Resultados Parque eólico Concepción

Before the 19th century, some municipalities and states made sporadic efforts to address local forms of pollution or nuisances, such as smoke, noise, and water pollution. The first international agreements dealt with shared living resources and appeared only in the 19th century, with the conclusion of international fishing treaties and agreements to protect var- ious plant species. The primary purpose of the agreements was to sustain the harvesting of economically valuable species. This required interna- tional action, because many of the species were migratory or they were located in areas outside national boundaries, such as on the high seas.

The 1902 Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture (Paris, Mar. 19, 1902) was the first global convention to enter into force for the protection of designated wildlife species. Its title reveals the nar- row perspective of those who adopted it. The Convention concerned use-

ful birds, especially insectivores, and was aimed primarily at enhancing

agricultural production. Annex 2 numbered among “non-useful birds” the majority of predators, including some eagles and falcons, which are strictly protected today. The criterion was short-term utility, the immediate use- fulness of the protected species to the targeted human activity. The role of other birds in ecosystems, particularly hunters of small rodents, was ignored. The same utilitarianism characterized the bilateral United States- Great Britain Treaty Relating to the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals (Washington, Feb. 7, 1911), and the 1957 Convention joining Japan and Russia to the earlier agreement. Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals (Washington, Feb. 9, 1957), 314 UNTS 105. Despite the narrow focus, these early treaties set precedents widely fol- lowed in later MEAs, calling for strict enforcement measures, including national quotas, and regulating international trade in objects produced from seal hunting.

Several early boundary waters treaties contained measures to reduce and prevent water pollution, since neither state could protect water qual- ity without the other state’s cooperation. The agreement respecting bound- ary waters between the United States and Canada (Washington, Jan. 11, 1909) is still considered a model. It remains in force and was strengthened during the 1970s by other agreements—United States-Canada Agreement relating to the Establishment of Joint Pollution Contingency Plans for of Oil and Other Noxious Substances (June 19, 1974), 25 UST 1280, TIAS 7861; United States-Canada Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality with Annexes (Nov. 22, 1978), 30 U.S.T. 1383, TIAS No. 9257, amended Oct. 16, 1983, TIAS No. 10798. The original agreement instituted a mixed com-

mission that continues to play a role in pollution control. Following World War I, other riparian states entered into boundary water agreements that included provisions on the problem of water pollution and frequently established international commissions. Generally, however, they did not set specific water quality standards.

Some genuinely ecological approaches emerged in the 1930s, with the adoption of two regional instruments that can be seen as precursors to pre- sent-day approaches to environmental protection. First, the Convention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State (London, Nov. 8, 1933) applied to an Africa then largely colonized. The London Convention and the other instrument, the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (Washington, Oct. 12, 1940), envisaged the establishment of reserves and the protection of wild animals and plants, especially migratory birds.

International jurisprudence contributed to international environmen- tal law during this period by introducing the fundamental principles that dominate the law of transfrontier pollution. The Trail Smelter arbitration of March 11, 1941, affirmed that no state has the right to use its territory or permit it to be used to cause serious damage by emissions to the terri- tory of another state or to the property of persons found there. Arbitral Award in the Trail Smelter Case (Mar. 11, 1941), 3 UNRIAA 1905. Sub- sequently, the International Court of Justice held more generally in the

Corfu Channel case that no state may utilize its territory contrary to the

rights of other states. Corfu Channel Case (U.K. v. Albania), Merits, 1949 ICJ 4 (Apr. 3). These precedents furnished the first legal principles from which present environmental law has evolved.

After World War II, the international community responded to specific environmental threats caused by technological change and expanded eco- nomic activities. The growing use of supertankers to transport oil by sea led to the first efforts to combat marine pollution during the 1950s. The utilization of nuclear energy led to other international regulation. A 1963 treaty, for example, restricted some military uses of radioactive materials. See Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Underwater (Moscow, Aug. 5, 1963), 480 UNTS 43, 14 UST 1313. During this period, environmental concerns also increasingly appeared in general international legal texts.

