History of Compliance with International Mandates
Geneva Convention
- ignored by terrorists - nothing to lose
- personal motivation to comply - self-preservation
- Korean/Vietnam War...
- does not really apply either
Kyoto Accords (most relevant) http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1307667221&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=5482&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=801652851&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=5482&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=784211311&sid=5&Fmt=3&clientId=5482&RQT=309&VName=PQD
- all nations have stake in global climate, just like oceans
- unlike oceans, will cost a lot extra to conform
- still exist many economic incentives to violate
- punitive measures - primarily economic sanctions
- countries can currently get away with minor violations, since it isn't worth the trouble to punish every minor infraction
- punishments for violations currently involve a larger reduction of CO2 emissions - not really working if they don't meet the first one in the first place
- difficult to use economic trade barriers, since many major countries violate carbon quotas
Peace Treaties
- mutual destruction consequence - self-preservation; does not really apply
As our plans involve producing behavioral changes on a global scale, the issue of compliance and enforcement are major factors to consider. Throughout history, there have been multiple instances of international mandates imposed upon the entire international community, with varying degrees of success. In each of the two cases, the probable motivating factors and relevance to our solution are considered.
One of the most significant international agreements from the past century is the Geneva Convention , which dictates the rules of war and attempts to bring a little humanity and order into an otherwise chaotic and barbaric means of settling disagreements between nations. This mandate, accepted by virtually all major countries in the world today, bans certain weapons, such as chemical and biological agents, and guarantees basic rights to soldiers in enemy hands. However, despite the wide-spread acceptance of the Geneva Convention, the primary motivating factor appears to be self-preservation; people follow the rules in the hope that should the tides change, their opponents will treat them decently as well. For those with nothing to lose, like terrorists, the Geneva Convention is simply disregarded. The situation with preserving global fisheries does not pose the same imminent alternative of painful death and torture, making it more difficult to ensure compliance.
Another such international mandate is the Kyoto Protocol. Dealing with the carbon emissions of developed nations, this agreement is concerned with staving off the projected disastrous effects of global warming. Each country receives a pre-determined limit on the amount of carbon its factories and industries release into the atmosphere, prompting nations to find more environmentally friendly means of conducting business. Like the case of the ocean's fisheries, the atmosphere is an international resource that is threatened by the actions of every person on Earth, with consequences that can disrupt the livelihood of the entire world. Unfortunately, conforming to the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol is extremely costly; though potentially beneficial in the long term, the immediate costs often deter nations from complying, or even agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol at all. Furthermore, the current punitive measures stated in the agreement have proved to be worthless; nations that exceed their carbon limit are supposed to do better the year after, and the economic sanctions are minor to nonexistent. Aside from being loosely enforced, the punishment itself is counterintuitive. At present, the economic incentives to ignore the Kyoto Protocol have far outweighed the benefits. Saving the Earth sounds lovely, but between the economy and the environment, it appears that most nations will choose financial stability first.