Sección VI Seguridad Pública
DE LA REFORMA E INVIOLABILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN
N. DE E ARTÍCULO TRANSITORIO PARA EL ARTÍCULO 38 P.O 11 DE AGOSTO DE
My initial findings suggested that the content of documents developed and adopted during the Rio Conference and post-Rio period contained more characteristics of structural pluralism. This is because the introduction of sustainable development as the dominant paradigm shaping IEL emphasises the importance of locally-driven and community-led responses to environmental and developmental problems. As noted in section 1, the documents from the sustainable development and desertification regimes incorporated many characteristics of structural pluralism and the participation by NSAs in the creation, content, and implementation of environmental objectives.
The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 emphasise the participation by NSAs at different levels of environmental governance in the creation and implementation of sustainable development objectives.101 The chapters concerning specific major groups and
environmental concerns stress the importance of participation by local populations, including marginalised communities, in decision-making at local and national levels.102
These references encourage states and other international institutions to support the participation by communities directly affected by environmental and developmental objectives. In doing so, they reflect the arguments put forth by the Brundtland Report that the participation by all sectors of society is necessary to achieve sustainable development.103
In particular, the INCD described participation by NSAs as the ‘fourth objective of sustainable development.’104 Building on the inclusivity characteristics contained in the
documents of the sustainable development and desertification regime, these documents support the participation by NSAs at different levels of the preparatory process, including local, national, and international negotiations. For example, the reports by the Rio Preparatory Committee and the INCD each include references to the participation by local NGOs in developing national reports prior to the Rio Conference, and the participation by grassroots NSAs as part of the fact-finding and knowledge sharing segment of the INCD.105
101 Agenda 21 1992, Chapter 23 ¶1-¶3; Rio Declaration, Principle 10.
102 Ibid, Chapter 24 ¶2(b) and (f); Chapter 25 ¶2, ¶4, and ¶9(a); Chapter 26 ¶1, ¶3(b), and ¶4-¶5; Chapter 10
¶5(d) and ¶10; Chapter 11 ¶3(b),¶13(j), and ¶30(a); Chapter 12 ¶3.
103 WCED, Our Common Future, 326-327.
104 Hans Bruyninckx, ‘The Convention to Combat Desertification and the Role of Innovative Policy-Making
Discourses: The Case of Burkina Faso’ (2004) 4(3) Global Environ Polit 107, 109; , ‘Summary of the Second Session’; Corell, 'Non-State Actor Influence', 208.
105 United Nations, Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (First session (Nairobi, 6-31 August 1990)) (31 August 1990) UN Doc A/45/46, ¶45-46; United
151
The content of reports from these two regimes indicate that states increasingly supported ‘bottom-up’ approaches to participation by NSAs, such as local communities, in the creation of international environmental objectives.
The inclusion of locally-driven and bottom up participatory approaches in the Rio and post-Rio documents points to a consolidation of bottom-up and multilevel participatory structures articulated through the paradigm of sustainable development.106 The report from
the first session of the INCD notes the strong consensus for an innovative ‘bottoms-up [sic] approach where commitments at national, regional and international levels reinforced local action.’107 During the negotiations, state delegates continually referred to grassroots
organisations, peoples living in marginal lands, and argued that the convention should be designed to improve their living conditions.108 This approach built on the principles of
participation articulated in the earlier Rio Declaration and recognised the importance of engaging local communities in developing responses to environmental problems, such as desertification, where they also have an impact on their economic development, livelihoods, and well-being. This structurally plural approach suggests that states supported the participation by NSAs at all levels in developing responses to the interconnected areas of desertification and sustainable development. Such an approach recognises that concerns surrounding desertification may be experienced by different sectors of society in different ways and will have an effect on other areas of their lives, such as economic and development opportunities.
The incorporation of this structurally plural approach reveals that in the post-Rio period, states sought to include the interrelated principles of public participation and good governance in IEL as a way to support the implementation of these practices at the national and local level. By emphasising this approach, lawmakers recognise that poor governance and lack of participation may impede the effectiveness of any international response to desertification. As noted in the introduction, good governance and participation have been expressly associated with attaining stable, peaceful, and resilient societies, as failures in
Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa on its First Session (Nairobi, 24 May - 3 June 1993) (20 July 1993) UN Doc A/48/226 Annex,
¶22-¶23; INCD, Decision 2/4 'Elaboration of an International Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa' in Report of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the Elaboration of an International Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa on its Second Session (15 Octover 1993) A/48/226/Add.1 (Annex) Appendix II, Annex ¶12-¶14; see also ‘Summary of the First Session of the INCD: 24 May-3 June 1993’ Earth Negotiations Bulletin
<http://www.iisd.ca/vol04/0411000e.html> accessed 5 March 2015; Corell, 'Non-State Actor Influence', 204-205.
