Browse by title
Alan D. Hemmings, Klaus Dodds and Peder Roberts
Edited by Katharina Kummer Peiry, Andreas R. Ziegler and Jorun Baumgartner
Andreas R. Ziegler, Katharina Kummer Peiry and Jorun Baumgartner
General principles of international environmental law provide the theoretical foundation for the development of normative frameworks in international law. In the waste management context, five general principles are particularly relevant: the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and the duty not to cause transboundary harm; the principle of preventive action; the corresponding principle of cooperation; the principle of sustainable development; and the precautionary principle. Operationalization of these principles in the waste context has led to the development of new principles, such as those of self-sufficiency, proximity, waste minimization, environmentally sound management and prior informed consent, all of which are further operationalized in the detailed rules set out in the Basel Convention and other treaties dealing with waste management. This chapter examines the interpretation and application of these general principles and the role they have played in the development of the international legal regime for the management and transboundary movement of waste.
Richard D. Margerum and Cathy J. Robinson
Collaborative approaches to governance have been initiated to address some of the most complex and difficult problems facing society today. This chapter reviews the principles and concepts embodying collaboration and its evolution from a range of disciplines. It reviews the emergence of collaboration in the United States, Europe and globally. It explores the concept of collaboration and its principles across a diversity of disciplines, including urban planning, public administration, public policy, political science, conflict resolution and other fields. The authors unpack the concepts of challenges faced by collaboration and the extent to which these represent limitations or shortcomings of theory and practice. They also examine the concept of governance and its changing nature in relation to decision making, participants in this decision making and the role of government. The chapter concludes with an overview of each chapter in the book and its contributions to (1) theory and context, (2) problems and context, (3) policy politics and power, (4) organizations, stakeholders and governance, and (5) process and participation.
Questioning the constructs: ‘the environment’ and ‘(human) rights’
Edited by Anna Grear
Edited by Tim Stephens and Ed Couzens
This article critically evaluates the discourses concerning the social impacts of Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) carbon offset schemes on people living in and around forest areas. In particular, the article critically evaluates two of the strategies proposed to mitigate potential social risks from REDD+ and to promote benefits to forest peoples and indigenous peoples: tenure reform and processes of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The article suggests that these strategies may not lead to the outcomes forest peoples and their advocates are seeking and provide only constrained tools for contesting REDD+ projects. This article suggests these strategies may instead operate to facilitate the greater disciplinary inclusion of forest peoples in the so-called ‘green economy’.
Although the no-harm principle has been identified as the cornerstone of international environmental law, it has not generally been recognized as a central feature of international climate change governance. Enduring disagreements as to the relevant normative principles to international cooperation have long plagued international climate change negotiations. This article highlights the general legal and political relevance of the no-harm principle in relation to climate change, including the responsibility of states for breaking this principle. It thus suggests that the climate regime should be framed as a regime recognizing obligations and responsibilities rather than a regime of voluntary participation and assistance. The article includes a detailed account of the reception of the no-harm principle in climate negotiations, a response to three likely objections to the relevance of the no-harm principle, and some reflections on a possible, realistic interpretation of the no-harm principle in relation to climate change.