简历代写 The universal environment

THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF CBDR IN ENVIRONMENT LAW

The principle of CBDR is the outcome of the United Nations Convention on Climate and then after the Kyoto Protocol. Several mechanisms has been adopted for the effective implication of the CBDR Principle in relation to the environment law proposed for the protection of the global environment and keep a check on the activities of the countries.

On the basis of the legal notion of justice it is treated as a legally binding obligation on the developing and developed countries to end the environmental problems which are converting this world and global environment into highly unsecured place for surviving not only for humans but whole biodiversity. Though the developed nations are not ready to accept their duty to provide any such assistance to the developing countries clearly stated in Principle 7 of the Convention on climate change.

EFFECTIVENESS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE PRINCIPLE OF CBDR IN RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT LAW

The principle of CBDR has contributed much towards the protection of global environment but then also it possesses many shortcomings. The main problem is that the principle was established to increase sustainable developmet reducing the harm that may be conflicted by the activities of the nations. The Kyoto Protocol was a measure to stop such happenings but many of its provisions acts as discretionary towards the developing countries by allowing them to do such activities as required for their development even aftr knowing the fact that they may highly contribute towards the environment degradation. [14]

As per the research of several scholars it has brought into notice of the world community that the pollutants emitted from the developing countries is much higher than that emitted by the developed countries. The Kyoto Protocol and Rio Declaration are not so effective to lead to the sustainable development as there are so many loopholes in the instruments which gives favour to one nation is agiant the other and indirectly raises the problem to much more advanced level.

Inspite of so many weaknesses there are still some areas where the environmental instruments are effective i.e. the use of technological and financial and resourse incentices through “CDM The Clean Development Mechanism” in which the developed countries transfer their technology to the developing countries in return of which they receive the credit towards the use of its emission reduction obligations. But it is also a long process requiring treaties between the countries.

The principle of CBDR put atleast some kind of liability on every state but the Kyoto Protocol has freed the developing countries from any such responsibility and has put the whole burden on developed countries only which renders the principle bearing no importance. the main weakness is the lack of the binding nature of the Kyoto Protocol and the CBDR Principle. Even the United nations has refused to ratify it because of these weaknesses. [15]

The need of the time is that both developed and underdeveloped countries should unite to eradicate such a serious problem of environment change. It is required to interpret the CBDR Principle in such a way that it will not only work as tool in the favor of developing countries but will also bind them to incure the responsibility towards the sustainable development.

1. French, Duncan, “Developing States and International Environmental Law: The Importance of Differentiated Responsibilities.”International & Comparative Law Quarterly,49, pp 35-60 www.journals.cambridge.org.
2. http://ssrn.com , Mustapher, Ntale, “Rethinking the Application of the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities in the International Climate Legal Framework (December 6, 2008).” Last assessed on 14 March 2010.
3. Bharat Agarwal, The Principle Of Common But Differentiated Responsibility In Environmental Law
4. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 United Nations (UN)
5. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, art. 2, 31 I.L.M. at 854.
6. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1997.
7. Artilce on International Environment Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer Netherlands, Edition June 2002, Vol. 2, pg. 151-170 www.springerlink.com
8. ibid 7
9. French, Duncan. “Developing States and International Environmental Law: The Importance of Differentiated Responsibilities.”International & Comparative Law Quarterly,49, pp 35-60. www.journals.cambridge.org.
10. P. Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law: Frameworks, Standards and Implementation, 1st edn. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996) at 217.
11. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Covention on Climate Change 1997.
12. Ibid 10.
13. Christopher C.joyner, Common but Diffentiated Responsibility, Proc 358 (2002). www.wisbar.org.
14. Scarpace, Ericka k., “The Common but Differentiated Responsibilities Principle: A burden or benefit to international environment law.” www.wisbar.org. Last assessed on 14 March 2010.
15. Todd. M., Lopez, A look at climate change and the evolution of the Kyoto Protocol, Edition 2003 at pg. 286-310.