106 See the discussion in Chapter 2, 50-52.
107 United Nations, Report of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the Desertification Convention. 1st
Session (1993), (Annex), ¶27.
152
governance have been considered as sources of insecurity.109 Therefore, the presence of such
references in the Desertification Convention may suggest that states viewed structurally plural participatory approaches as part of a wider strategy to strengthen good governance and ensure peace.
The content of the Desertification Convention reinforces the structurally plural approach articulated by the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. The Preamble to the Convention stresses the ‘importance of ensuring the full participation of both men and women at all levels’ to combat desertification and mitigate drought.110 As noted earlier, local level participation is
the central feature of the National Action Programmes.111 These programmes include
specific references to support the participation by marginalised communities in the creation and implementation of national action programmes, and their participation in regional and international responses to desertification and drought.112 This structurally plural approach
reinforces the participation principles contained in the Rio Declaration and may suggest that states increasingly viewed public participation at the local, national, and international levels, as a cornerstone of good governance and sustainable development.113
In the post-2001 period, the documents from the sustainable development regime reinforce this conclusion as they consistently emphasise the importance of deepening participation by NSAs at the local and national levels with the objective of attaining sustainable development. During the preparations for the Johannesburg Summit and the Rio+20 Conference, the reports notes the active participation by NSAs at the local, national, and international levels.114 In this context, the reports refer to the importance of such
participation for attaining sustainable development, and its related goals of addressing the drivers of underdevelopment, such as poverty, poor governance, environmental degradation, and poor economic growth.115
109 UNEP, ‘Good Governance’; Open-Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, 'Conflict Prevention,
Post-Conflict Peacebuilding and the Promotion of Durable Peace, Rule of Law and Governance'.
110 Desertification Convention 1994, preamble ¶21. 111 Ibid, art 9(1); art 10(2)(f), and art 13(1). 112 Ibid, art 10(2)(f).
113 International Law Association, International Law on Sustainable Development (2012), 22.
114 Report of the Preparatory Committee of the WSSD. 4th Session (2002), Annex II; Report of the Preparatory
Committee for the WSSD. 2nd Session (2002), Annex I, ¶3-5, ¶16-17.
115 ECOSOC, 'Combating Poverty. Report of the Secretary General' (14 March 2001) E/CN.17/2001/PC/5, ¶22;
Report of the Preparatory Committee for the UNCSD. 1st Session (2010), Annex I ¶17, ¶88; United Nations, 'Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development' (New York, 7-8 March 2011) (New York, 2011) UN Doc A/CONF.216/PC/9, ¶52(e); see also the discussion in UNGA,
Objective and Themes of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Report of the Secretary- General (Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Second
Session (7-8 March 2011)) (22 December 2010) A/CONF.216/PC/7, ¶67, ¶100; UNCSD Secretariat, 'Synthesis Report on the Best Practices and Lessons Learned on the Objectives and Themes of United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Note by the Secretariat' (21 January 2011) A/CONF.216/PC/8, ¶15, ¶41, ¶96; Ernie
153
This connection between local level participation, sustainable development, and drivers of insecurity is also found in the outcome texts from the Johannesburg Summit and Rio+20 Conference. The Johannesburg Declaration, Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, and the Rio+20 Outcome Document include many provisions that affirm the need to enhance the participation by NSAs, such as NGOs, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders in subnational, national, regional and international sustainable development efforts.116 The
Plan of Implementation calls for governments to promote ‘multi-stakeholder participation and encourage partnerships to support the implementation of Agenda 21 at the regional and sub-regional levels.’117 It requests states and NSAs to support developing countries to
improve the ‘capacity of civil society, including youth, to participate, as appropriate, in designing, implementing and reviewing sustainable development policies and strategies at all levels.’118 The Rio+20 Outcome Document similarly refers to the ‘meaningful
involvement and active participation of … all major groups… as well as other stakeholders, including local communities, volunteer groups and foundations’119 in achieving sustainable
development. These references indicate an emerging connection between the principles of good governance and participation. The Rio+20 Outcome Document recognises the various interconnections between the local and the global in an increasingly globalised society.120
Further, the Outcome Document may also be seen as part of international efforts to address concerns over the marginalisation and radicalisation of communities in the global south which present a threat to national and international stability.121
The post-2001 climate change decisions similarly emphasise local participatory approaches to developing national adaptation strategies. The Cancún Agreements (2010) affirms that adaptation strategies should follow a ‘country-driven, participatory… approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups.’122 This decision also directs countries to
undertake national strategies and action plans to ensure the ‘full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders.’123 It recognises the need to ‘engage a broad range of stakeholders at
the global, regional, national and local levels.’124 It explicitly identifies the importance of
supporting capacity building in developing countries by ‘strengthening integrated Regehr, ‘The Drivers of Armed Conflict’ (International Relations and Security Network ETH Zurich, 2013)
<http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?id=158627> accessed 28 January 2016.
