R2P and Environmental Degradation: Interventionism or Humanitarian Crisis Prevention

R2P and Environmental Degradation: Interventionism or Humanitarian Crisis Prevention

By: Emirjona CakeFor: Dr. Ruchi AnandAmerican Graduate School in ParisEnvironmental Politics

Environmental Degradation: A Case for the Deployment of R2P

Environmental degradation and its lasting effect on the

climate change sector has been a hot topic (pun intended) in

contemporary politics, where theories and traditional

conflicts have been thrown out the window to make way for

the changing environment. Lately, it has become less of who

can claim the biggest territory and more of who has the

greatest access and command of resources, such as oil,

shale, coal and etc. State sovereignty calls for all states

to use their resources at their disclosure in order to meet

the success of industrialization and gaining that title of

being a fully functioning capitalist society. However, at

what point does the scramble for resources outweigh the

negative effects on future generations? And, more

importantly, at what point can a state have full sovereignty

over its resources without crossing the line of affecting

others?

Resource depletion and destruction of environment has a

much more lasting effect than industrial growth, as nations

fail to realize that without clean water and air, there will

be no point to capital growth; the growth in capital will be

a miniscule comparison to the lack of resources.

Environmental degradation has more than just an immediate

affect on those who are around it, but also an effect on the

greater population as a whole, whether it is through air

pollution, water pollution, or water scarcity. If this is a

threat to the international community, then the

international community should have some kind of say in

regards to limiting these consequences. Therefore, the main

question should therefore be “Should the international

community have the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ when a state

is not properly allocating its natural resources and

creating further degradation to the international climate?”

This paper will aim to show how first, the environment

and its cleanliness is a human right, as is the right to

life. The two are inextricably linked in several premises,

which will be discussed further. Second, this paper will

show how the R2P doctrine can, and should, be used in

environmental degradation. Finally, this paper will also aim

to show how state sovereignty over an allocated common, by

using the case of the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil, does

allow for interference from other nations, as commons within

the borders of a state, whether they are unallocated,

allocated, or true, hold a certain level of responsibility

from the state.

I would like to also express, that when referring to R2P

I do not mean military intervention, as that has failed in

the past and does not hold the doctrine to its true

intentions. As will be discussed further in the paper, the

intervention from the international community does not

necessarily have to resort to a militaristic one, but rather

one from specialized organizations and Transnational

Corporations.

Environment as Human Right

It is, thus, imperative to categorize the environment and

its upkeep as a basic human right, otherwise the whole

notion of R2P in relation to the environment is null and

void. The Environment as a Human Right has been previously

echoed before by other theorists and academics; therefore it

would be false to claim it is an innovative idea. However,

the main problem with claiming that the environment is

actually a human right lies in categorizing it as such.

According to the UN Declaration on Human Rights Article 3

“Everyone has the right to life liberty and security of

persons” and furthermore as stated in Article 25 “Everyone

has the right to a standard of living adequate for the

health and well-being of himself and of his family.” It is

here that the role of environmental degradation begins to

play a key role and, arguably, redefine what adequate

standards of living are for individuals (UN Declaration on

Human Rights).

If everyone is therefore granted specific rights under

the UN Declaration on Human Rights, then the right to have

unpolluted water and air is a mere extension of the right to

life and adequate standards of living. This doesn’t have to

associate only with immediate notion of life liberty and

security but also in the long-term aspect. Environmental

degradation flies under the veil of industrialization, where

nations who are trying to reach a certain level of

modernization allow for these abuses to take place, in hopes

that they will be fit economically. However, the current

abuses to the environment will have a profound effect on

future generation and the state, which has been granted the

responsibility over these resources that are being depleted

has to consider its actions.

