- Library Home /
- Search Collections /
- Open Collections /
- Browse Collections /
- UBC Theses and Dissertations /
- The changing shape of sovereignty in international...
Open Collections
UBC Theses and Dissertations
UBC Theses and Dissertations
The changing shape of sovereignty in international environmental law Kirk, Elizabeth Agnes
Abstract
The two main arguments made in this paper are that the basic principles of international law need to change from emphasising the rights of individual states to emphasising the promotion of the common good and that this change is already taking place, albeit it very slowly and rather haphazardly. The aim of this paper is to attempt to give some direction to and to help speed the progress of these changes. To demonstrate the above thesis the paper looks at the developments in international environmental and natural resource law over approximately the last one hundred years. In so doing it looks at both how the law has developed generally and at the differences in the way different areas of the law have developed, so drawing out the haphazard nature of the development. The areas discussed are case law, the non-navigational use of international rivers, declarations and conventions on international environmental law generally (those dealing with resources regarded as the common heritage of mankind and those dealing with resources generally regarded as belonging to individual states.) It will be shown that certain circumstances are required to prompt states to agree to limit their sovereignty. They must either perceive limitation as the only or best way to obtain a certain benefit, or perceive that they share certain interests with others or face a common threat. The problem is that this approach leaves certain areas of the law undeveloped which means that it is still possible to argue that the fundamental principle of international law is the supremacy of individual state sovereignty. The difficulty with this is that it allows states to act without regard for the effects of their actions on others. For example, it allows them to refuse to take responsibility for the damage being done to the ozone layer because they can argue that they have the right to do as they wish within their territory. This takes us back to the first argument made above: that the law needs to change from promoting individual rights to promoting the common good.
Item Metadata
Title |
The changing shape of sovereignty in international environmental law
|
Creator | |
Publisher |
University of British Columbia
|
Date Issued |
1994
|
Description |
The two main arguments made in this paper are that the basic principles of international
law need to change from emphasising the rights of individual states to emphasising the
promotion of the common good and that this change is already taking place, albeit it very slowly
and rather haphazardly. The aim of this paper is to attempt to give some direction to and to help
speed the progress of these changes.
To demonstrate the above thesis the paper looks at the developments in international
environmental and natural resource law over approximately the last one hundred years. In so
doing it looks at both how the law has developed generally and at the differences in the way
different areas of the law have developed, so drawing out the haphazard nature of the
development.
The areas discussed are case law, the non-navigational use of international rivers,
declarations and conventions on international environmental law generally (those dealing with
resources regarded as the common heritage of mankind and those dealing with resources
generally regarded as belonging to individual states.) It will be shown that certain circumstances
are required to prompt states to agree to limit their sovereignty. They must either perceive
limitation as the only or best way to obtain a certain benefit, or perceive that they share certain
interests with others or face a common threat. The problem is that this approach leaves certain
areas of the law undeveloped which means that it is still possible to argue that the fundamental
principle of international law is the supremacy of individual state sovereignty. The difficulty
with this is that it allows states to act without regard for the effects of their actions on others. For example, it allows them to refuse to take responsibility for the damage being done to the
ozone layer because they can argue that they have the right to do as they wish within their
territory. This takes us back to the first argument made above: that the law needs to change
from promoting individual rights to promoting the common good.
|
Extent |
9415063 bytes
|
Genre | |
Type | |
File Format |
application/pdf
|
Language |
eng
|
Date Available |
2009-02-25
|
Provider |
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
|
Rights |
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
|
DOI |
10.14288/1.0077462
|
URI | |
Degree | |
Program | |
Affiliation | |
Degree Grantor |
University of British Columbia
|
Graduation Date |
1994-05
|
Campus | |
Scholarly Level |
Graduate
|
Aggregated Source Repository |
DSpace
|
Item Media
Item Citations and Data
Rights
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.