Transboundary Problems
- Up to now we have considered the national context:
Policy and instruments - NEPA
Institutions - EPA, IDEM, Bloomington, Monroe
Waste District…
Actors - the vice-president
- This might be termed the "First Generation" of problems
- The definition may be those tasks amenable to national resolution--the established order within the tradition of national sovereignty
- The key elements in this agenda are:
Share legitimacy of elected policymakers who embody the collective power of the people
The common acceptance of sanction power--no choice about selectively accepting exposure to the law
No greater temporal power, though the underlying system of values may be cosmic in proportions (universal values of religions)
- The underlying dynamic is based on the evolving cultural values within a cultural identity (indigenous change), and this give it legitimacy
- We shall be looking at common pool and global problems, but for now let's look at a transitionary dimension: transboundary environmental issues
- There are many examples of potential transboundary problems--but let's identify several current items
Transboundary rives: Rio Grande, Colorado
Acid precipitation
Boundary lakes
Export of banned pesticides to Mexico
Development of Maquiladora industry zone
- What policy issues arise when an international boundary is involved?
The ambiguity of the legal system(s)
The source and destination covered by different laws
(An ultimate form of externality)
The complexity of bringing a prosecution
The difficulty of applying sanctions
- These matters are usually handled through protocols, treaties, and agreements. These are not laws per se.
- Countries agree "to be bound" by the terms of something that they mutually agree upon. This is usually mediated by a commission or common body (that may not belong to either country--ICJ for instance) to accept resolution of disputes
- But then they have to be bound realistically:
The key question is sanctions--do they really exist? The problem here is that the defendants have to agree to accept judgement and punishment (US and Nicaragua in the World Court)
If one party chooses not to accept a judgment, what can anyone do about it?
Some people compare this with the popular modern practice of mediation, but it is not the same because mediation is backed by national law, and is an alternative prior step.
How do these hold up to changing political climates between nations?
- If we look at the acid rain question, this has been around since the 1950's, when the dispute arouse between Sweden and the United Kingdom
- The standard response was to obfuscate: the Reagan government normally proposed more research
- So this type of institutional agreement works best when the common interests of both parties are evident. This is not so in the case of acid rain between the mid west and Canada
- The USA has used a very unusual method of dealing with TBIs: applying it standards to other countries through the medium of trade:
- Mexican dolphin fishing issue
- Conditionally of aid money mandated by Congress
- But this works only if one party is considerably stronger than the other
March 20, 1993