The present ecological era can be said to have begun at the end of the 1960s, after post-World War II reconstruction led to unprecedented global economic development. This development was unequal, accentuating dif- ferences in wealth between countries of the Northern and Southern hemi- spheres as well as within countries. It required expanded use of exhaustible natural resources such as clean water, air, flora, fauna, and minerals. It also produced high levels of waste. Further problems arose from the “green revolution” in agriculture, which relied heavily on DDT and other pesti- cides whose dangers were not at first recognized.

As the harm to the natural world and human health increasingly became evident, informed public opinion demanded action to protect the quantity and quality of the components of the environment. Scientific stud- ies, as well as popular publications like Rachel Carson’s book The Silent

Spring, raised general awareness of dangers threatening the environment.

Public opinion mobilized at the grass roots to urge governments to adopt environmental policies. The movement was transnational from the begin- ning and emerged from a changing philosophical and ethical consensus, incorporating new social values in reaction to the post-war “consumer soci- ety.” The ecological movement spanned across ideologies and political par- ties with the result that many early environmental laws were adopted unanimously by national legislatures.

These factors partly explain the brevity of time it took for international organizations to recognize the emergence of a new international concern. Another factor was media coverage of the first oil tanker disaster. The 1967 “black tides” off the coasts of France, England, and Belgium, caused by the grounding of the oil tanker Torrey Canyon, sharply emphasized the grow- ing threats to the environment. The United Nations took action in 1968 shortly after the Torrey Canyon incident, when the General Assembly con- vened the World Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. G.A. Res. 2398 (XXIII), Dec. 3, 1968. This decision gave rise to intense and diverse activity, particularly within intergovern- mental organizations whose mandate could be interpreted to extend to environmental problems. Numerous national and international non-gov- ernmental environmental organizations and governments also engaged in preparatory work.

Even prior to the Stockholm Conference, international cooperation sought to counter marine oil pollution through adopting preventive mea- sures and establishing liability rules. Several steps also were taken to con- serve wild animals and their habitats, notably the conclusion of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar, Feb. 2, 1971) and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (London, June 1, 1972).

While these actions responded to some of the urgent environmental problems, ambitious preparations for the Stockholm Conference contin- ued, based on the work of a special committee of 27 states advising the UN Secretary-General. When the Stockholm meeting took place June 5–16, 1972, it brought together some 6,000 persons, including delegations from 113 states, representatives of every major intergovernmental organization, 700 observers sent by 400 non-governmental organizations, invited indi- viduals, and approximately 1,500 journalists. This level of participation reflected the high profile of environmental concerns at the time.

The inclusiveness helped the Conference achieve an internationally rec- ognized significance, particularly in bringing together the developed and developing countries. Prior to the Stockholm Conference, many poor

countries did not accept the necessity of global cooperation to protect the environment, because such problems were considered predominately an ailment of rich, industrialized countries. In fact, prior to Stockholm, a General Assembly resolution on development and the environment stated that standards to preserve the environment “as a general rule will have to be defined at the national level and, in all cases, will have to reflect con- ditions and systems of values prevailing in each country.” Furthermore “each country has the right to formulate, in accordance with its own par- ticular situation and in full enjoyment of its national sovereignty, its own national policies on the human environment, including criteria for the evaluation of projects.” G.A. Res. 2849, adopted Dec. 20, 1971, UN Doc. A/Res. 2849 (XXVI) (1972), 11 ILM 422. The vote on the resolution indi- cated the North-South divide, with 85 states in favor, and 34 against, the latter group including developed countries like the United States and the United Kingdom.

Coming to Stockholm, developing countries continued to voice fears that wealthy nations would condition foreign economic assistance on envi- ronmental protection or divert funds previously dedicated to development to fight environmental deterioration.

