Science-Based Lawmaking: How to Effectively Integrate Science in International Environmental Law

426 Pages·2019·5.208 MB·English

by  Dionysia-Theodora Avgerinopoulou

Dionysia-Theodora Avgerinopoulou
Science-
Based
Lawmaking
How to Eff ectively Integrate Science in
International Environmental Law
Science-Based Lawmaking
Dionysia-Theodora Avgerinopoulou
Science-Based Lawmaking
How to Effectively Integrate Science
in International Environmental Law
Dionysia-TheodoraAvgerinopoulou
EuropeanInstituteofLaw,ScienceandTechnology
Athens,Greece
ISBN978-3-030-21416-6 ISBN978-3-030-21417-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21417-3
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartofthe
materialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,
broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformation
storageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology
nowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this
bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor
theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany
errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG.
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Preface
Inthebook,IcriticizethecurrentcorpusofInternationalEnvironmentalLaw(IEL)
asinadequatetoeffectivelyandinatimelymannerprotectourglobalenvironment.I
explore this inadequacy by tracking two factors: first, under the current global
governance system, IEL is influenced primarily by political and financial factors,
rather than scientific inputs; second, the lawmaking processes that prevail in IEL
followanold-fashionedparadigm,wherepoliticalentitiesholdthelegislativepower,
andexperts,includingnaturalandsocialscientists,retainonlyconsultativeorreview
powers,withoutanydecision-makingcompetence.Sincethetraditionallawmaking
models consistently fail to protect the natural environment, I argue that experts,
legitimized by their knowledge of issues related to the protection of our global
environment, and consequently public health should have a stronger say in the
lawmaking process at the international level. The present book explores the ways
bywhichsuchdelegationoflawmakingpowerscanoccurbasedontheredesignof
theinternationallawmakingmodels,whilerespectingthenecessaryrequirementsof
democracyandaccountability.
WhenIstartedworkingonthistopic,IhadalreadyearnedanL.L.M.,agraduate
degreewithaspecializationinInternationalEnvironmentalLaw,andIwasworking
asaresearcherattheYaleCenterforEnvironmentalLawandPolicy(Y.C.E.L.P.)at
Yale University. At that time, through my membership in the expert community, I
identifiedwiththeperspectiveoftheexperts.Bytheendofthewritingofthisbook,
however,Ihadgainedanadditionalidentity,and,inmanyways,amoreinfluential
one; Ihadbeenvestedwith thedutiesofaMemberoftheParliamentinGreece. I,
then,hadthechancetoseebothperspectivesofthelawmakingprocesses—boththe
perspectiveofanexpertandapolitician.WhenIfirstjoinedtheParliament,Ithought
my new position might influence my perspective on the dissertation and make me
changeitsbasicassumptionthat,side-by-sidewithpoliticians,expertsshouldhavea
strongersayintheInternationalEnvironmentalLawmakingproceduresthatthesay
they have today. However, my assumption remained unchanged and, indeed, has
been reinforced. Further, I have realized that, like the inadequate integration of
science in the international context of Environmental Law, similar problems also
v
vi Preface
existinthedomesticcontext.Statesshouldalsoadoptmoreflexibleandprogressive
lawmakingprocessesinthedomesticlevel,aswell,iftheyareinterestedintohaving
updated and science-based legislation. Knowledge management procedures could
alsohelpsubstantiallyatthedomesticlevel,aswell.
Beforecommencingtheargumentationinthecurrentbook,itisimperativethatI,
above all, emphasize the significant role that the protection of our natural environ-
ment plays in preserving human and non-human life, public health, and quality of
life. The fundamental hypothesis of the book is that the protection of our global
naturalenvironmenthasemergedasoneofthemostfundamentalvaluesinsocieties
all over the world. One manifestation of this value climax is the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), which the UN adopted in September 2015: most of
the SDGs that guide the actions and initiatives of all of the countries and interna-
tional organizations in the coming years are focused on environment, energy, and
climate change-related goals. Now that the international community has agreed on
these goals, research should focus on how to achieve them. The present book
attempts to explore and propose some of the ways in which the International
Institutionscanhelptothisend.
Athens,Greece Dionysia-TheodoraAvgerinopoulou
April2019
Acknowledgments
The book is based on my Doctoral Thesis at Columbia University School of Law.
Forthisreason,firstandforemost,IwouldliketoextendmygratitudetotheChairof
myDoctoralCommittee,ProfessorPetrosC.Mavroidis,EdwinB.Parker,Professor
of Foreign and Comparative Law, at Columbia University School of Law,
New York, N.Y. Prof. Mavroidis, who apart from expertly fulfilling his duties as
the Chair of the Doctoral Committee, also helped me develop the quality of
persistence as a researcher. Further, I would also like to thank Professor Edward
Lloyd, Evan M. Frankel, Clinical Professor in Environmental Law, and Professor
EdwardW.Merrill,CharlesEvansHughes,ProfessorofLawatColumbiaUniver-
sity School of Law, as well as Robert Howse, Lloyd C. Nelson, Professor of
International Law at New York University School of Law for all the time they
spentreviewingthebook.FromtheirperspectivesasexpertsinU.S.Environmental
LawandInternationalLaw,theyprovidedinvaluableinsightsforthedevelopmentof
thebook’sargumentation.
Further, I was very fortunate to have been taught by and to have worked with
important leaders in the field of Environmental Law, including Justice Michael
DeclerisattheGreekCouncilofStateandProfessorsDanielC.EstyatYaleSchool