116 Millennium Declaration (2000), ¶6; Plan of Implementation 2002,¶7(d), ¶25(b), ¶40(f), ¶45(h), ¶139(g), and
¶168; Johannesburg Declaration (2002), ¶26; World Summit Outcome (2005), ¶58(g); Rio+20 Outcome Document (2012), ¶31, ¶49, ¶58, ¶76(h), ¶85(h), ¶99, and ¶279.
117 Plan of Implementation 2002, ¶160(d). 118 Ibid, ¶126(c).
119 Rio+20 Outcome Document (2012), ¶43. 120 Moore, 'Eco/Feminism', 11.
121 Hannah Brock, Marginalisation of the Majority World: Drivers of Insecurity and the Global South (Oxford
Research Group, 2012), 3.
122 Cancún Agreements (2010) (10-11 December 2010) ¶12. 123 Ibid, ¶72.
154
approaches and the participation of various stakeholders in relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions.’125 Decision 2/CP.17 Outcome of the Work of the
AWG-LCA (2011) includes more general references the participation by NSAs in the development of enhanced action on adaptation and in relation to capacity building.126 These
statements incorporate key elements of the participatory and governance principles articulated in the paradigm of sustainable development. The emphasis of such an approach in the climate change regime suggests that states recognise the benefit of good governance and local participation to identify, plan, and respond to climate change and its security risks.127
As noted earlier in this chapter, most of the natural resource agreements include very few obligations on states to encourage participation by local communities in their texts. This lack may suggest that in environmental regimes relating to natural resources that are closely associated with economic development and trade, states are more reluctant to incorporate the principles of participation and governance articulated in sustainable development and supported by an ecofeminist ethic. For example, the 1994 ITTA includes a general reference for members to give ‘due regard for the interests of local communities.’128 The later 2006
ITTA includes more focused references to the importance of collaboration between states and other stakeholders in promoting sustainable forest management.129 These two
generalised references to participation suggest a more ‘top-down’ and state-led approach to local community participation. The inclusion of this approach towards participation in the timber agreements may suggest that where the environmental topic in question is a significant contribution to the economic well-being of states, the latter have been loath to include references to the participation by NSAs at any level.
This analysis suggests that documents from the climate change, desertification, and sustainable development regimes incorporate structurally plural participatory practices in the creation, content, and implementation of their objectives. The support for the participation by different communities thus suggests that for the most part, states and other international actors acknowledge the value of the contributions by the multiple
125 Ibid, ¶130(d)
126 UNFCCC, Decision 2/CP.17 'Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative
Action under the Convention' in Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011, Addendum, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its seventeenth session (15 March 2012) FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1 (11 December 2011), ¶105 and Part V preamble;
127 European Commission, 'Commission Implementing Decision on the Annual Action Programme 2015 for the
Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace to be financed from the general budget of the European Union. Annex IV: Action Document for Climate Change and Security ' 30 July 2015) Decision No. C(2015) 5209 Final <https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/icsp-aap2015-climate_change_and_security-20151105_en.pdf> accessed 28 January 2016.
128 Tropical Timber Agreement 1994, art 1(j). 129 Tropical Timber Agreement 2006, preamble (l).
155
communities that make up the local, national and international spheres. By encouraging structurally plural participation in the creation, development, and implementation of international responses to environmental degradation, these documents suggest that the international community recognised the diverse experiences, cultures and historical contexts in which common environmental concerns may have significantly different impacts.
Analysing the extent to which these regimes include references that support locally driven and bottom up participatory practices has revealed two important insights that will help shape the analysis of these environmental regimes in the two following chapters. First, the support for such participatory practices in the climate change regime is notably different from the analysis of the same documents through the inclusivity lens. This suggests that there has been a consolidation of the sustainable development paradigm in post-Rio and post-2001 periods.
Further, the arguments for supporting such approaches reveal an emerging connection between engaging marginalised communities, addressing the drivers of underdevelopment, and responding to environmental concerns at the local level. The justifications for ensuring local participation indicate that other international concerns are increasingly included in the content and objectives of IEL. As discussed in the literature review and earlier in this chapter, these connections may suggest that such participation has been encouraged in order to respond to potential national and international security risks caused by the marginalisation of communities.
Second, the environmental topic and its connection to the economic interests of a state have an impact on the extent to which the content of the documents contain references to the structurally plural participation by NSAs. As identified in the timber agreements, these documents mainly include top-down participatory provisions and very generalised references to the participation by relevant stakeholders. Once again, this suggests that where the environmental topic has connections to interests that impact on a state’s well-being, the content of these provisions generally includes fewer provisions that reflect ecofeminist values of participation.