Negotiating Effective International Environmental Agreements: Is an Objective Approach to Differential Treatment Possible?

The negotiation of international environmental agreements is rendered less effective and more costly than necessary on account of the incentives for rent seeking. This article argues that the problem of rent seeking in this context is complicated by the legitimate demand for the differential treatment of relevant heterogeneity, when insufficient information is available to distinguish between demands based on legitimate differences and rent-seeking. In order to reduce the overall costliness of the totality of international resource agreements, the general rule should be that differential treatment should be provided only in exceptional circumstances. A corollary to this rule is that differences that do not affect future negotiating costs may be considered in current negotiations. This points to differences that are exogenous to the bargaining process, such as a country's physical location. It is argued that development status of a country is another such factor, since the incentives to pursue development are unlikely to be affected by its recognition in current negotiations. Furthermore, the failure to recognise development status as a legitimate basis for differentiated treatment implicitly rewards the early identification and exploitation of unmanaged resources. Restriction of differential treatment to a small number of such differences enables the focusing of negotiations, and the structuring of discussions. A case study of the Montreal Protocol illustrates how the differential impacts of a uniform standard may be estimated, once the range of impacts is delimited.     

Court Sentencing Patterns for Environmental Crimes: Is There a “Green” Gap in Punishment?

Objectives

This study examines sentencing patterns for environmental crimes and tests the assumption that “green” offenders receive more lenient treatment from criminal courts than non-environmental offenders.

Methods

We present two sets of analyses. First, we present an empirical portrait of environmental felony offenses convicted in a single state (Florida) over a fifteen-year period and the resulting criminal sanctions. Second, we use a precision matching analysis to assess whether environmental offenders receive more lenient treatment when compared to non-environmental offenders with the same characteristics and offense severity scores.

Results

Findings indicate that an overall small percentage of felony convictions in state courts stem from environmental crimes. We also find that punishments for environmental crimes are more lenient than sanctions assigned to comparable non-environmental offenses when the environmental crime is ecological, but that punishments are sometimes harsher when the environmental crime involves animals.

Conclusions

The findings provide general support for the argument that courts and other formal institutions of social control treat environmental crimes more leniently than non-environmental crimes. This paper also raises important questions about citizen and state actors’ perceptions of crimes against the environment and, more generally, about the ways in which theories of court sentencing behaviors apply to environmental crime sanctioning decisions.

     

Introduction to “Environmental Justice”

Justice issues have been prominent in the environmental debate since its beginning in the second half of the twentieth century. This is not surprising, because environmental crises highlight our conceptions of justice, challenging us to consider their adequacy as well as their implications. Does current justice theory accurately describe the issues raised by environmental threats, especially about the justice for future generations? What are the implications of perceptions of justice or injustice for responses to environmental problems, up to and including social protest? For the most part, environmental social sciences have not been at the forefront of these debates, despite some very important contributions. The goal of the present issue is, therefore, to bring together researchers in the field of environmental psychology and justice research and to provide a forum for current research in the field of environmental justice. This introduction gives a short overview of past, present, and emerging findings and questions.     

Lay Victims’ Conceptions of Environmental Crime and Environmental Injustice: The Case of the Chem-Dyne Superfund Site

Social Justice Research - This project explores lay victims’ conceptions of environmental crime and environmental injustice through in-depth interviews with a snowball sample of people...     

Forget-E-Not: Environmental Liabilities Poised to Rise?

Forget-E-Not: Environmental Liabilities Poised to Rise?

All authors

William M Wilt, Vinay Saqi, Brian Church & Vinay Misquith

https://doi.org/10.1080/10406020490506481

Published online:

10 August 2010

Table     

Environmental crime prosecutions in Ireland, 2004–2014

Despite increased interest in environmental crime and green criminology, few studies address the use of criminal penalties in response to environmental crimes. A handful of published examples employ data from the United States or the Flanders court system, and little is known about how other nations punish environmental violations. Addressing this issue, the current study examined the use of criminal environmental penalties in Ireland from 2004 to 2014. Few criminal environmental cases (N = 147) and few environmental offenders (N = 154) were represented in these data over time. Consistent with the expectations of green/environmental crime researchers, mean penalties for environmental violations, which in Ireland only include fines and investigative cost recovery penalties, were rather small. Unlike in the US or Flanders, the majority of offenders were corporate offenders as opposed to individuals. Contextual factors related to Ireland’s economy, history and use of criminal sanctions should be used to interpret these factors, and prevent generalising from these data.     

Environmental “Citizen Suits” in the Czech Republic

For several decades citizens of the Czech Republic have endured a severely degraded environment, stemming partially from reportedly lax enforcement of environmental protection laws. During this period, Czech citizens have lacked the right to litigate citizen suits as a means of increasing environmental enforcement and have never initiated civil litigation against a polluter. However, since 1958, Czech citizens have exercised the right to use citizen correspondence as a means of pursuing their legal interests by alerting government agencies to environmental problems. By Czech law, citizen correspondence obligates government agencies to respond to the cited environmental problems. This paper analyzes how environmental authorities responded to citizen correspondence related to water problems (e.g., drinking water contamination) during the years 1988 to 1992. Since responses may include enforcement actions—monetary fines, remediation requirements (i.e., mandatory cleanup), and correction requirements (e.g., replacement of a leaky storage tank), this type of legal action on the part of citizens approximates a citizen suit. By examining enforcement actions taken in response to these citizen suits, this paper is able to test hypotheses regarding the relationships among the three different types of enforcement actions and empirically identify the liability rule guiding each type of enforcement action.     

