No description available.

No description available.

This research determines whether and how an equitable geographic distribution of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects can be achieved. In particular, it examines whether the CDM legal regime can achieve an equitable geographic distribution of projects, or whether the issues that contribute to the inequitable distribution are fundamental to the design of the regime. The two main questions answered by this research are: how should CDM projects be distributed among countries, that is, what is the meaning of equitable geographic distribution of CDM projects; and can the CDM regime achieve this distribution? The answer to the first question defines equitable geographic distribution and outlines the factors that should be considered to help achieve this distribution, which are: greenhouse gas emission reduction potential, need (or sustainable development potential) and preferential treatment. The answer to the second question is that although the CDM regime can achieve a slightly more equitable geographic distribution than is currently the case, a truly equitable geographic distribution cannot be achieved under the regime, primarily because of the market nature of the CDM. The thesis then makes recommendations on how to achieve a distribution of CDM projects among countries that can be regarded as more equitable than the current distribution.

Incudes bibliographical references. / The first human activities which were recognized as major environmental threats were industrial production processes. As a result, this field was the first which was subjected to environmental law, initially on a domestic level, and then subsequently also on a regional and global level. As development continued to progress, people realized that there were considerably more human activities that could also have a hazardous impact upon the environment. One of these were hazardous products, products which possess the inherent capacity to cause adverse effects on human health or the environment. This group includes, in particular; .certain chemicals, like pesticides, industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals, as well as many other nonchemical products as diverse as radioactive materials, consumer goods and, in more recent times, genetically modified organisms (GMOs). As a consequence, many countries have adopted national laws to deal with these products. In addition, states have had to recognize that the issue of hazardous products also has certain international ramifications. This led to the adoption of a special group of international environmental instruments which specifically addressed product related hazards. The, present study undertakes to analyze this group of i agreements with a view to identifying common characteristics and differences. In order to achieve this, it concentrates on the four Multilateral Environmental Agreements which have been concluded in the field: the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (Rotterdam Convention), the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Cartagena Protocol), the Montreal Protocolon Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Stockholm Convention). In addition, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention) was also included in the study, in spite of the fact that waste presents certain peculiarities which render its classification as a product contentious.

Based on a Ph. D. Thesis--Helssingin yliopisto, 2000. / Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references and index.

Based on a Ph.D. thesis-Helssingin yliopisto, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references and index.

No description available.

Magister Legum - LLM / In order to address the challenge of global environmental degradation and natural resource depletion, a complex and multi-layered environmental governance structure has materialised over the past few decades. There is widespread agreement that the current international environmental regime is too complex and inadequate to effectively address global environmental challenges. Thus, in order to control the threat of environmental degradation, many countries, authors, commentators and academics alike have opined that one centralised body be created for the effective control and governance of environmental matters on an international level. Governance is not the same as government. It includes the actions of the state and, in addition, encompasses actors such as communities, businesses, and Non-Governmental Organisations (hereafter referred to as NGOs). Within the context of the evolution of global environmental politics and policy, the end goal of global environmental governance is to improve the state of the environment and to eventually lead to the broader goal of sustainable development. The efficacy of global environmental governance will ultimately depend on implementation at global and domestic levels. National implementation is the ultimate key, both to the efficacy of the GEG system and to meaningful environmental improvements. In the following composition, I will critically analyse the concept of a Global Environmental Organisation (hereafter referred to as a GEO) and discuss whether the formation of such an establishment is indeed necessary to handle environmental matters on an international scale.

While the basic premise of precaution has been widely endorsed in environmental treaties since its inclusion in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, as a legal principle, it has been framed in such vastly dissimilar ways that it continues to generate significant disagreement over its precise nature, standing and legal effect. Despite the rich and extensive scholarship aimed at clarifying its normative content and operation, the ongoing lack of consensus on when the precautionary principle is applicable and what its application entails points to fundamental definitional challenges as well as its overall limitations as a regulatory tool. This thesis attempts to move beyond this impasse by reassessing the precautionary principle in light of the distinction traditionally made in formal scientific discourse between risk and uncertainty. While this technical distinction is fundamental to defining the proper scope of the principle’s application, the thesis finds that much of the existing legal discourse has either overlooked or marginalised the risk/uncertainty dichotomy, which in turn has blurred the distinction between the principles of precaution and prevention. The thesis sets out what is meant by these analytically distinct concepts in the legal context, focusing on their implications for the processes of legal reasoning and regulatory decision-making. Having examined the conceptual underpinnings of the precautionary principle, and of the principle of prevention, the thesis proceeds to address a central research question – if uncertainty, as opposed to risk, determines the operational scope of the precautionary principle, to what extent do the current applications of the precautionary principle actually fall within its proper domain? To answer this, the thesis embarks on a deconstruction of the precautionary principle in practice by analysing how precaution has been deployed as an operational principle in particular treaty contexts. The treaty regimes examined here include: international fisheries; persistent organic pollutants; ocean dumping; sanitary and phytosanitary threats under the WTO; and atmospheric pollution and climate change. In each case, the thesis scrutinises the extent to which assumptions, obligations and measures contained therein are consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of precaution. Despite the pervasive use of the precautionary rhetoric in treaty texts and practice, the thesis ultimately finds that, for the most part, these instruments are in fact aimed at specific, scientifically-determined risks, and thus what is often upheld in the name of precaution is actually the prevention principle. The thesis argues that it is better to frame risk regulation through prevention, and not precaution, by considering the implications of abandoning the precautionary principle in those areas where the prevention principle is clearly at play. The thesis completes the analysis by addressing what is actually left for the precautionary principle and discussing some of the distinct ways in which precaution functions within its specific, circumscribed domain.

This study unveiled the trade-environment debate which has been revolving in the World Trade Organization for quite a long time now. While economic integration and trade liberalization offer the promise of growth and prosperity, environmentalists fear that free trade will lead to increased pollution and resource depletion. On the other hand, free traders worry that over-reaching environmental policies will obstruct efforts to open markets and integrate economies around the world. Trade liberalization has the potential to affect the environment both positively and negatively. Trade and environment tensions have therefore emerged as a major issue in the debate over globalisation. This paper examined the contours of these tensions and argued that trade policy and environmental programs can be better integrated and made more mutually supportive.