The Conference adopted texts of lasting importance during a closing plenary session, notably the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, adopted on June 16, 1972, by acclamation, an “Action Plan” containing 109 recommendations and a long resolution proposing insti- tutional and financial commitments by the United Nations. These were the first comprehensive statements of international concern with envi- ronmental protection.

The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment begins with a preamble describing the scientific and economic bases for concern with the environment. It affirms that that man is at once the creature and molder of his environment and that the natural and the man-made ele- ments of the environment are essential to human well-being and to the full enjoyment of basic human rights, including the right to life. The pre- amble recognizes that the natural growth of the world’s human popula- tion continuously poses problems for preserving the environment, but expresses a conviction that with social progress and the evolution of pro- duction, science, and technology, human ability to improve the environ- ment will strengthen. Protecting the environment is also viewed as a major issue for economic development. Developing countries insisted that the Stockholm Declaration acknowledge that:

[i]n the developing countries most of the environmental problems are caused by underdevelopment. Millions continue to live far below the minimum levels required for health and sanitation. Therefore, the developing countries must direct their efforts to development, bearing in mind their priorities and the need to safeguard and

improve the environment. For the same purpose, the industrialized countries should make efforts to reduce the gap between themselves and the developing countries.

The principles contained in the second part of the Declaration trans- late the preambular concepts into normative statements and concrete bases for action, while reflecting the various political preoccupations of the meet- ing’s participants. The first principle, for example, affirms the fundamen- tal human rights to liberty, equality, and adequate conditions of life in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, adding that man bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. The principle concludes by condemning apartheid, racial segregation, and discrimination, colo- nialism, and other forms of oppression and foreign domination. Principle 1 is primarily significant today as the first statement of a link between envi- ronmental protection and human rights, a matter of considerable jurispru- dence in the subsequent three decades.

Principles 2 to 7 constitute the ecological heart of the Declaration. They proclaim that the natural resources of the globe are not only oil and min- erals, but also air, water, earth, plants, and animals, as well as representa- tive samples of natural ecosystems. These should be preserved in the interest of present and future generations. Humanity has a particular responsibility to safeguard the heritage of wildlife and its habitats. Renewable resources must maintain their ability to replenish themselves and non-renewable resources should not be wasted. The Declaration emphasizes the necessity of adequate resource management in all cases. This section concludes by calling for a halt to the production of toxic wastes or other matter that cannot be absorbed by the environment and for the prevention of marine pollution. Principles 13 to 15 underline the necessity of integrated, coordinated, and rational development planning.

The last group of principles, 21 to 26, is of particular interest in the development of international environmental law. Principle 21 is generally recognized today as expressing a basic norm of customary international environmental law:

States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that the activities within their juris- diction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Principle 22 follows this by calling on states to cooperate in developing international law regarding liability and compensation for victims of pol- lution and other extra-territorial environmental damage.

Principle 23 recommends that states further develop international envi- ronmental law, taking into consideration the system of values prevailing in each country, in particular in developing countries. Principle 23 thus alludes to the now widely recognized notion that a distinction may be nec- essary in applying environmental norms according to the state of devel- opment of different countries, a concept incorporated in many environmental agreements today as the principle of “Acommon but dif- ferentiated responsibilities.” See Chapter V, Section C.2. The Action Plan also contains sections dedicated to economic and social development as a condition for environmental protection. Various principles promote trans- fer of financial and technical aid, stability of prices, and adequate remu- neration for basic commodities and raw materials, enhancement of the potential for progress of developing countries, and international assistance to aid developing countries to face costs that can delay incorporation of environmental safeguards in development planning.

The Stockholm Conference had immense value in drawing attention to the problem of environmental deterioration and methods to prevent or remedy it. The Conference was global both in its planetary conception of the environment, and in its view of institutional structures and world poli- cies. It was also global in addressing all the major environmental themes of the time.