Illegal Waste Management and Issues in Environmental Law Enforcement

Illegal Waste Management and Issues in Environmental Law Enforcement

Appropriate mitigation of international issues related to enhancement and protection of the surrounding need collaboration between all countries in the world.  The earth’s future has become a world concern, primarily because of the telecommunication improvements that have increased understanding of the biosphere through in-depth research. The plant has suffered multiple accidental as well as intentional events, which paralyzed the health of the environment in several ways. The spill which occurred at Exxon Valdez forms one of the elements in the list of adverse events which recently occurred as it led to the pouring of millions of gallon of oil in the surrounding of Alaska. Decades earlier, environmental issues such as the events were considered within states whenever they occur, but today, it is evident that they require international cooperation and laws as they not only affect the state’s surroundings but the world’s environment at large. Failures to collaborate and identify such issues can be detrimental to the health of the planet. Upon the assessment of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl during the 1980s, concerns relate to the greenhouse effect, climatic alterations, ozone layer destruction, and acid rain were among the adverse effects of pollution in the environment, that desperately needed international attention.  International community interests regarding environmental issues emerge in four different phenomena. Three of the situation associates directly to human activities within states which create adversities in the world such as ocean wastes. Elements such as trans-boundary pollution, endangered species due to extinction require both countrywide and international attention, as natural events such as volcanic eruption and earth tremors needs international attention.  The growth of concerns regarding environmental issues is growing steadily; other international environmental lawmakers are building bridges to the gaps. While several efforts to recover the health of the environment are taking place, legal elements have proven to be a stumbling for environmental law enforcement and negotiation efforts.

International Law and lack of Liability

International laws primarily emerge from international agreements, principles of law, and customs. The shortcoming of international treaties is that it only impacts the signatories with whom they legally binding. In case there are no explicit agreements regarding a particular issue, it is the general principles and the customary laws that provide solutions to the problem. These sources offer controversial and sometimes vague discourse, which imposes a series of challenges to the enforcement of environmental regulations and laws. Obtaining consensus regarding customary laws is quite challenging as most of its norms are developed by industrialized capitalist states which have a different operating system to the developing countries. As such, it becomes difficult to prove the effectiveness of binding environmental laws. A state which violates customary laws may claim that its structures lack such norms, and therefore the prevailing law does not bind it. This may turn into a scapegoat for the countries that participate in the destruction of the environment. A typical example is the former Soviet Union, which was deemed liable for damaging other states upon the occurrence of the Chernobyl accident. While several attempts are underway to apply general principles and customary laws in the incident, the results have proved to be indetermination and stagnation.

The legal feature of compensation liability for damage to the environment often exists in a state’s tort, civil, or environmental regulations and laws. Recently the element became subject to particular laws regarding compensation and liability for damage to the environment. For instance, the EU Directive on Environmental liability with regard to prevention and remedying of environmental damage (2004/35/CE) asserts that damage to the environment can only be compensated when the impacts on conservation state of the species and habitats within the ecological space or the human health risks related to land contamination are measurable or significantly evident, without needing to prove that the responsible party is negligent. Since there are complexities in environmental issues (land, air, and water contamination, destruction of wildlife, forests, agriculture, fisheries, and plants), it is difficult to comprehend, several questions regarding the effectiveness of the liability law emerge. These include; the ways of defining and quantifying damages which require payment, the means of demonstrating the presence of damage as well as the cause-effect association between the negligent activity or illicit and the existing damage, and the ways of calculating compensation of things which may not be valued since it lacks a comparator.

Inadequacies in Current Frameworks

Several organizations currently question whether the modern frameworks for solving international environmental issues can efficiently satisfy the various environmental problems such as species elimination, hazardous wastes, ozone melting, and global warming. Unfortunately, most of the existing frameworks have not undergone replacement since their enactment in 1972 during the Conference of the United Nations. The conference marked the first time that the international community met and planned to deal with the contingencies within the environment. However, the conference did not address its enforcement structure of environmental laws. Many states were not familiar with the fragmented and creaking process of policy decisions as well as the frameworks that consistently muster less resources to satisfy even the most urgent difficulties.

