be
• so much more going on than the text of the treaty - to the extent that this shapes interactions between repeat players, it shapes the life of the treaty

Question 19

Secretariat

Answer 19

• more day-to-day responsibilities, vs. COP more decision-making body
• precise functions vary depending on the treaty

Question 20

Secretariat - Common Roles

Answer 20

• monitoring compliance
• reporting on + facilitating treaty implementation
• supporting COPs
• promoting scientific research relevant to the treaty’s objectives
• contributing to the further development of the law
• conduit for communication among treaty parties
• maintaining authoritative convention records
• coordinating w/ other treaty regimes + secretariats
• generally lack authority + resources to enforce or implement a convention’s obligations though

Question 21

Secretariat - Relationship to Institutions

Answer 21

• secretariat may be part of an existing institution (ex: UNEP administers secretariats for CITES + Montreal Protocol)
• can also be a stand-alone institution (Biodiversity + Climate Chaneg)
• q of pros and cons of each treaty having its own bodies

Question 22

Can COPs have effect even if only soft law?

Answer 22

• reflect will of parties + breath life into treaty text
• can shape expectations even if not necessarily hard law
• even a framework convention with squishy/vague reqs can gain more force as parties further shape expectations
• can have an impact on domestic implementation
• overarching point: treaty = more than sum of its articles, lots of activity going on at COPs

Question 23

Influence of the Secretariat

Answer 23

• may have a particular approach/agenda
• Secretariat’s interpretations may become party of common understanding over time
• may hold pursue strings for research + decide which projects to fund
• has a platform to direct/focus research
• opinion may also be requested when resolutions are going to the parties
• ability to facilitate bringing people to the table in effective ways

Question 24

Epistemic Communities

Answer 24

• experts also convene at COPs
• NGO reps often know those from other states, see each other regularly
• can wind up w/ silos between treaties, but may also help further establish body of int law (expertise helps flesh out treaties over time)

Question 25

Pros and Cons of Distinct Treaty Bodies

Answer 25

Pros
- concept of particular focus issues needing own focus institutions
- concern that putting too much in one place can wind up w/ hierarchies of focus
- sense of collegiality (common interests, membership in epistemic community based on shared profession rather than nationality)

Cons
- distinct bodies means you wind up w/ silos (could impede coordination/ cooperation on different treaty goals-> might impede effectiveness)

Question 26

NGOs - Potential Benefits to States and Orgs

Answer 26

• information
• monitoring
• representation beyond states
• support for IOs
• supplementing state resources + facilitating compliance
• possibility of supporting countries who can’t afford to send larger delegations (resources, info-gathering)
• point that world w/o NGOs might leave voids filled by other actors you’d less want to see playing these roles (ex: corporations)

Question 27

NGOs - Who do they represent?

Answer 27

• complex
• civil society - NGOs can bring certain voices to the table + provide a check/balance/accountability
• practically though, extent to which they represent donors

Question 28

When might NGOs be less helpful from a state’s perspective?

Answer 28

• adversarial activism (might generate attention gov doesn’t want, but can be good in holding gov accountable)
• litigants - opportunity for advocacy + activism beyond national borders

Question 29

Other Ways NGOs Shape Policy + Outcomes

Answer 29

• mobilizing the market (drive consumer preferences)
• independent monitoring or verification
• info + capacity-building (staffing + expert support, though can sometimes come w/ strings)
• influence on media narrative

Question 30

When might NGOs be most effective?

Answer 30

• multiple roles
• multiple NGOs for each issue

Question 31

Potential Roles for Int Law

Answer 31

• may be context-dependent
• sharing + gathering info (can set baseline for evaluation as well as what needs to happen)
• capacity building
• financial transfers
• q of whether or not you want strict reqs (flexibility not great on something like climate change, where haven’t seen a lot of progress, but maybe good on plastics, where hasn’t been addressed as much yet)
• might want more than one treaty regime for a particular problem (might want a broader MEA along w/ bilateral agreements)