Abstract
The global environmental conferences convened by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) during the last fifty years have contributed to the development of international environmental law and institution-building. Yet, given the deteriorating state of the global environment they are but one element of international environmental governance. While they were important to bring environmental issues to the attention of states, the time for agenda-setting seems over. Rather the international community must move on to the implementation of existing binding and non-binding rules and principles. While the UNGA continues to play an important role in the context of sustainable development and the Agenda 2030 process and is, indeed a stable platform for international cooperation on environmental issues, it seems that the time for comprehensive global environmental conferences may have come to an end, unless more innovative mechanisms for the implementation of international environmental law and policy are brought forward.
Keywords
Right in time for the 75th anniversary of the United Nations (UN), the topic of the current Environmental Policy and Law 50th anniversary special issue is taking a closer look at “Pathways to our better common environmental future”. To evaluate how this future pathway could look like, this article will examine how global environmental conferences have shaped the existing structures of international environmental governance in the past.
It has been nearly 50 years since the pioneering global environmental conference under the auspices of the UN to ok place in Stockholm in 1972. After that, several global conferences took place over the last decades. Some of them have been praised for their contribution to shaping international environmental institutions and international treaties, others have passed almost unnoticed by the wider public and did not have comparable repercussions in the scientific community. Yet, these global environmental conferences have been one of the foundations for the development of international environmental policies and the progressive development of law. In the light of ongoing environmental degradation in the “Anthropocene,” the further development of environmental governance seems more important than ever. It is unclear, however, if and how the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and global environmental conferences will play a leading role in this process.
Stability and Change in International Environmental Governance
The state of the global environment visibly deteriorates in the light of anthropogenic pressures and fixed planetary boundaries. Climate change is one of the mayor challenges that not only the environment is facing, but also the world’s population with regard to food safety, health and security. 1 Yet, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) continue to rise. Additionally, pollution of air, freshwater resources and the ocean are increasing, the loss of biological diversity and desertification seem impossible to stop in the light of the human footprint of a growing world population. And these are just some of the challenges the global environment is facing. As all of these challenges are transboundary in nature, both in the light of separate and cumulative contributions to the problems as well as concerning possible solutions, future formal cooperation by states and institutions is imperative. At the same time other, more informal means of networks and joint efforts by non-state actors, i.e., a bottom-up process, need to be explored to make progress in meeting environmental targets.
International organisations such as the UN are providing stable fora for multilateral diplomatic negotiations and thus play an important role in the international policy and law- making process. They provide the permanent framework for states and other actors to engage in dialogue and negotiations and thereby facilitate the compromises which are necessary for law and policymaking on a global level, 2 while at the same time allowing for flexible concepts of informal exchanges that can transgress to formal processes. 3 When it comes to environmental law, the UNGA has played an especially important part in the multilateral cooperation necessary for the development of international environmental regulatory regimes.
The UNGA has sought to address issues of global concern either by convening general global environmental conferences or by establishing specific diplomatic conferences tasked with the function to draft environmental treaties. The latter can be a response to codification projects initiated by the International Law Commission (ILC) or the result of other processes. Currently, the latter function is reflected by the UNGA decision to establish a diplomatic conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the so-called “BBNJ” process.
It follows that the UNGA could well be described as an anchor for the development of international environmental law and governance. By common dictionaries an anchor is generally defined as “any of various devices or instruments used to hold something in place” or, more figuratively, as “a person who or a thing which provides stability, support, or confidence, especially in an otherwise uncertain situation”. Since international environmental law necessarily needs to evolve to face new challenges, it is suggested that the latter meaning, i.e., the establishment of a firm and stable base and support for further developments, meets the requirements of international policy and law-making on the global level better than just a holding into place of current regimes and regulations. That the international community cannot step back from already ongoing initiatives for sustainability and should neither remain in the status quo seems a commonplace.
The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) clearly indicate the common objectives on the global agenda and support them with specific targets, many of which relate to the state of the environment. Yet, in the light of multiple other threats, some of which are closely related to environmental degradation such as poverty and lack of clean water resulting from pollution and climate change, and others that are unrelated, like the COVID-19 pandemic, economic preferences by states may turn away from efforts to protect the environment on the international level. The withdrawal by the US from the Paris Agreement is only one example of a lack of support of cooperative efforts to address a global problem. Other states formally adhere to internationally agreed goals only to miss their implementation on the national level without any international sanctions.