Human rights lies within the sovereignty of the state

and, regardless of if that state is a failure or not, it is

necessary to make sure these rights are implemented even if

the state is the one breaking them. Each individual deserves

protection from state abuse, or when the state fails, from

abuses by the controlling party. In the cases of Rwanda and

Kosovo, certain implementations had to become necessary as

the governments lost their legitimacy by means of

discrimination and attempts are genocide. However, the

problem in the case of intervention by other states is that

the act is not being done directly to a specific group, but

done in hopes of elevating the economy, which in return

causes environmental issues.

State Responsibility v. State Sovereignty

State responsibility over resources is key, as it sets

up the outline for how R2P can be used. If a state has

sovereignty over territory, such as Brazil over the Amazon

or Ethiopia over the Nile River basin, then they have a

certain level of discretion as to how it is used. However,

if these resources and the depletion of them will have a

substantial effect on future generations, then a state has

to become accountable for its actions.

If these generations are unwillingly being put at risk

of having deteriorated lifestyles with limited access to

clean air, water, and sustainable food sources, should they

not be put under the same category of a future humanitarian

crisis? If a crisis is inevitable and preventable, then

failure to alleviate this crisis can only be further

categorized as negligence; negligence undermined by state

sovereignty.

According to Amitai Etzioni, “Sovereignty in the case

of resources, as described by Deng et al. can be analyzed as

“ not merely the right to be undisturbed from without, but

the responsibility to perform the tasks expected of an

effective government” therefore “the sovereign state’s

responsibility and accountability to both domestic and

external constituencies must be affirmed as interconnected

principles of national and international order.” (Etzioni 2006)

This is not a matter of sovereignty trumping international

law and R2P, but rather a conjoined effort where states are

not only expected to find measures of sustainable

development to grow economically, but also they are expected

to be responsible for misuses of these resources, and this

accountability is where R2P steps in.

State sovereignty also causes problems in that although

outside nations can put pressure on a state to act

accordingly, how much pressure can you actually put on them

when these practices are commonly seen as domestic processes

(Schrijver, 2013). It is less about international pressure

and more about a state's right to its resources but the lack

of proper allocation has a larger effect. The tragedy of the

Commons can best describe how resources, such as the Amazon,

can have a long-term effect upon their depletion, regardless

of which state boundaries they are found between.

As state sovereignty is what makes way for human rights

being recognized, it is ideally up to the state to follow

through on these regulations. In humanitarian crises, when

the state fails the international community steps in,

whether through NGOs or relief and as of lately, through

R2P. If a guaranteed humanitarian crisis is already taking

form, there is an important underlying factor in R2P which

has to be discussed, that of not Responsibility to Prevent.

If you can prevent a refugee crisis, war, and severe

migration issues from happening, why would you not?

The common response to R2P in general, whether dealing

with this new notion of environmental involvement or through

humanitarian intervention, is that R2P undermines state

sovereignty. States continue to grip onto the Wesphalian

notion of sovereignty. The UN has reinforced this status in

Article 2.7 of the UN Charter where “no state has the right

to interfere in the issues of another unless it is an

immediate threat to international security.” With natural

resources and their depletion, this is further limited as

Resolution 1803 as adopted by the general Assembly clearly

states that nations have permanent sovereignty over their

natural resources. This resolution assumes that a nation is

allocating its commons in the way it sees fit in order to

achieve economic stability, however, it numerous cases, the

commons and resources in question fall under numerous

categories to be deemed just one states responsibility.

Tragedy of the Commons

The tragedy of the commons refers to the theory by

Garrett Hardin where “states that individuals acting

independently and rationally according to one's self-

interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole

group by depleting some common resource.” (Hardin) The issue

of the commons is a fundamental issue in international law,

where one country can claim its resource is an allocated

common, and by international law it has the means to use it

however it chooses, but it affects the entire wellbeing of

the globe, therefore measures have to be taken, regardless

of boundaries.

There are three different types of commons that are

referred to in Hardin’s theory: allocated commons,

unallocated commons, and true commons. True commons refers

to a common that can’t be protected or doesn’t have one

country’s jurisdiction over it such as space or air and etc.