of Forestry and Yale Law School, and Lisa Heinzerling at Georgetown University
Law Center, who influenced the content of the book through their unparalleled,
progressive,andethicalscholarship.Iwouldliketothankmyparents,Zisimosand
LambriniAvgerinopoulou,andmyclosefriendswhohaveofferedmetheirinvalu-
able support during the many years that I studied abroad. Further, I would like to
thank colleagues and friends working as administrators at international organiza-
tions, including the European Union, for all the light they shed upon my misty
thoughtsaboutthepracticesoftheseinstitutionsregardingtheintegrationprocesses
ofscienceinInternational Environmental Law. Funding for research wasprovided
by the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, the State Scholarship
Foundation(I.K.Y.)ofGreece,theNorthAtlanticTreatyOrganizationScholarship
Fund, the GerondelisFoundation, and theColumbia University School ofLaw via
the Cutting Fellowship in International Law. I am immensely grateful to all of the
vii
viii Acknowledgments
aforementioned institutions for funding my extensive research and enabling me to
complete the book. I am also indebted to Prof. Richard Steward, John Edward
Sexton,ProfessorofLawfromtheNewYorkUniversitySchoolofLaw,andProf.
LoriDamrosch,HenryL.Moses,ProfessorofLawandInternationalOrganization,
Hamilton Fish, Prof. of Intl. Law and Diplomacy for giving me the opportunity to
workwiththeminresearchprojectsandbenefitfromtheirextensiveknowledgeon
Environmental and International Law, respectively, as well as receive additional
fundsformyresearch.
Contents
1 Introduction:IsContemporaryInternationalEnvironmental
LawBasedonScience?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 ArbitraryAdoptionofLawsBeforetheEyesofan
Environmentalist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 CaseStudy:TheRegulationsoftheInternationalSeabed
Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 DefinitionsoftheMainTerms-of-Art. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.1 CompositionofandRoleDistinctionBetweenPolitical
andExpertBodies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.2 ExpertsasNaturalandSocialScientists. . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.3 Science-BasedPolicyMaking,Science-BasedDecision-
MakingandScience-BasedLawmaking. . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.4 FirstAttempttoDefineScience-BasedLawmaking. . . . . . . . . 21
2 HistoricalBackground:WhatAretheLessonsLearntfrom
thePastandWhatRemainsToBeAnswered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1 FromPlato’sPhilosopher-KingtoEnlightment,Noocracy,
ExpertTechnocracyandEco-technocracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2 MilestoneInstrumentsCallingforEffectiveIntegration
ofScienceinInternationalEnvironmentalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2.1 EarlyBilateralandMultilateralEnvironmental
Conventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.2 AcknowledgmentoftheImportanceofScience
inTreaty-Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2.3 TheRoadtoStockholm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.2.4 The1972StockholmConferenceontheHuman
Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.2.5 The1992UNConferenceonEnvironment
andDevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
ix
x Contents
2.2.6 TheStateofInternationalEnvironmentalLaw
atthe2002UNWorldConferenceonSustainable
Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.2.7 DeploymentofNewEnvironmentalTools:Risk
AssessmentsandEnvironmentalImpactAssessments.... 64
PartI PathologyofInternationalEnvironmentalLaw
3 FragmentationofScience,InternationalEnvironmentalLaw,
andInternationalInstitutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.1 ThePrincipleofSpecializationinInternationalInstitutions. . . 78
3.2 TheNeedforanEcosystemsApproachandanIntegrated
Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.3 IntegratedApproachandInstitutionalCooperation. . . . . . . . . 81
3.4 DelaysinInternationalResponsestoNewEnvironmental
ProblemsSuchasClimateChange. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.5 ImpotencetoDesignLarge-ScaleScientificModels. . . . . . . . . 86
3.6 EffortsforthePromulgationofaCoherentSetofGeneral
PrinciplesofInternationalEnvironmentalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.6.1 MontevideoProgram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.6.2 TheCaseoftheUnitedNationsForumonForests. . . 90
4 CausesofPathology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.1 VaguenessoftheProvisionsinInternationalEnvironmental
Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.2 LegislativeInactionintheFaceofScientificUncertainty. . . . . 99
4.2.1 ChaosTheoryandCertainty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.3 QuestioningScience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.4 GreenCritiquesonthePowerStructureofScience. . . . . . . . . 105
4.5 EcologicIlliteracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.6 WhyIsItNowtheRightTimeforaScience-Based
LawmakingModel?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.7 AcquisitionofLawmakingCompetencesbyInternational
Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.8 IntegrationofScienceandExpertiseinthePyramid
ofInternationalEnvironmentalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.9 ThePrinciplesofSustainabilityasaFirstOverallFramework
fortheAdoptionofSecondaryLegislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.10 SecondAttempttoDefineScience-BasedLawmaking. . . . . . . 117
PartII NormativePowersoftheInternationalInstitutionswith
EnvironmentalCompetence
5 ContemporaryLawmakingProcessesandProgressiveLawmaking
ProcessesThatBindtheStatesWithoutUnanimousVote. . . . . . . . 121
5.1 TheoreticalFrameworkoftheLawmakingCompetences
oftheInternationalInstitutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.1.1 FromFunctionalismtoNeoinstitutionalism. . . . . . . . 124