The objective of this article is to explore the two different meanings of an anchor. More specifically, this article asks whether the UNGA is indeed providing the necessary stability, support and confidence in times of a steadily degrading environment, thereby ensuring that we have a constant (albeit slow) development in environmental law and a minimum standard of protection for our environment. Yet, in this context, some thought will be given to whether the UNGA has turned into an anchor, in the more general meaning, i.e., an obstacle that is slowing down progress and prevents international environmental governance structures from evolving. More importantly, however, this paper asks how the future role of the UNGA could look like compared to other institutions.
This article contains three main parts. The first one will take a closer look at the institutional setting of the UNGA, its competences and its mandate for the environment; the second one will examine the global environmental conferences of the last 50 years under the UNGA’s roof. The aim of this part is to assess how far-reaching their impact was or still is by analysing their contribution to international environmental law, institution building and other potential progressive developments in environmental governance, namely, stakeholder involvement. The third part will then discuss which role the UNGA should take and which institution or organ would be better fitted to deal with environmental problems if the Assembly resembled an anchor in the sense that it does not provide sufficient support to allow international to develop progressively to face the increasing challenges.
The United Nations General Assembly
The UNGA is one of the main organs of the UN and was established in 1945 by the United Nations Charter (UN Charter). 4 It consists of all the members of the UN 5 and may discuss any question or matter within the scope of the UN Charter. 6 It is the main policymaking and representative organ of the UN. As it comprises all the 193 Member States that are sovereign and equal, it represents a unique forum for multilateral negotiations and discussions of the full spectrum of international issues covered by the UN Charter. 7 It can initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of promoting international co- operation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification. 8 To give recommendations the UNGA may adopt resolutions which per se do not create legal obligations for the UN member States 9 are not without potential law-making capacity as they may contribute to the establishment of customary international law, if the content of the resolutions represents or helps to form the member States’ opinio juris and practice. 10
When looking at the UN Charter, one realises that none of its provisions, including the preamble, even mention the word ‘environment’. It follows the UNGA does not have a specific environmental mandate. 11 The main issues covered by the UN Charter, particularly the emphasis on peace, security, human rights and the pacific settlement of disputes, reflect the experience and concern of the time of the organisation’s creation in the aftermath of the two world wars. Considering the work of the UNGA over the last 75 years, it becomes clear that the Assembly has covered several political fields that demanded particular attention but were not explicitly addressed by the wording of the UN Charter, thus allowing for a broad interpretation of its original mandate. 12 The UNGA’s early interest in environmental problems stemmed from the need to protect the marine environment from the effects of accidents and other human activities, 13 the interconnection between the environment and development, as well as the cooperation on shared natural resources 14 which, in turn, are at least partly topics, covered by its mandate. 15
Despite the lack of a specific mandate for the protection of the environment, the UNGA, including its subsidiary bodies, has subsequently been identified as the “principal policy making and appraisal organ” for the protection of the global environment. In fact it has contributed to environmental policymaking like no other UN organ. 16 One reason for that relevance and perception could be a broad and “objective” mandate of the UNGA. It can be construed to mean that no special interest groups are present at the UNGA sessions in contrast, for instance, to the sessions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). 17 As the principal policy-making organ, the decisions of the UNGA have contributed as a “catalyst for law-making” 18 , in the development of principles and substantive rules, the Assembly has created new bodies, like the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) 19 and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 20 and has convened global conferences on the environment 21 as well as thematic diplomatic conferences to develop specific international environmental treaties.
Global Environmental Conferences Under the UNGA’s Auspices
Objectives
One way to contribute to the development of international environmental law and policy is to convene environmental conferences on a global scale to raise awareness, address different interrelated issues and challenges with regard to the global environment more comprehensively and suggest solutions on a political and legal level. This is one of the ways the UNGA used to bring environmental problems to the attention of the UN member States. Over the last 50 years, it has continued to convene several global UN environmental conferences: most notably the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE), held in Stockholm in 1972; the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit or Rio Conference, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992; the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, 2002 and the Rio + 20 Summit in Rio in 2012.
While there have been several other conferences on general and specific environmental issues over the last decades this part will focus on the beforementioned conferences and analyse how these global conferences under the auspices of the UNGA have contributed to the progress of international environmental law, institution building and other transformations. Mention must, however, be made of the 2015 summit that adopted Agenda 2030 and the SDGs as this, while much broader, is the overarching framework for transformations, including environmental issues.
