 Home |
Syllabus |
Assignments/Readings |
Documents |
Exam Archive |
Glossary |
Links |
Classes 10 and 11:
Evolution, Implementation and Enforcement of Treaties:
Ozone Diplomacy
Assignment
Class 9 - Read the material below, as well as pages 639-43 and 739-53 of the Casebook. We will focus on the development of the ozone regime. Consider the following questions:- Why did states agree to the various ozone agreements? Are these agreements
more similar in their function to the ABM Treaty or the European Convention on
Human Rights?
- Look through the provisions of the Vienna Convention. What was it intended
to do? How did it further the development of international standards to address the
ozone depletion problem?
- Scientific knowledge about problems such as ozone depletion has often
developed rapidly. For this reason, international agreements must be flexible – if the
procedure for amending a treaty is too difficult, the agreement will not be able to keep
pace with new developments. Under the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(as opposed to the Vienna ozone agreement), what are the requirements for amending
a treaty? (See Articles 39-41) Compare these with the rules set forth in article 9 of the Vienna
Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and in article 2(9) of the Montreal Protocol. Note the
distinctions between the rules for amending the Convention, protocols to the
Convention, and annexes to protocols (all of which are set forth in the Vienna
Convention) and the rules for making "adjustments" under the Montreal Protocol.
What is the reason for all of these different amendment procedures?
-
What are the mechanisms in the Montreal Protocol, as amended, to promote
compliance?
- To what extent does the Protocol rely on carrots; to what extent on sticks? Which do you think is likely to be more effective in promoting compliance?
Overview
Among the most successful international agreements have been those addressing the problem of stratospheric ozone depletion. For a brief explanation of the ozone depletion problem, NOAA has an excellent publication entitled Our Ozone Shield.
Ozone is a molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms. At ground level, ozone is considered a pollutant and is one of the main components of smog. However, in the stratosphere (the upper part of the atmosphere), ozone plays a beneficial role shielding the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Increased levels of ultraviolet radiation are predicted to have a variety of environmental effects , including human health effects (skin cancers, eye cataracts, and immune system suppression) and effects on terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, air quality, and materials.
In 1974, Mario Molina and F.S. Sherwood published a paper in Nature magazine predicting that various man-made chemicals emitted into the atmosphere by human activities might slowly migrate to the upper atmosphere and chemically react with ozone, breaking down ozone molecules and thereby depleting the stratospheric ozone layer. Twenty-one years later, in 1995, they were awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemisty for their work on ozone depletion. The main groups of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are (1) the chloroflourocarbons (or CFCs), which have a wide variety of uses, including as an aerosol propellant, as an insulator (for example in refrigerators and air conditioners), as a foam, and as a solvent for electronic components; (2) halons, which are used primarily in fire extinguishers; (3) methyl chloroform, and (4) methyl bromide.
Concern about stratospheric ozone depletion grew in the 1970s and 1980s. In the late 1970s, the United States banned aerosol spray cans that used CFCs as a propellant. Internationally, states began to explore ways to collaborate on ozone research and the control of ozone depleting substances (ODS).
Ozone Diplomacy
In 1985, a number of states (primarily Western industrialized states) negotiated the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the first international agreement aimed at addressing the ozone problem. At the time, there was still considerable debate about the severity of the stratospheric ozone depletion problem. As a result, states could not reach agreement to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances by any specific amount. Instead, the Convention set forth quite general obligations and established a framework for addressing the ozone problem in the future.
Concern continued to mount about the ozone problem, heightened by the discovery of an "ozone hole" over Anatartica in 1985. In 1987, the parties to the Vienna Convention negotiated the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. In contrast to the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol established specific obligations to reduce consumption and production of specified "controlled substances" – for example, states were required to reduce their production and consumption of the principal CFCs by 50% by the end of the century. In 1990, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adopted the London Amendments, which required the complete phaseout of most CFCs and halons by the year 2000 and imposed limits on the use of several other ozone-depleting substances. In addition, the London amendments established a Multilateral Fund to provide financial resources to developing countries to help them implement the Protocol, as well as a non-compliance procedure to consider questions raised about whether a state is adequately implementing its obligations under the Protocol. The Parties have progressively advanced the phaseout date for controlled substances, and added additional ozone-depleting substances to the control regime, in amendments and adjustments adopted in 1992 (the Copenhagen Amendment), 1997 (the Montreal Amendment), and 1997 (the Beijing Amendment).
Although the ozone regime is still being phased in by developing countries (which in 1995 accounted for 2/3 of global consumption), and a large black-market has developed for banned substances, the international ozone regime seems to be having an effect. On July 30 of this year, the New York Times reported that scientists have "detected a slowing of the rate of destruction of Earth's protective veil of ozone, the first sign that the phasing out of chemicals that harm the ozone layer is having a restorative effect.... The study's lead author, Dr. Michael J. Newchurch, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville ...emphasized that what had been detected was just a notable slowing of the rate of ozone loss, not a reversal. It will be at least four or five decades before the ozone layer rebuilds to the levels seen before the damage started, he said. Still, Dr. Newchurch and several independent experts said the findings were a significant turning point in the fight to heal damage to the atmosphere caused by humans." (Revkin, "Ozone Layer Is Improving, According to Monitors," New York Times, July 30, 2003).
For more information
For information about the ozone regime, the Ozone Secretariat maintains a web site containing reports, documents, and information about the ozone agreements and financial mechanism. It also publishes a Ozone Handbook, which contains comprehensive documentary materials on the ozone regime.
Although the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol have a large number of state parties, students researching the status of international agreements should be careful to understand that not all states involved in the negotiation of a treaty will go on to sign the treaty, and that some states that sign a treaty may fail to ratify it through their domestic governmental process. Organizations like the United Nations allow one to check the status of a multinational treaty to see what nations have signed and then ratified it.
Other Web sites relating to ozone depletion include the following: