skip to main content
Idioma:

Future proofing the principle of no significant harm

Gupta, Joyeeta ; Schmeier, Susanne

International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics, 2020-12, Vol.20 (4), p.731-747 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    Future proofing the principle of no significant harm
  • Autor: Gupta, Joyeeta ; Schmeier, Susanne
  • Assuntos: Anthropocene ; Biodiversity ; Damage tolerance ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Economic development ; Economic growth ; Ecosystems ; Environment ; Environmental Economics ; Environmental law ; Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice ; Environmental Management ; Human tolerances ; Nature Conservation ; Original Paper ; Political Science ; Questions ; Responsibility ; Rivers ; Sovereignty ; Sustainable development ; Tolerance ; Water damage ; Water law ; Waterworks
  • É parte de: International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics, 2020-12, Vol.20 (4), p.731-747
  • Descrição: The principle of ‘no significant harm’ as a way of addressing transboundary environmental challenges is both inadequately researched and inadequately implemented in many parts of the world. This paper addresses the questions: What is the nature of transboundary harm in the Anthropocene? Is the principle of no significant harm able to address current and pre-empt future transboundary harm in the field of water and environmental law? This special issue has focused on this principle in the arena of water law. This article integrates the findings in the context of a broader understanding of global harm in the Anthropocene. We draw 4 conclusions. First, conceptually harm is moving beyond direct inter-state harm between neighbouring countries to a multi-directional, multi-actor/multi-level harm, which is increasingly creeping and cumulative, with growing spatial and temporal characteristics. It thus requires moving beyond quibbling over what is ‘significant’ harm to recognize the climate emergency, the sixth biodiversity extinction, the huge damage to water systems and to realize that the threshold of ecosystem and human tolerance of damage are reducing rapidly. Second, however, the no-harm principle tends to be better developed in qualifying sovereignty in relation to transboundary harm on rivers than in the broader environmental and development arena as demonstrated by agenda 2030 which reverts to full permanent sovereignty. Third, legal scholarship, however, does provide a wide range of instruments for addressing harm before it occurs, after it has happened, and considering the differentiated economic capacity of the actors. Finally, the larger problem is that it is not individual projects or programmes that cause problems as much as national prioritization of economic growth which has led to externalizing the environment. The no-harm principle will be ineffective if it cannot be used to question the content of ‘growth’-led policies. There is need to future proof the no-harm principle.
  • Editor: Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands
  • Idioma: Inglês
Voltar para lista de resultados

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.