The idea behind these large environmental conferences is to provide states with a global forum to discuss environmental problems as a whole and on a central stage, instead of dealing with these problems in an often uncoordinated, disparate and thus ineffective manner. 22 The convening of comprehensive global environmental conferences pays tribute to interconnected issues, of which sustainable development is the best example. At the same time, progress for specific issues may be easier to achieve at diplomatic conferences tasked with the drafting of a global or regional international treaty, even if this may be seen as a piecemeal approach in the light of the interrelation of environmental issues.
The potential difficulty of discussing environmental challenges in the global arena lies in the divergent interests of different groups of States that need to be addressed and most likely require a high degree of compromise. While this may be easier on the regional level, if the relevant actors are more like-minded or share the same degree of economic capacity, many environmental problems, e.g., climate change, ozone depletion, marine pollution, are truly global in nature and can only effectively be addressed by universal efforts, for which environmental conferences on the level of the UNGA may be a suitable forum to spark further developments.
Historical context
The first global conference on the human environment, organised by the UNGA took place in Stockholm, Sweden in 1972 23 and can be seen as the cornerstone of environmental governance under the auspices of the UN. 24 The 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) was convened on the basis of a suggestion of Sweden, 25 which led to a recommendation of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), as it became clear that the continuing “impairment of the human environment” had negative effects on the “condition of man”. 26 The main objectives of the UNCHE were to create a general consideration of environmental problems and to provide guidelines for actions undertaken by governments in order to limit or, where possible, to eliminate the degradation of the human environment. 27 It is clear today that the ambitions have not been met.
The Stockholm conference has also to be seen in the historical context of a general growing environmental awareness. 28 The Club of Rome’s 1972 study on The Limits to Growth 29 that was presented in the beginning of 1972 is a prominent example to this extent and it sparked further political processes. Likewise, important global environmental treaties were negotiated and adopted shortly before or after the conference, e.g., the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat 30 , the UNCESCO Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 31 and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in 1973. 32 The Commission of the European Community (now the European Union) issued two important papers regarding the environment during that period: the First communication of the Commission about the Community’s policy on the environment 33 of July 1971 and the Commission’s proposal for the first Environmental Action Programme 34 that was taken up by the European Council 35 and agreed upon in the aftermath of the Stockholm Conference. In sum, the Stockholm Conference is associated with the beginning of global environmental law and policymaking.
Twenty years later, the second major global conference on the environment was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. 36 The conference was convened through UNGA Resolution 44/228 of 22 December 1989. Over the two preceded decades, since the last environmental conference, there had been a paradigm shift from the human environment to (economic) development and the environment, focussing on sustainable development. This shift recognized that supporting either economic development or strict environmental preservation would not result in long-term sustainability but that both needed to be balanced. Judging from the current state of the environment, however, humanity is far from implementing such a balance.
A decade later, in 2002, the next global environmental conference was held in Johannesburg, South Africa: the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). 37 Over the decade leading up to the WSSD, environmental quality had further deteriorated and the promise of ecological sustainability of economic growth had not been fulfilled. Another ten years later, in 2012, the Rio + 20 Conference 38 was designated to be a twenty-year review conference of UNCED while facing unprecedented land degradation, loss of biodiversity, climate change and pollution on the environmental side of sustainable development as well as poverty, hunger and inequality on its developmental side. Its main objective was –again –secure political commitment to reach for sustainable development but also to assess the progress and the remaining gaps in the implementation of sustainable development. 39 With the adoption of Agenda 2030 in 2015, the process shifted to specify 17 SDG goals to replace the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The SDGs contain environmental elements and targets but, like the MDGs, are not the outcomes of an “environmental conference”. Finding the necessary balance between the different SDGs in the future has, however, not become any easier.
Contribution to international environmental law
All the global environmental conferences under the auspices of the UNGA have in common that their main outcomes consisted of one or several non legally binding documents. This is one of the main differences between the more general and comprehensive global environmental conferences on the one hand and diplomatic conferences tasked with the negotiation of a legally binding instrument on the other. The UNGA plays a role for both but does not normally combine both functions. The treaties that were opened for signature during the Earth Summit in 1992 had been prepared by diplomatic conferences before the UNCED. In this sense, the criticism of a lack of legally obligatory outcomes from the global environmental conferences is not justified because it can hardly be the purpose of such summits to negotiate and adopt comprehensive international treaties.
