Developing States and International Environmental Law: The Importance of Differentiated Responsibilities

Abstract

The protection of the global environment has become one of the central objectives of the international community in recent decades. Issues such as climate change, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the loss of the biological diversity has resulted in a growing international awareness of the problems facing the planet. Moreover, there is also recognition that States will need to act more collaboratively at the international level if effective solutions are to be found to these problems. However, concurrently there is also recognition that many States have pressing socio-economic concerns of their own, and that they have neither the resources nor the capabilities with which to devote to such global issues—so called “developing” States. This article examines the response of international environmental law to these two, potentially opposing, trends, viz., the need for universalism, on the one hand, and sensitivity to the needs of developing States, on the other. In particular, the article will examine the emerging legal principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, as well as discussing the various means of operationalising it. Nevertheless, as will be discussed below, there is still much debate as to the conceptual basis of this principle—leading one to question its real aim. Is it to contribute to a fairer world system in which developed States recognise their historical responsibility for past environmental damage, or is it simply an expedient means of ensuring the participation of developing States in what are primarily Northern concerns?

Global health financing: Priority to poor people or poor countries?

“…Rather, different actors have different obligations, and this can again be motivated by considerations of justice, solidarity and human rights. The idea of shared but differentiated responsibilities is analogous to that of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' in the context of international law and climate policy (French 2000;Stone 2004). In either case, responsibilities must be clearly and reasonably differentiated.…”

“You Will Always Have the Poor”: A Reflection on the Paradox of Justice as Law

“…55 And as these case studies reveal, the rhetoric of fairness and justice are powerfully emotive ideas in a wide range of situations. Indeed, without a continuous call for fairness and justice, the international system is in danger of stagnating at the expense particularly of the global poor (however defined).…”

Negotiating challenges and climate change

“…The CBDR principle, adopted also in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, flowed from principles of justice such that those who have contributed to the climate change problem and those who have greater capabilities to deal with it are ascribed a greater responsibility to reduce their emissions and assist others in their own mitigation and adaptation efforts (French, 2000;Rajamani, 2000;Anand, 2004). This principle has been challenged for at least four reasons: (i) that territorial variation and per capita approaches for differential standards ignore transboundary harm (Weisslitz, 2002;Adams, 2003) and the sovereign equality of states; (ii) that static attributions of responsibility are unfair as country situations change; (iii) that if large economies such as China, India, and Brazil are allowed to grow, the effectiveness of mitigation policy elsewhere will be reduced; and (iv) that measures that favour weak states are problematic because the very weakness of such states inhibits the effective implementation of their responsibilities (Harris, 1999;Bafundo, 2006;Honkanen, 2009).…”