Blog Action Day: A Quick Look at International Environmental Law
It is not a coincidence that many of the world’s leaders now worry about the environment. For years, scientists have been trying to tell the world that the environment is in danger. Few have listened. But that has, thankfully, begun to change. You have celebrities like Al Gore promoting his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” and Leo Dicaprio with his “11th Hour.” You have hybrid cars that attempt to do less damage to the environment. You have groups trying to help save the environment such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation, to name a few.
Even the law has taken notice of the pains of the environment. There has been great interest in environmental laws and the necessary systems to enforce them, both in the international realm and in domestic jurisdictions.
International law already has a specialized field of law known as international environmental law. Though it is but in its infancy, the goals of international environmental law are far-reaching and a credit to the good intentions of the people involved. Father Joaquin Bernas, a renowned Philippine legal expert says, “the goal of environmental protectionists is the rational use of the elements of the environment through control, reduction and, whenever possible, elimination of the cause of environmental degradation.”
This is obviously difficult, considering the many challengers such a goal would have to face. Some developing countries may not care much about the environment, neither would a number of corporations. Then there’s the issue of jurisdictions under the law if the efforts of international environmental law were to be enforced in specific states.
But we have to remember that as a general principle of law, people are entitled a healthy environment and its protection. No less than the International Court of Justice held in the Danube Dan Case (1997 ICJ) that “the protection of the environment is a … vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a sine qua none for numerous human rights such as the right to health and the right to life itself.”
In the Philippines, the case of Oposa v. Factoran (224 SCRA 792 [1993]) even recognized that the Filipino people had “a right to a balanced and healthful ecology” and “the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.” This decision came from an interpretation by the Philippine Supreme Court of the provisions of the Philippine Constitution. Article II, Section 16 of the Constitution provides that “The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”
Perhaps in recognition of what are clearly inherent rights, the UN Conference on the Human Environment came out with the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. This conference called on Governments and peoples to exert common efforts for the preservation and improvement of the human environment, for the benefit of all the people and for their posterity.
Principle 2 is the most apt, as it states that: “The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate.”
In 1992, another UN conference on the environment came out with the Rio Declaration, which was agreed upon by 170 states. The intention of the principles in the Rio declaration echoed that of the Stockholm declaration.
It is a pity though that the declarations are, in a sense, mere wordplay. The declarations do not have the force of law and so cannot be enforced internationally. Though there are a number of treaties that do have binding effect on parties, many of these treaties have not been popular, to say the least.
For example, the Kyoto Protocol which sought to protect the environment and was originally signed by the United States of America has been rendered inutile by that same country, which withdrew its signature and hence removed itself from an obligation to comply with it.
Clearly, international environmental law is but an emerging field of law. It has a long way to go before it can be a strong tool to protect the environment. But the principles are there. They exist and are being developed, slowly and surely, in order to meet the challenges ahead. The question which remains however, is whether the law will actually help save the environment.
I believe it can. But until then, we have to do our part and try to protect the environment in our own way. One way would be through initiatives like blog action day.
Blog Action Day revolves around a simple idea: get as many bloggers as you can to write about the same topic on the same day. For Blog Action Day, that topic will be about the environment. Which is why today’s post talked about the environment (and the law).
Although the world’s environment is suffering, there are those who are here to help. And if you are a blogger, you can take part in trying to help as well.
Do your part today. Take action. Blog.
(Research for this article came primarily from the textbook of FATHER JOAQUIN BERNAS, AN INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, pp. 396-411 [2002]).
Filed under: Blog, Cause, Current Events, Law | Tagged: Blog, Blog Action Day, Environment, International Environmental Law