Moreover, the role of soft-law must not be underestimated as it can produce significant legal effects. 40 Despite its ambiguity 41 and the criticism that it seems to “blur the line” between binding and non-binding norms, 42 it has been assessed as an alternative to treaty-making, particularly in the context of international environmental protection, 43 particularly, because many treaties earn their universal consent by compromise, weak language that leaves ample room for interpretation and lack of enforcement mechanisms. The principles agreed upon by states and by political declarations can also turn into customary international law. In this sense, their formulation and state consent as expressed by a global environmental conference, is an important cornerstone.
In order to fulfil the objective of firmly placing environment on the global agenda and set the scene for further legal and political development the Stockholm Conference adopted two non-binding documents, the Stockholm Declaration and the Plan of Action. 44 These two documents are the result of a lengthy and difficult negotiation process of the Preparatory Committee and represent “a realistic attempt to reconcile different views and interests”. 45 Despite not being legally binding, especially the Stockholm Declaration had a great impact on the development of international environmental law. It contributed to the recognition of several environmental principles, inter alia the no significant transboundary harm rule, as internationally accepted customary rules of law. 46
The 1992 Rio Conference tried to initiate a paradigm shift to reflect the need to reconcile environmental protection with economic development. Already in 1992, it became clear that economic growth was the major cause of the continuing deterioration of the global environment, thus it was the objective of the conference to elaborate strategies and measures to hold and reverse the effects of environmental degradation through increased national and international promotion of sustainable development. 47 Today sustainable development is firmly rooted on the international agenda as can be seen by the adoption of the SDGs and the efforts to implement them. However, the idea of sustainable development itself was not developed at the Rio Conference, although it is often associated with this event. The UNGA had already come to the conclusion that environment and development are inevitably linked and have to be equal components in future development strategies before the Rio Conference.
The concept had been introduced in earlier documents, e.g., the 1987 Brundtland Commission Report, 48 which was the result of another UNGA initiative: the establishment of the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1983. However, the inter- generational aspect of sustainable development has been recognized for the first time at the UNCED, it is explicitly mentioned by Principle 3 of the Rio Declaration and has consequently made the concept of sustainability even more important. 49 Apart from it, the UNGA came to the conclusion that, “environmental protection in developing countries must, in this context, be viewed as an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it”, but at the same time the UNGA affirmed, that the “responsibility for containing, reducing and eliminating global environmental damage must be borne by the countries causing such damage, must be in relation to the damage caused and must be in accordance with their respective capabilities and responsibilities”. 50
As a result, the UNCED concept of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ was established and emphasised by Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration as a compromise to the North-South conflict. The concept confirmed the differential treatment of developing countries in order to take into account their specific circumstances and needs. 51 This principle evolved to one of the leading justifications to establish differentiated obligations for different groups of states in multilateral environmental agreements with regard to the achievements of certain targets as well as financial support to meet incremental costs, e.g. in the context of climate change, ozone depletion and biological diversity. Not only these two concepts but further important environmental principles were introduced or reaffirmed in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. 52 Apart from it, the Agenda 21 was adopted as a non- binding action plan for governments and NGOs to promote sustainable development. 53
In addition to these soft law instruments, most of the states have also signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 54 and the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) 55 , which were symbolically opened for signature during the UNCED. However, these two legally binding conventions are not a direct result of the Rio Conference as they were negotiated beforehand and then linked to the conference to give additional meaning to the event. 56 In contrast, thereto, the Convention to Combat Desertification 57 is more directly related to the discussions during the UNCED and the UNGA played an important role in the treaty’s development. 58 Although the United Nations Conference on Desertification adopted a Plan of Action to Combat Desertification (PACD) as early as in 1977, it was only in 1991 that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) came to the conclusion that land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas had further intensified. The issue was placed upon the agenda for the Rio Earth Summit as a matter of immediate concern. As a consequence of discussions during the conference, the UNCED called upon the UNGA to establish an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to prepare the Convention to Combat Desertification, particularly in Africa. It finally came to be adopted in 1994. In this sense, the global conference functioned as a catalyst and played the ball back to the UNGA to initiate a law-making process.