Unallocated common is often disputed territory such as the

deep-sea bed. Allocated common is a resource found in the

territory of the state. Although most would agree that the

three commons are present throughout conflict and

international law, there is one key component missing, the

common that fits into all three categories, which I refer

to, as the “Universal Common.”

The Universal Common is a common or resource/territory

that fits into boundaries of a state, sometimes between 2

states, and its use has detrimental effect on the entirety

of the globe. Therefore, the universal common has traits of

the allocated common where a state has sovereignty over it.

It also fits into the unallocated common where there can be

certain disputes over sovereignty over control. And finally,

its use or misuse plays a significant role in future

generations and their wellbeing. The most prominent example

of this common is thus the Amazon rainforest. Nestled

between Venezuela with its majority lying in Brazil, the

Amazon rainforest is a common unlike the 3 mentioned by

Hardin. Its use has been significant to Brazil, to

multinational corporations, scientists, international NGO,

environmental groups, and indigenous groups who associate

with no state or borders.

Therefore, the rights of the indigenous groups are

being reprimanded, the rights of the surrounding communities

are being violated by noise pollution, water pollution and

etc. Possible species are being endangered and certain flora

and fauna will be displaced, which may not have been

discovered yet. The vast deforestation of the Amazon will

also cause severe weather changes to the earth, with

scientists predicting low rainfall, droughts, high levels of

CO2 and increased temperature along with low air quality.

The aforementioned predictions will have such a significant

effect on the human species that refugees, wars over

resources, and cultural degradation of indigenous groups are

expected.

One could argue that the Amazon is a true common, but

in doing so, it would mean that it is a common shared by all

or owned by none, in laymen terms. However, the Amazon is

used by a few, inhabited by a few, a problem for all, and

under the jurisdiction of one. Therefore, since the Amazon

is not exactly a model that fits Hardin’s theory, there has

to be new development of what it is. Universal common means

it is the responsibility of all regardless of jurisdiction

and control. R2P therefore would also be deployed

differently, to match the uniqueness of the common itself.

R2P

The most common misconception of R2P is that there has

to be militaristic approach. When referring to R2P it is

necessary to explain the different levels of the doctrine

(Breakey, 2012). R2P has the following chapters:

o Responsibility to Prevent

o Responsibility to Protect

o Responsibility to Rebuild

According to these chapters, Responsibility to prevent is

the first level where the international community will

intervene to keep a crisis from occurring. Responsibility to

protect is where most military interventions have occurred,

primarily as a cause of human rights abuses such as the

cases in Kosovo, Libya, and the attempt in Syria.

Responsibility to rebuild takes the approach one step

further, where the international community is involved. The

interventionism from the responsibility to protect, where

usually considered militaristic, has to slowly be rebuilt,

whether it is a rebuilding government, setting up new

businesses or rebuilding the structure to what it was

(Breakey 2012).

In most cases, the first and third sections of the R2P

doctrine in general, have not been properly allocated

themselves. The international community, such as states in

the UN, have failed to maintain the basic structure of R2P.

Before military involvement, there exists the precondition

for the prevention of the humanitarian crisis. In the case

of the amazon, we are at a level where Responsibility to

Prevent is reaching Responsibility to Protect.

The act of preventing would mean that the International

community would have prevented the deforestation of this

universal common altogether, by technological advancements

and etc., to keep from industry resorting to leveling

thousands of ground of rainforest. At this rate, the

preventative process has already passed, heading for the

protection of the forest. However, military intervention,

for obvious reasons, is perhaps not the most applicable form

of protection. R2P in this sense calls for something a

little more unique, something that will be specific to this

case (Seavitt 2013).

