The international issue of climate change and environmentalism as a whole has raised serious questions not only about the future of the planet but also about the future of foreign policy. Since the United Nations adopted the Declaration of Human rights in 1948, the efficacy of its enforcement has been consistently criticized due to its downfalls resulting in the loss of human life. This type of high stakes foreign policy is what has prevented any major environmental regulation. In addition to international cooperation having a heavy hand against environmentalism, the enforcement of any laws will face massive difficulties in regards to geographical limitations and geopolitical tensions. This essay will discuss theoretical environmental policy that is on the same scale as the Declaration of Human Rights and furthermore, this essay will argue that the United Nations or any single entity is not capable of implementing an internationally accepted set of environmental regulations over international waters.
To understand the framework for this type of large-scale regulation, it is important to look at different methods of foreign policy and how it is formed. Throughout the history of foreign affairs, there have been two different approaches each with the same separate categories within them. First, there is the rational approach that is separated into institutional and individual. The institutional rational approach puts the central focus of policy making on governments as the sole formulator and administrator1. Additionally, this theory puts emphasis on planning for future problems by applying rational thought that turns into top-down regulation. Next is the individual ration approach that puts focus on how people make decisions in relation to institutions. This theory combines the study of human choice and systematic bureaucracy into an analysis of behavior in policy decision-making1. The rational approach to foreign affairs is directly correlated with the realist theory of international relations that assumes human behavior is key to understanding the interactions between nation-states. The second of the theories is the ideological institutional and ideological individual approach. The main difference between the institutional ideological and rational approach is that the ideological approach to institutions put a large focus on nongovernment agencies as the front line of foreign policy. The individual ideological approach is centered on public opinion and studies1. The best theory that applies to theoretical regulation of international waters would be the rational-individual approach because it takes into account both of the important elements of government powers and human behavior. This would form an efficient balance between creating lasting policy and predicting the downfalls of human error. However, as seen in the past with the United Nations, the fervent idealism and inefficient enforcement of policy has caused a lack of faith in their ability to successfully implement international regulation.
An important facet of understanding foreign policy is how it has been executed in the past. The United Nations has been the lead for international policy and the conventions that have been held set an example for what international environmental regulation might look like. The most famous declaration by the United National regarding international waters has been The Law of the Sea. In this treaty, the nation-states who signed agreed to several regulations and protocols regarding international waters however, only a few actually pertain to protecting the environment2. Since it was first implemented in 1958, the Law of the Sea has had a series of conventions that amend the initial treaty. The convention that most directly addresses environmental issues in international waters is that on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. This made it so that limitations were placed on high volume fishing due to the enhancement of fishing technology. Still, the amount of nation-states that have actually ratified this treaty remains small with only 40 in total2. Another of these conventions is that which aimed to conserve the numbers of highly migratory fish2. This again addresses the issue of overfishing and exploitation of wildlife. However, the nation-states that have actually ratified the treaty, although more than the latter, remains unequal to the amount of nation-states that signed in the first place. The most widely known of these conventions is that which decreed each nation-state has claim over the ocean territory 200 miles in every direction from their respective boarders2. Because of the rather open ended definition, the conventions to follow dealt with defining the meaning of the continental shelf through scientific research3. It is easy to see that the United Nations has made an effort to lessen the burden of human impact on the environment specifically those in international waters, but the lasting effect is questionable especially when considering the significant power of capitalism and politics in the global market.