The 2012 WSSD neither resulted in a declaration of concise principles that reflected or contributed to customary international law nor in specific support of further environmental treaties. The negotiations of a legally binding agreement on climate change were undertaken outside this general framework by the members to the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. While States agreed that ten years after the Rio Conference, Agenda 21 was, in theory, a good instrument to implement sustainable development, practical implementation was lacking. Thus, it was agreed upon that instead of negotiating and adopting new documents with new goals, the main objective was to find pragmatic ways to implement the already existing Agenda 21. 59 In order to fulfil this objective, the WSSD accepted three main outcome instruments: (i) the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (ii) the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and (iii) the Type II Partnerships. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development is another political declaration emphasising the will of the international community to adapt to sustainable development. The main outcome of the Summit is the Plan of Implementation, which contains an extensive list of recommendations on how to implement Agenda 21. Additionally, the Type II Partnerships were introduced, which allow civil society to contribute to the implementation, thus being a new democratic way of realising the Agenda 21 goals. 60 Despite these efforts, the documents most commonly referred to when discussing the evolution of international environmental law are the Stockholm and Rio Declarations respectively. Neither Agenda 21 nor the WSSD documents achieved the same status despite –or due to –their more detailed considerations on implementation of sustainable development.
Unlike the outcome of the 1992 UNCED, no new legally binding documents were negotiated before, during or immediately after the 2012 Rio + 20 Summit. The main outcome of WSSD has been a non-legally binding document popularly known as The Future we want. It, however, does not contain any specific obligations or commitments. 61 This document mirrors the political agenda of that time. Governments were not willing to actively promote sustainable development on the international level through binding agreements on specific steps on how to move forward. Thus, the Rio + 20 Summit might mark the end of major environmental conferences on sustainable development with the intention to create or at least add to an international legally binding framework to resolve environmental problems. 62 Instead, the SDGs 63 , as the cornerstone of Agenda 2030 took over in 2015 and sought to address the issue in a much broader way. At the same time, the specific SDGs firmly root-specific environmental issues like the ocean, land degradation, and freshwater on the political agenda. As for the global environmental conferences, the UNGA provides the framework for this process as well, while leaving the implementation to other institutions, state and non-state actors.
Institution-Building
In addition to the potential law-making function of global environmental conferences under the auspices of the UNGA, the diversification of institutions tasked with environmental governance is linked to such events. A great achievement of the Stockholm Conference was the establishment of UNEP, the only UN institution with a specific environmental mandate. The UNGA created UNEP as a subsidiary organ in accordance with Art. 22 UN Charter. The mandate of UNEP is laid down in UNGA Resolution 2887 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972. It has been established inter alia to promote international cooperation in the field of the environment and to recommend policies. 64 Since it is not a legally independent international organization within the UN family but a subsidiary body to the UNGA, the mandate of UNEP cannot be more extensive than the mandate of the Assembly itself. Thus UNEP can only give non-binding recommendations to member States and other UN institutions. Nevertheless, UNEP’s work has had a great influence on the development of environmental governance, including through the support of the adoption of several environmental treaties on a regional, e.g., in the context of the UNEP Regional Seas Programme; as well as global scale. Comparable to the declaration of environmental principles that reflect broad agreement, the Stockholm conference has functioned as a catalyst to give sufficient support to the creation of UNEP as a further platform for cooperation and specific programmes. Further conferences have resulted in strengthening of UNEP that culminated in the creation of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA). In fact this “advent of UNEA with universal membership (all 193 UN members) has effectively jettisoned the Governing Council (GC) (with 58 members elected by the UN General Assembly) that held sway for 40 years”. 65
A crucial question at the time of the Rio Conference was if UNEP was sufficient as an institution to ensure an effective follow up. Since UNEP and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) already existed in parallel and none was considered adept to broaden their mandate to implement the concept of sustainable development, the UNGA established the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) as a further institutional platform. 66 In essence, however, the CSD remained weak and was hardly perceived as a driver to implement Agenda 21. The lack of progress was the main reason why the WSSD did not focus on new political goals and new institutions but on the implementation of the objectives set out at the Rio Conference. The Rio + 20 Summit resulted in the establishment of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) that served as the main UN platform on sustainable development. The HLPF replaced the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) after two decades of its existence. This process of making and unmaking of institutions reflected the “power and legitimacy of the Assembly’s actions” 67 and intended to elevate the implementation of sustainable development to the scrutiny of heads of States and governments. 68 As seen earlier, another outcome of Rio + 20 was the UNEA, 69 which was established by the UNGA in 2013 to strengthen the UNEP. While the institution is supposed to put the environment at the centre of the international community’s focus, it is a political decision-making body without a mandate or any capacity that would go beyond UNEP and thus, ultimately, the UNGA. Both institutions are engaged in the framework of Agenda 2030.