Furthermore, the use of R2P has accelerated at high

levels, based on the acceptance of the international

community. According to the International Court of justice,

international law is not static and changed as norms become

more and more accepted. Therefore by obligation, opinio juris,

the acts necessary to create the norm of intervention for

environmental causes should be accepted. In addition to the

common norms accepted in International law, the

International Commission on Intervention State Sovereignty

clearly states ““That sovereign states have a responsibility

to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe,

but when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that the

responsibility must be borne by the broader community of

states” (Evans, Sahnoun 2001). Thus, regardless of state

sovereignty, other states have to be willing to do what is

necessary to keep from an imposing disaster from occurring

(Dunoff, Ratner, and Wippman, 2010, 903).

Before beginning the process for a new highway

development, Brazil, with pressure from the international

community, devised a number of dollars that could keep the

country at the rate it is now, without destroying more of

the rainforest. In Brazil’s defense, if the west is so

concerned with the impeding problems that will be caused by

deforestation, and the Amazon is a “common concern of

mankind”, then they should be willing to pay for Brazil’s

technological advancements and economic growth without the

use of the Amazon. As Brazil began its excavation of

Amazonian resources, the state leaders were very well aware

of the consequences. “The Amazon, in the impact of our will

and labor, will cease to be a simple chapter in the history

of the world, and made equivalent to other great rivers,

shall become a chapter in the history of human civilization.

Everything which has up to now been done in Amazonas,

whether in agriculture or extractive industry... must be

transformed into rational exploitation” (Hall, 1989)

When Western countries were already competing in the

international trade and market systems, Brazil was only

starting to gain momentum in its own industrialization.

However, by the time Brazil gained momentum, the

international community had already accepted the “No Harm”

Principle, where states are obligated to cease development

or continue any prospective plans if they will cause damage

to another (Seavitt, 20130. This was not expressed through

Environmental degradation but should be stretched to include

such, as environmental degradation causes indigenous groups

to lose their land, culture, and identity, along with

speeding up the process of climate change.

Another argument for the need to implement R2P is through

the troubling displacement of the indigenous groups who do

not associate with the governments surrounding it. According

to Article 8 section 2 of the UN Charter on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples, “States shall provide effective

mechanism for prevention of and redress for (b) any action

which has the aim of effect of dispossessing them of their

lands, territories or resources”. The Charter also blatantly

states in Article 10 the following. “Indigenous peoples

shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or

territories.” The charter further mentions that indigenous

groups who are derived of their development and subsistence

are entitled to just and fair redress (Article 20, UN

Charter on Rights of Indigenous Peoples).

According to the laws set forth by the UN in regards to

indigenous people, the deforestation of the Amazon by

causing them to be deprived of land that they use or the

misuse of this land forcing them to relocate, is grounds for

a humanitarian intervention in its own right. Humanitarian

intervention can be argued for by numerous different

factors, including the environment as its degradation will

lead to humanitarian disasters where nations will therefore

have to deal with increased levels of immigration, legal and

illegal, and taking on the burden of provisions for refugees

(Schefer, Cottier, 2012).

Who will wield R2P?

The main issue when referring to R2P is that there is

an automatic insinuation that the military of another

country will get involved, or NATO in the case of Kosovo in

1998. But the difference here in regards to R2P is that

military intervention will make the issue worse. It should

be, instead, a specialized agency, one that may not exist

yet but one that would have to have teeth. UNEP could act as

the mechanism to bring about this change, but they lack the

necessary teeth to force nations into complying. UNEP would

provide the necessary alternative methods of energy or the

data that shows these countries the risk when such

environmental devaluation occurs. They are perhaps the best

group fit to handle the data and evidence portion (UNEP).

The second group that would have t be involved would be

the WTO. The WTO pushes these nations to open up their

borders in hopes of creating neoliberal trade routes where

everyone can ideally have access to anything at any point in

time. The problem here is that in order to keep up with WTO

demands and the demands of the already economically powered

nations, a great deal of these nations are destroying their

environment in order to try to reach these already

industrialized nations. According to the WTO “The WTO’s

agreements permit members to take measures to protect not

only the environment but also public health, animal health

and plant health. However, these measures must be applied in

the same way to both national and foreign businesses. In

other words, members must not use environmental protection

measures as a means of disguising protectionist policies

(WTO).”

