Suchergebnisse

Is the Arctic sufficiently distinctive and uniform to justify adopting a holistic perspective in thinking about the future of the region? Or do we need to acknowledge that the Arctic encompasses a number of different subregions whose futures may diverge more or less profoundly? In the aftermath of the Cold War, a view of the Arctic as a distinctive region with a policy agenda of its own arose in many quarters and played a prominent role in shaping initiatives such as the launching of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy in 1991 and the creation of the Arctic Council in 1996. Yet not everyone found this perspective persuasive at the time, and more recent developments have raised new questions about the usefulness of this perspective as a basis for thinking about the future of the Arctic. As a result, some observers take the view that we need to think more about future Arctics than about Arctic futures. Yet, today, climate change provides a central thread tying together multiple perspectives on the Arctic. The dramatic onset of climate change has turned the Arctic into the frontline with regard to the challenges of adapting to a changing biophysical setting. Ironically, the impacts of climate change also have increased the accessibility of massive reserves of hydrocarbons located in the Arctic, contributing to a feedback loop accelerating climate change. This means that the future of the Arctic will reflect the interplay between efforts to address the biophysical and socioeconomic consequences of climate change on the one hand and the influence of the driving forces underlying the political economy of energy development on the other.

International environmental regimes—especially those regimes articulated in multilateral environmental agreements—have been a subject of intense interest within the scientific community over the last three decades. However, there are substantial differences of opinion regarding the effectiveness of these governance systems or the degree to which they are successful in solving the problems leading to their creation. This article provides a critical review of the literature on this topic. It extracts and summarizes what is known about the effectiveness of environmental regimes in the form of a series of general and specific propositions. It identifies promising topics for consideration in the next phase of research in this field. Additionally, it comments on the research strategies available to pursue this line of analysis. The general conclusions are that international environmental regimes can and do make a difference, although often in conjunction with a number of other factors, and that a strategy of using a number of tools combined can help to improve understanding of the determinants of success.

This review article addresses the question: What lessons can we learn from work published in International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics regarding the politics of multilateral environmental agreements? What are the implications of these lessons for those responsible for creating and administering these agreements? Based on an analysis of 147 articles published over the past 20 years, the article explores issues of institutional design, institutional politics, implementation, and effectiveness. It concludes that key conditions for success in this realm include: (a) developing a toolkit that is not limited to rules-based governance, (b) paying attention to matters of implementation, (c) bearing in mind the overall regime complex, (d) developing effective leadership based on credibility and accountability, and (e) allowing for institutional adaptation.

THE PRACTICE BY RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS OF "MONKEYWRENCHING"--DELIBERATELY INTERFERING WITH INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE JUDGED TO BE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT--HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY CRITICS TO BE A FORM OF ECOLOGICAL TERRORISM. DESPITE THERE BEING SOME FEATURES IN COMMON BETWEEN MONKEYWRENCHING AND TERRORISM, IT IS MISLEADING TO SEE THE ONE AS A FORM OF THE OTHER. RATHER, MONKEYWRENCHING IS FAR MORE ACCURATELY REPRESENTED AS A FORM OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. THAT BEING SO, IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER WHETHER, IN THE WESTERN SOCIETIES WHERE IT IS PRACTICED, IT IS CONSISTENT EVEN WITH THE PREVAILING RATHER WEAK UNDERSTANDING OF DEMOCRACY. THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE ARGUES THAT IT IS CONSISTENT AND, INDEED, THAT ITS SELECTIVE USE MAY SERVE TO STRENGTHEN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN POLITIES WHERE ACTS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ARE NOT SEEN AS THUGGERY AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW BUT AS DIRECTING ATTENTION TO THE NEED FOR REFORM OF PARTICULAR LAWS AND RELATED SOCIAL PRACTICES.

Considers the alleged incompatibility between individual autonomy and the achievement and subsequent maintenance of an egalitarian society. Argues that it is only where an egalitarian society is in place that a like autonomy can be exercised by each citizen. Discusses the 3 main grounds that have been advanced to show there is such an incompatibility. (Abstract amended)