Getting into the debate
The BBC has been following the talks called by President Bush on climate change, and has reported that Condoleezza Rice has said climate change is a real problem, and world leaders should forge a new global consensus on tackling it.
One might of course be skeptical of Bush’s motives (whether this is purely a political play) and one awaits the probably inevitable focus on voluntary and/or cosmetic cuts or market-based measures. But perhaps this at least shows that some in the US are starting to realize that at least being a part of the negotiation, or perhaps starting a separate set of negotiations in which one frames the debate, may be a more viable way of interacting with areas of burgeoning international law (and increasing domestic pressure), such as climate change. One thing for IL scholars who might not like some of the US or any other major power’s positions but constantly call for more international legal engagement by those same powers, is to be careful what you wish for. Simply having “more” engagement by governments does not mean they will take the positions one hopes for or even use the same forums (as Bush’s sidestepping clearly shows) and in some ways perhaps international regimes (such as the ICC, Kyoto, etc.) were actually “helped” by being largely dismissed by the US. Other regimes in which major countries opt out may also have been helped. While IL scholars or especially advocates for various causes (human rights, environment, indigenous rights, etc.) often call for immediate worldwide adoption of various principles, sometimes having smaller venues helps to develop more organized and internally consistent regimes, some supporting cases, some domestic legislation, etc. to the stage in which major powers are forced to get involved or “miss the boat”. But of course without such public and worldwide calls, perhaps the regimes would remain permanently marginal.
In any event, the interplay between “involvement” by major powers in IL and whether this is “good” or “bad” for one’s cause is not as simple as it first appears.
T. Sun
October 23, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
The Bush administration has made a smart political move in deciding to host this conference. It generates the positive publicity that they need in order to appear as if the US is on board with the rest of the world on the issue of global warming, while allowing for the government to continue moving at the pace that it sees fit in responding. No surprise, then, that other major powers (e.g. China and India) would eagerly jump to agree with the conference’s goals of having “all nations [...] tackle climate change in the ways they deem best.” These countries are certainly getting involved, but as stated, not necessarily in the direction that many would like to see.
However, under all of the statements about allowing for nations to have individual choice on the matter, might there be some positive motives as well? Perhaps global initiatives do not always properly reflect the best ways for individual nations to reduce gases, considering the wide scope of nations that they cater to.