WTO has to create accountability and severe

restrictions on the transnational organizations that are

entering Brazil and leveling the amazon as means to develop.

According to the Brazilian government, in order for them to

function without the expansion through the amazon would be

to receive a loan for about 1 billion Brazilian reies. If

the nations are that concerned with the environmental risks

brought about by the deforestation of the Amazon, they have

to be willing to involve “Responsibility to Protect” through

the financial means that are necessary.

Granted, the reason the climate and environment are the

way they are can be accredited to the industrialization of

those same large nations. Therefore it is up to those

nations to get the perspective that further environmental

degradation would fall on them, thus prompting action.

Currently, Brazil has managed to limit the environmental

degradation by drastic numbers, but in order to sustain

these numbers, they need the financial support to do so,

hence the need to involve R2P in a sense. The monetary

involvement from the WTO and nations interested in

preserving whatever is left of the climate (which should in

theory be all nations), have to pay it forward, literally.

The financial burden that will be placed on these greater

developed nations is only a fraction of the burden that they

will feel if the amazon continues to be leveled.

It is easy for outside nations to claim that the Amazon

belongs to not only Brazil, but shared amongst everyone on

the planet. If this is the case, then instead of blaming

Brazil for trying to develop at the same rate, the nations

who have already developed using their own resources, rather

malignantly, should adhere to the necessary monetary needs

that must be met in order to sustain both Brazil and the

Amazon. It is the safest alternative and will maintain some

level of trade where private corporations can grow but also

maintain the CO2 levels in the air, a solution to keep both

sides functioning and happy.

In conclusion, in the regards of the original question

posed as to should the international community use R2P

against a states misuse of their resources, the answer is

yes. Yes, because where there is room to prevent a crisis,

there should be room to act on this prevention as well. Yes,

because there is a certain level of responsibility that

comes with controlling a resource, and if that

responsibility is misused then that resource should be taken

away. And finally, Yes, because in order to maintain some

kind of stability in a highly globalized international

system, there have to be rules and regulations as to what a

nation can and cannot do.

WORKS CITEDBreakey, Hugh The responsibility to protect and the protection of civilians in armed conflict: Overlap and contrast, 2012, Academia

Dunoff, Jeffery L.; Ratner, Steven R., Wippman, David. International Law: Norms, Actors, Process: A Problem- Oriented Approach. NewYork: Aspen. 2010. Print

Etzioni, Amitai, Sovereignty as Responsibility, Orbis, Winter

2006, pp. 71-85.

General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962,"Permanent sovereignty over natural resources."

Hall, A.L. (1989) Developing Amazonia, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Hardin, Garrett, The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, New Series, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (Dec. 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248.

Schrijver Nicolaas, Self-determination of peoples and sovereignty over natural wealth and resources, Chapter 5 of Realizing the right to development: essays in commemoration of 25 years of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development / United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, New York; Geneva: United Nations, 2013.

Schefer Krista Nadakavukaren/ Cottier,Thomas ,Responsibilityto Protect (R2P) and the Emerging Principle of Common Concern Working Paper No 2012/29| June 2012 NCCR trade regulation

Seavitt, Brian, The International Community's 'Responsibility to Protect' Should Include Climate Change Environmental Policy Master's Candidate, NYU Center for Global Affairs 2013 CONSILIENCE Journal of Sustainable Development

UN Declaration on Human RightsArticle 2 (7) of UN charter June 1945

UN DECLARATION ON INDIGIENOUS PEOPLES

BIBLIOGRAPHYDixon, Home/ Percival, Val, Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Rwanda, Journal of Environment and Development, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 1996, 270-291.

Evans, Alex, Resource Scarcity, Climate Change and the Risk of Violent Conflict, ! World Development Report 2011

Montague Dana, Stolen Goods: Colton and Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, pp. 103-118.