Event Title
Meeting at the Crossroads: Engaging New Actors in the Development of Marine Envrionmental Governance
Location
Room 302
Start Date
2-7-2012 11:20 AM
End Date
2-7-2012 12:40 PM
Description
This paper explores the challenges associated with the adoption of new laws to protect the environment or promote sustainable development by focussing on how marine governance has responded to threats to the environment or marine resources.
As this paper demonstrates, while there have been some developments in the law as a result of changing circumstances, circumstances alone are not sufficient to effect change in the law. They must be accompanied by the operation of appropriate values in the decision making process. Where such values do not coincide with changing circumstances it is necessary to change the underlying principles within the system, but this is a somewhat slower process and it gives rise to questions of legitimacy in law making. The literature on legitimacy points to decision making resting upon particular processes, or principles and upon participation by authorised actors only.[1] Yet in marine governance it appears that decisions based on changing values are often shaped by those with no authority to act on the international stage. While the final decision may be made by authorised actors and in accordance with legitimate procedures, the real impetus for change often comes from advocacy coalitions[2] involving non-state actors. Where this becomes potentially problematic is where some of these coalitions are able to wield a disproportionately great influence. It may mean, for example, that it becomes impossible to adopt new laws for environmental protection or sustainable development, or to adopt laws that have sufficient strength to ensure their own effectiveness.
A mechanism must therefore be found to address the role of advocacy coalitions involving non-state actors within marine governance. The method proposed here is to embrace them openly, fully and transparently within the governance system. Doing so, however, requires an acknowledgement of the fact that the processes by which international law is created do not neatly distinguish between authorised and unauthorised actors and have not for decades.
[1] See for example, Franck, T.M. (1990). The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. Oxford Uiversity Press, Oxford; Franck, T.M. (1988) “Legitimacy in the International System” 82 A.J.I.L. 705; Higgins R. (1994) Problems & Process: International Law and How We Use It Oxford University Press; Oxford Koskenniemi M. “What Is International Law For” Chapter 2 in M.D. Evans International Law 3rd edition 2010; Toope S.J. “Emerging Patterns of Governance and International Law” Chapter 5 in M. Byers (ed) The Role of Law In International Politics: Essays In International Relations and International Law (2001.
[2] Jenkins-Smith H. and P. Sabatier (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach West View Press, Boulder, Colorado; Sabatier, P.A. “Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process” (1991) 24 PS: Political Science and Politics 147.
Presentation
Included in
Meeting at the Crossroads: Engaging New Actors in the Development of Marine Envrionmental Governance
Room 302
This paper explores the challenges associated with the adoption of new laws to protect the environment or promote sustainable development by focussing on how marine governance has responded to threats to the environment or marine resources.
As this paper demonstrates, while there have been some developments in the law as a result of changing circumstances, circumstances alone are not sufficient to effect change in the law. They must be accompanied by the operation of appropriate values in the decision making process. Where such values do not coincide with changing circumstances it is necessary to change the underlying principles within the system, but this is a somewhat slower process and it gives rise to questions of legitimacy in law making. The literature on legitimacy points to decision making resting upon particular processes, or principles and upon participation by authorised actors only.[1] Yet in marine governance it appears that decisions based on changing values are often shaped by those with no authority to act on the international stage. While the final decision may be made by authorised actors and in accordance with legitimate procedures, the real impetus for change often comes from advocacy coalitions[2] involving non-state actors. Where this becomes potentially problematic is where some of these coalitions are able to wield a disproportionately great influence. It may mean, for example, that it becomes impossible to adopt new laws for environmental protection or sustainable development, or to adopt laws that have sufficient strength to ensure their own effectiveness.
A mechanism must therefore be found to address the role of advocacy coalitions involving non-state actors within marine governance. The method proposed here is to embrace them openly, fully and transparently within the governance system. Doing so, however, requires an acknowledgement of the fact that the processes by which international law is created do not neatly distinguish between authorised and unauthorised actors and have not for decades.
[1] See for example, Franck, T.M. (1990). The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. Oxford Uiversity Press, Oxford; Franck, T.M. (1988) “Legitimacy in the International System” 82 A.J.I.L. 705; Higgins R. (1994) Problems & Process: International Law and How We Use It Oxford University Press; Oxford Koskenniemi M. “What Is International Law For” Chapter 2 in M.D. Evans International Law 3rd edition 2010; Toope S.J. “Emerging Patterns of Governance and International Law” Chapter 5 in M. Byers (ed) The Role of Law In International Politics: Essays In International Relations and International Law (2001.
[2] Jenkins-Smith H. and P. Sabatier (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach West View Press, Boulder, Colorado; Sabatier, P.A. “Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process” (1991) 24 PS: Political Science and Politics 147.