In addition to policy, it is crucial to look at how the current political atmosphere will affect environmental regulation specifically in regards to transnational trade and cultural differences. Currently, the cargo ships that leave Asia release nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and many other pollutants into the ocean before finally docking in either Long Beach or Los Angeles California, where 40% of all United States shipments are delivered4. The impact of trade over the Pacific Ocean has done significant damage to not only the environment in international waters but to the Pacific Islands through extreme weather and rising water levels. Across the globe, the main factor that has put the environmentalist movement on hold has been the oil producers and the multinational corporations. On a smaller scale in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is consistently working to keep producers of toxic waste up to date with current regulation however this is a difficult task because clean energy is more expensive than fossil fuels. In addition, the politics of the fossil fuel industry make it especially hard to pass any laws or regulation regarding the environment. On a global scale, the importance of clean international waters is falling behind, the most striking example of that being the 'island' of garbage floating in the Pacific Ocean. Beyond the politics of climate change, there are the cultural differences that make international environmental policy challenging. The most notable example of these differences is Japanese tradition of whaling and whale being eaten as a delicacy. This is the type of issue that powers like the United Nations would have if it decided to take in regulation of international waters. Because of the current policy of a countries claim to 200 miles of the sea from their shore, Japan is currently allowed to continue whaling as normal within that limit. It raises the interesting question of, is it the right of other nation-states to fundamentally change another's cultural traditions.
The most important element of theoretical policy over international waters requires a detailed look at the geography of the world's oceans and who lays claim to them. When laid out on the map, the area stretching 200 miles from the shore of each nation-state leaves behind several "donut holes"5. These areas are all equidistant from two nation-states and therefore neither can claim the areas. To name a few, there are small areas in the Gulf of Mexico, the Philippine Sea and the Barents Sea5. This creates a unique problem for any prospective environmental regulation because areas such as these are beyond the jurisdiction of any country. Beyond the issue of which country is responsible for the donut holes, comes the issue of who is responsible for the territory that is not claimed. Additionally, is it fair to let countries do what they please with their own territory even if it harms the environment? These issues all relate back to the complicated relationship between different cultures and where each nation-state chooses to place its interests. Other geopolitical problems arise beyond the donut holes such as the tensions in the South China Sea and areas that are affected by conflict. It is reasons such as this that has caused the United Nations to place environmental regulation of international waters under the category of secondary problems. However, this problem could possibly be solved by an independent set international law enforcement much like the one currently used by the United Nations, the main difficulty is how efficiently this can be done.
Finally, most important aspect of any regulation is to estimate the efficacy of its enforcement. The key example to do this is the United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights that was enacted following the war crimes committed in World War Two. Some scholars argue that the sovereignty of nation-states and the wide scope of an international set of laws prevent the United Nations from being able to effectively enforce any of these laws6. Additionally, there is a power dynamic that will determine whether or not a nation-state chooses to comply with the United Nations9. If a nation-state has a stake in complying with the rest of the world's nation-states it will find a way comply, since they are part of a global community. However, other scholars argue that the issue is not with the nation-states but with the United Nations under-enforcing these international laws. Regardless, the fact that there are any written laws regarding human rights makes a significant difference by itself. From the United States, the Environmental Protect Agency is working closely with the United Nations Environment Program that shows effort by a major world power to work on environmental policy7. Still, the environmental issues of international waters seem to be too big of an issue to handle. The main point that can be taken away from the past experience of the United Nations specifically with the Declaration of Human Rights is that regardless of how it is enforced, any written law will be recognized to some degree and will at least have a moderate impact on the how nation-states treat the waters beyond the 200 mile boarder.
In conclusion, the United Nations and any other international power that might try to enforce the environmental regulation of international waters will have significant difficulty due not only to the large scale of this type of policy but also because of the geopolitical challenges that have yet to be solved. In the coming years, it is difficult to imagine a treaty such as this being put into affect or even being drafted because of how nearly every other issue is taking precedence over that of waters that no one has claim over. Powerful nation-states act with human behavior as their main decision maker as seen in the foreign policy theories that take both institutions and human nature into account. This makes it so that the bystander effect takes place on a global scale. If it is not in the waters that are claimed by any given nation-state, it is not going the next step in conserving the oceans and the wildlife that resides in them is to create a more cohesive Law of the Sea that specifically targets environmental issues rather than maritime disputes and boarders to be taken care of despite the limitations of boarders and cultural differences.