...
One of the primary issues with establishing an international regulatory board or commission is gaining enough countries to acknowledge and commit to make the decisions of the body effective. One of the primary goals of the Mission 2011 team has been developing creative incentives to encourage maximal international support. Yet we are also prepared to acknowledge that full compliance is unrealistic and most unlikely. Skeptics may claim that without support of a few key states, such as the United States, Japan, or China, the organization would fail, as the International Court of Justice has. There is evidence, however, to suggest that if public awareness and education campaigns are successful, that we could effectively achieve the aims of the organization without the support of a given nation. After the U.S. government rejected the Kyoto Protocol, considered by many to be a "death warrant"(Borger, 2001), the individual states and cities in America responded with force: nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states are currently leading the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is developing a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions that they hope other states will join (RGGI, About RGGI); California recently passed the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006, which will require major industries to cut emissions 25% by 2020 (Doerr, 2006); and the mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickels, has made "climate change a cornerstone of his administration," reducing Seattle's emissions 8% below 1990 levels (Cornwall, 2007). Nickels also hosted a global-warming conference of U.S. mayors in mid-October and has succeeded in getting more than 650 mayors from across the states to take the pledge to reduce emissions (Cornwall, 2007). Clearly, political support on the national level is not the deciding factor in an initiative's efficacy. We hope to acheive the same public fervor and rally of support as yet one more means to our end: saving the oceans.
Other considerations include land-locked nations and the polar regions. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, "land-locked States have the right of access to and from the sea and enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit States and... have the right to participate on an equitable basis in exploitation of an appropriate part of the surplus of the living resources of the EEZ's of coastal States of the same region or sub-region." This would not change under our proposed treaty.
Works Cited
Borger, J. (2001, March 29). Bush Kills Global Warming Treaty. The Guardian Unlimited: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwarming.usnews.
...