The Development of Environmental Regimes

Abstract: This essay contains a comparison of the development of environmental regimes. Three regimes have been chosen for the investigation - the hazardous waste regime, the global biodiversity regime, and the climate change regime. The author focuses on the international work and negotiations on the conventions, which comprise the foundation for the respectively regime, i.e. the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The purpose of the essay is to study, compare and analyse the growth of the chosen regimes. The author also tries to generalize the results of the comparison. To fulfil this purpose, a combination of descriptive, comparative, and analytical methods is applied. The investigation is based on juridical doctrine and political studies. Discourse from political science becomes necessary, as theories of environmental regimes and international organizations are not much developed in international environmental law. The investigation underlines that environmental regimes can be understood as a combination of traditional sources of law, soft law, and international organizations, established for environmental purposes. The rise of environmental regimes can be caused by an environmental problem, subsequent scientific and public response to it, and then political action. Environmental regimes are generally elaborated through the model ''a convention of a framework work character plus following protocols'', when a convention is strengthened by further binding instruments. Environmental regimes can be viewed in their narrow and broad meanings. In their narrow meaning, regimes are concentrated only around one global treaty. In their broad meaning, regimes can include elements connected with other treaties, which might have a special or local character. The role of IGOs and soft law in the formation and elaboration of environmental regimes, and consequently of international environmental law should not be underestimated. The investigation shows that IGOs provide important political and juridical leadership in the creation of environmental regimes. However, environmental IGOs do not possess autonomy in decision-making. The unwillingness of member states to compromise can result in a delay, absence of an agreement, and/or a weak framework convention. There are many possibilities for the future research of the present topic. The notion of environmental regimes is not thoroughly investigated from the juridical point of view. Thus, it is interesting to analyse how, why, and when other environmental regimes are established or elaborated.