Environmental threats
To follow up an earlier post on thinking outside the box of possible effects of climate change/environmental issues, it is worth noting this NYTimes op-ed on the possible security risk of global climate change, brought up by the British government at the UN Security Council. The concern has been raised in the US as well, as the article notes (the full report issued by retired generals and admirals is here (PDF)). According to London’s Observer and bandied about the internet, the Pentagon commissioned its own report (this site cannot vouch for its authenticity in any way) a number of years ago on the possibly dire security risks of climate change.
As the previous post here noted, it is worth considering what might happen if there are substantial environmental changes, how these could be addressed in IL, and from a risk/etc. perspective, what the impact might be on IL and on clients from such possible consequences as increased migration/immigration out of hard-hit places, increased attempts at legal and extra-legal cross-border actions and reactions for environmental issues, changes/conflicts over the law of the sea, more resource-based conflict, etc., etc. The scope of any environmental changes aside, as the issue gets more and more high-profile coverage, surely the “law”, either formally or informally, will follow.
P.S. It looks like, in honor of Earth Day, the ASIL has compiled a small list of resources on international environmental law. Obviously it seems to be just a start — I am sure the resources available (and the resources needed) will increase over time.
Daniel J. Graeber
April 27, 2007 @ 11:47 am
Rather than bang the drum of national security in hopes of sparking some political will to address environmental change, why not look to established law, such as Missouri v. Holland or The Trail Smelter Case?
International Law
April 27, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Thanks for the comment Daniel. While relying on established law (though still contested) is a good idea, I think it all has to be in the context of political will. Unfortunately the law is rarely the leader in a field (it may break through areas where an idea is contested, but it never does so without a certain level of poltical support elsewhere) and cases get nowhere without the will around them. True, under Missouri v. Holland treaties can override state law, but at least at the moment the states are more where it is at environmentally (and in many things, frankly… a sort of reverse “states’ rights” movement is afoot by more “left”-leaning people/states while the federal government is on a “right”-leaning power grab — just goes to show very few people [with notable and principled exceptions] really care about who has the power, the state or the fed, it is more just a means to get your political will across and couch in in “neutral” terms). And Trail Smelter, while imporant precedent on actions between states on cross-border pollution, was really just an arbitration decision that was probably only enforced/allowed by the US and Canada b/c it was the US and Canada and there were a lot of angry property owners in the US. And it was from 1931… not exactly a stunning new development to rely on.
Of course these cases should be cited and used, but the post was also that in fields of law one does not usually think of as being environmentally-related may have to at least consider environmental issues and the likelihood of increased regulation/concern, if not at the US federal level then at least at the state level and internationally. Those involved in the use of force/peace and security field may have to think about the dangers of environmental damage and how to account for it/reduce risks. From a basic logistics point, and this borders more on international affairs than “law” per se, but will there need to be more humanitarian missions for groups under environmental stress? Are there ways to account for liability for these (and looking to the cases would of course help on this). For those concerned with the rule of law, project finance, law and development, etc. perhaps one should think more of environmental considerations and at least having to think about the possible impact of unrest and or/increased regulation. Of course this is being taken into account in most cross-border financial/project deals through various contract mechanisms and insurance (though will political risk insurance extend to cover environmental concers and regulations, does one need additional insurance for these issues? Will “expropriation” include or exclude environmental regulation? Should it?) and more and more rule of law groups at least consider environmental issues, but there may end up being a lot more unrest and therefore disputes/litigation/arbitration/etc. over these issues and, I suspect, this will take place whether or not the US government passes legislation or enacts treaties. And, I suspect, at least some more regulation will come out, and probably a few court decisions here and there, no matter the scope of actual environmental damage.
Daniel J. Graeber
April 27, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
True true. All true comments. But it gets me thinking about the privatization of water in Latin and Central America. I remember reading an article in Foreign Policy or similar journal about this. Long story short, what had started off for the locals escalated into civil conflict due to the industrialization of the local water resources. The moral of the story, I think, is not in cloaking the environmental problem in national security. Certainly, the situation in Darfur has similar problems and there are all sorts of treaties and regulations attempting to deter such atrocities. Why would linking environmental change to national security have an impact when linking national security to genocide does not? I would suggest it’s the responsibility of the world bank, IMF, or similar bodies to require sort of a balance on the sheets of industrialization. Emmissions here must be met with offsets there; that sort of thing.