Most of the developments within the international environmental laws emerged due to the arbitration of Trail Smelter where the International Tribunal which was established to form as a result of the Boundary water treaties between Canada and Unites States in 1909, was asked to identify the destructions which took place in the United States as a result of fumes from a Canadian shelter which was privately owned. Explicitly, the tribunal identified the responsibilities for activities, which led to significant injuries in the territories of a different state. The event is similar to the Corfu Channel Case, Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v. Canada), in which the United States launched a legal mission to recover the warships of the British, which were caused by Albanian mines. The International Court of Justice identified that every state must prevent their activities from damaging the surrounding of other states. Even though there is evident progress, it is essential to create efficient and effective enforcement measures, which is possible with a launch of expediency before further environmental damage.

Lack of Precedent and Noteworthy Decision

The structure of international laws does not have precedent and noteworthy decision-making tools. This has led to a series of international liabilities as their absence of case laws prevent them from exercising particular principles which focus on ensuring that specific global environmental issues are addressed across the members state, regardless of the state norms and measures. The abstraction of certain principles, such as the sic utere, does not typically mean that they can erode the presence of case law. However, it is due to the reluctance of states when it dawns on polarizing partial sovereignty, which argues that the third party binding aspect should exist. Particular international structures such as the ICJ (International Court of Justice) have specific regulations that take effect ones compliance has taken place; however, they are unable to solve the issues amicably. The ICJ requires that only members’ states should present their cases in their institutions. In this case, the international fora will consistently exist as empty chambers, which adore the authority of states until it enhances its boundaries of deciding cases within their environment. It is also evident that the supranational regulation institutions do not have a centralized form of structure, hence creating a barrier to the protection and management of the environment effectively. It is because of the mentioned reasons that bodies that create environmental laws should develop binding standards and exercise control with power within the view of creating the conclusive determination that ensures compliance by the members’ states.

Excess Sovereignty in States

The implementation of environmental laws faces challenges in areas where states exercise the utmost sovereignty. The legal structure of the International arena typically blocks it from the adequate as well as sufficient performances in its members’ countries. Even today, international bodies such as the United Nations serve the purpose of making monitoring, as well as gathering of laws and legislations, but exercise minimal powers when it dawns on enforcing laws to its members’ states. Debates have arisen regarding the significant roles of the United States in the future where there is necessity and desirability to develop a centralized and new authority which ensures sufficient enforcement of environmental laws in countries. Today, no legislative or judicial wing is centralized with the implementation of authority and mandatory jurisdiction. Voluntary compliance is the weighbridge that measures international legal tools can function efficiently and effectively. It is usually the role of the national government to determine if environmental cases regarding particular parties or states align with the agreements and laws of the international arena. While the international bodies are unable to enforce states to comply with the environmental regulations, there is no standardized body to take care of the enforcement gaps. Hence the steps remain complicated. When the public functions of a country conflict with its interest effects, it becomes difficult to determine whether either of the interests will be satisfied. From this view, it is challenging to develop and establish neutral and independent environmental bodies to ensure a uniform adherence by all nations through the utilization of tools such as financial aid, sanctions, different kinds of resources, and education rather than merely providing enforcement to a country.

Generally, many strides have been made to ensure that international laws and negotiation efforts are in place; however, the existing laws have done more harm than good. While the international bodies that conduct environmental mitigation do not have effective strategies to exercise their authorities, their notable roles are to conduct mitigation approaches in environmental mitigation tools. International laws need liabilities because of the controversial and vague nature of laws. Nations can independently unable to conduct effective environmental steps because of non-flexible schedules in the organization. It is therefore prudent that it enacts the legal arena, which can accommodate all regardless of their know-how regarding the son.

References