Abstract
As was shown in the preceding chapters, the environmental and developmental agendas are linked, not only at the institutional level, as in the UNCED agenda of 1992, or in consequence of the debt burden, but in everyday and obvious ways by the overwhelming impact of mass poverty on the ability of any society to maintain environmental standards that are taken for granted by the industrial powers. The explicit attempt to link the developmental and environmental agenda at UNCED was not new. The linkage reflected an attempt by the Third World countries to revive the debate on development that had failed by the 1990s.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Quoted by Clyde Sanger, Ordering the Oceans (Zed, 1986), p. 158.
Sanger, op. cit., p. 158.
C. Pinto, ‘Towards a regime governing international public property’, in Antony J. Dolman, (ed.), Global Planning and Resources Management (London: Pergamon, 1980), p. 208.
Pinto, op. cit., p. 209.
See F. Berkes, (ed.), Common Property Resources, Ecology and Community Based Sustainable Development (Belhaven, 1989).
See G. Hardin, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science, Vol. 162, 1968, pp. 1243–8. Also G. Hardin and J. Baden, (eds), Managing the Commons (W. H. Freeman, 1978).
Susan J. Buck (Cox), ‘Multi jurisdictional resources: testing a typology of problem solving’, in Berkes, op. cit., pp. 127–8.
Creeping territoriality is coined and discussed by M. Imber, ‘International Institutions and the Common Heritage of Mankind, Sea, Space and Polar Regions’, in P. Taylor and A. J. Groom (eds), International Institutions at Work (Pinter, 1988), p. 150.
See Sanger, op. cit., pp. 70–89.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Part XI, especially Articles 150–1.
Ibid., Articles 117–20, describe the obligations of states to practise conservation measures on the high-sea fish stocks. Annexe I, identifies seventeen species of highly migratory fish and cetaceans, for which states are obliged to observe conservation practices even within their exclusive economic zones, in effect creating rights and duties on states to conserve shared resources.
Agenda 21, op. cit., Chapter 17. 44.
Sanger, op. cit., pp. 48–52. For fuller discussion of the US decision not to sign, see A. Hollick, US Foreign Policy and the Law of the Sea (Princeton, 1981), and B. Oxman, D. Carson and C. Buderi, The Law of the Sea; a US policy dilemma (California Institute of Contemporary Studies, 1983).
The most generous extension of continental-shelf rights was allowed by a complex formula described in Article 76, paras 5, 6.
The role of the ISA and the revenue-sharing arrangements are contained in Part XI, especially Articles, 136, 137, 140, 150–63.
D. R. Denman, Markets Under the Sea? (Institute of Economic Affairs, 1984), makes the case for private property titles to the deep-seabed.
See C. Sanger, op. cit., pp. 48–55. See also the Republican Party Platform, 1984, p. 10, ‘The President [Reagan] decisively rejected the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and embarked instead on a dynamic national oceans policy, animated by our traditional commitment to freedom of the seas. That pattern will be followed with respect to UN meddling in Antarctica and Outer Space.’
Safire, writing in The New York Times, is quoted by Sanger, op. cit., p. 51.
See United Nations, Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Article 161.
For a full description of both the negotiation and terms of the regime, see Owen Greene, ‘Ozone Depletion: Implementing and Strengthening the Montreal Protocol’, in J. B. Poole and R. Guthrie (eds), verification Report 1992 (VERTIC, 1992), pp. 265–74.
Ibid., p. 269.
See A. Westing, (ed.) Environmental Warfare (SIPRI—Taylor and Francis, 1984), contains three chapters on ENMOD by Erno Meszaros, Jozef Goldblat and Allan S. Krass respectively.
Subrata Roy Chowdhury, ‘Permanent sovereignty over natural resources’, in K. Hossain and S. Roy Chowdhury, Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources in International Law (Pinter, 1984), p. 1.
Rachel McCleary, ‘The International Community’s Claim to Rights in Brazilian Amazonia’, Political Studies, Vol. XXXIX, December 1991, pp. 691–707.
Ibid., pp. 691–2.
Ibid., p. 706.
Statement by His Excellency Dr Mahatir Mohamed, Prime Minister of Malaysia, at UNCED, Rio, 13 June 1992. Source: Malaysian Mission to the United Nations, New York.
See World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford, 1986), p. 276. For full discussion of the common-heritage qualities of radio frequencies, see John Vogler, ‘Regimes and the Global Commons: Space, Atmosphere and Oceans’, in A. McGrew and P. Lewis, Global Politics (Polity Press, 1992), pp. 118–37.
The most extensive discussion of tradeable permits for carbon-dioxide emissions is contained in M. Grubb, ‘The greenhouse effect: negotiating targets’, International Affairs, Vol. 66, 1990, pp. 67–89.
The Independent, 10 October 1992.
Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UN, 1972), p. 5.
Agenda 21, op. cit., Chapter 34, p. 252.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1994 Mark F. Imber
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Imber, M.F. (1994). The Global Commons. In: Environment, Security and UN Reform. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230375833_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230375833_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-60590-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37583-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)