Is Secularism Neutral?

This article argues that secularism is not neutral. Secularization is a process, the secular state is a structure, whereas secularism is a political philosophy. Secularism takes two main forms: first, a “benevolent” secularism that endeavours to treat all religious and nonreligious belief systems even‐handedly, and, second, a “hostile” kind that privileges unbelief and excludes religion from the public sphere. I analyze the European Court of Human Rights decision in Lautsi v Italy, which illustrates these types. The article concludes that secularism as a political philosophy cannot be neutral, and the secular state is not neutral in its effects, standpoint, governing assumptions or treatment of religious truth claims.     

Is linking communicating?

File-sharing sites such as the Pirate Bay which provide an index of searchable bit torrent files or some type of list or catalogue of links to massively copyright infringing content (whether for streaming or downloading) have raised the question whether the providers of these links are infringing the “communication to the public” right. In these cases there are two potential infringers 1) the person who has uploaded the work without the authorisation of the copyright owner (and the uploading is likely to infringe the reproduction right) and 2) the person who sets the link to the uploaded work. This article is concerned with the liability of the person setting the link.     

What Is Neutrality?

This paper reinvestigates the question of liberal neutrality. We contend that current liberal discussions have been dominated—if not hijacked—by one particular interpretation of what neutrality could imply: namely, exclusive neutrality, aiming to exclude religious and cultural expressions from the public sphere. We will argue that this is merely one among several relevant interpretations. To substantiate our claim, we will first elaborate upon inclusive neutrality by formulating two supplementary interpretations: proportional neutrality and compensatory neutrality. Second, we will argue that inclusive proportional neutrality is the most appropriate interpretation in many contexts. Our discussion highlights the fact that some political disputes should not be seen in terms of the antithesis between liberal neutrality and illiberal alternatives but, instead, as a clash between various valid but incompatible interpretations of what liberal neutrality may imply.     

A Different Reason for “De-Coasing” Environmental Law and Economics

The so-called Coase Theorem is one of the cornerstones of the Law and Economics approach. This paper investigates whether it is appropriate to apply the Coasean framework in the context of Environmental Law and Economics. Even when transaction costs are zero, it is argued that in the specific case of environmental policy the initial assignment of rights will seriously affect the final allocation of resources. To support this thesis empirical evidence backed up by theoretical explanations are presented. The methodological distinction between negligible, domain and heuristic assumptions and the elaboration of a ‘logical time’ of the Coase Theorem are crucial to understand why eventually the Coase Theorem should not be applied to the realm of environmental law and policy.JEL Classification: D23, K0, K32, Q2     

The GATT‐WTO system: Environmental friend or Foe?

Abstract

The GATT‐WTO system has been attacked for being at best indifferent to the environment and at worst hostile to it. However, rather than being an environmental foe, the GATT‐WTO system is environmentally‐friendly in many respects. Several World Trade Organization agreements — the Agreement on Agriculture, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures — not only permit but encourage WTO member‐countries to implement national programs and laws to protect the environment free from WTO interference. Multilateral initiatives through organizations such as the WTO, as opposed to unilateral bullying, are the surest way of securing robust legal protections for the environment.     

Is cyberstalking different?

Abstract

Very little empirical work exists on cyberstalking. The current study analysed detailed questionnaires completed by 1051 self-defined stalking victims. Almost half (47.5%) reported harassment via the Internet, but only 7.2% of the sample was judged to have been cyberstalked. Ordinal regression analyses of four groups of victims, categorized according to degree of cyber involvement in their victimization, revealed a general picture of similarity between the groups in terms of the stalking process, responses to being stalked, and the effects on victims and third parties. It was concluded that cyberstalking does not fundamentally differ from traditional, proximal stalking, that online harassment does not necessarily hold broad appeal to stalkers, and that those who target ex-intimates remain the most populous stalker type.     

Environmental Reporting as a Communications Tool: A Question of Enforcement?

This article examines the effect of mandatory corporate environmentalreporting in the context of corporate accountability. It asksthe question whether such reporting can be an effective communicationstool, both internally and externally and whether this will leadto a greater awareness of environmental issues throughout anorganisation, resulting in improved corporate decisions, practicesand outcomes. In order to answer this question, the author drawson longitudinal research examining the performance of the top100 Australian companies. The article then looks at the roleof the regulator, arguing that mandatory environmental reportingshould be coupled with guidance and enforcement by a regulatingauthority. The lack of this enforcement in Australia has resultedin the quality of the reporting being less than optimal. Throughoutthe article, the author has compared the Australian experiencewith that of Norway, which has similar mandatory corporate environmentalreporting laws.     

Justice for All? Factors Affecting Perceptions of Environmental and Ecological Injustice

Moving beyond the typical focus on individual injustices, we examine individual-level and contextual factors affecting perceptions of justice with regard to the environment. Specifically, we examine decision-making procedures pertaining to environmental resource use and harms across groups of people; the distribution of environmental harms; and the direct treatment of the natural environment (i.e., procedural environmental justice, distributive environmental injustice, and ecological injustice, respectively). To test our hypotheses, we use data from a survey administered to a cohort of first-year college students at a southeastern university. Results demonstrate that environmental identity and perceptions of the extent to which the university context encourages sustainability consistently enhance perceptions of all three types of justice. Other factors differentially affect each type of justice. We discuss the importance of the patterns that emerge for environmental and sustainability education and speculate on the implications of moving from thinking about (in)justice related to the environment as an individual issue to one of the collectivity.