The Agenda 2030 process and the SDGs have meanwhile taken the issue to a new political level with the HLPF still in a crucial position and the UNEA playing an agenda- setting role for the more specific environmental issues. Under the auspices of the UNGA, the HLPF meets at the level of Heads of State and Government every four years. Through resolution 70/299, the UNGA has provided further guidance on the follow-up of and review of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. 70 It has, however, not tasked the HLPF with a mandate for legally binding decision-making.
Other Transformations: Stakeholder Involvement
One issue that is highly relevant for better implementation - and reflected in the global environmental conferences convened by the UNGA - is the growing involvement of various stakeholders, i.e. civil society in the form of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other non-state actors. If we compare the Stockholm and Rio Conferences, the latter reflects a ‘participatory revolution’. For the first time, NGOs played a significant role as participants of the conference. During the UNCED more than 1,400 NGOs were accredited as observers. By doing so, the Rio Conference paved the way for the public-private partnership (PPP), which would eventually take shape at the WSSD. 71 The shift from a purely political discussion on the diplomatic level to stakeholder involvement is an important step that has been pursued further on the UN level as can be seen in the context of the SDGs. For instance, the 2017 UN Ocean Conference 72 , sought to focus on SDG 14 and relied heavily upon the registration of commitments by states and non-state actors alike. A stronger focus on a bottom-up approach can contribute to the necessary societal transformations. Yet, it cannot completely outweigh the lack of formal cooperation and regulation on the international level between states and international organisations.
Conclusion
It seems clear that the UNGA continues to play an important role as an institution and political forum in the context of sustainable development, as is shown by the 2015 summit that adopted Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. Moreover, by convening comprehensive global environmental conferences, the UNGA has sought to place and keep the issues on the global agenda. Viewed from the perspective of actual change, however, the UNGA record in environmental conferencing appears less successful. Even as the UNGA has organised global environmental conferences during every decade since 1972 UNCHE, the quality of the planet’s environment has only further deteriorated. In fact even weak conceptions of sustainability have not been implemented to protect environmental resources for present and future generations. These conferences have not resulted in the transformation of the global economy, as a prerequisite, to achieve global environmental sustainability.
In this sense UNGA’s actual impact on the protection and sustainable use of environmental resources seems relatively low. It remains questionable, if further conferences in such formats would help to achieve the aim of an ecologically sustainable development. The lack of progress, especially after the WSSD and the Rio + 20 Summit and the moving on to the promotion of sustainable development in a much broader context seem to show that the time for global environmental conferences under the auspices of the UNGA with the aim to set the global agenda may be over. The main environmental challenges and the planetary boundaries are generally well known and, where specific knowledge is lacking, more tailored initiatives, like the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development that involves various institutional partners to close gaps, would seem more promising.
In the aftermath of adoption of the SDGs and the targets being discussed and addressed, it seems, there is even less room or necessity for further comprehensive environmental conferences. This is especially so if the aim is to merely set the global agenda and bring environmental issues to the attention of the international community. Viewed from this perspective, it is doubtful if a Stockholm + 50 conference in 2022 would result in anything more concrete than naming the most pressing challenges unless the conferences would include innovative means to support initiatives to implement specific measures as a response to identified environmental threats. This would necessitate going far beyond the usage of past global environmental conferensing techniques of declarations, plans of action. Moreover, even if the Global Pact for the Environment 73 would be adopted as a binding international treaty, the question of the lack of implementation and enforcement would most likely not be solved.
The SDG process has meanwhile moved from agenda-setting to the implementation level, and despite the obvious interlinkage of the single SDGs, more specific conferences could centre around certain issues like the implementation of targets inter alia for the ocean as by the 2017 Ocean Conference and the planned follow-up Ocean Conference in 2020 (SDG 14), the transportation conferences or climate action (SDG 13). This process not only allows for the involvement of the private sector as well as regional initiatives but specifically supports them and could be a test-case for innovative mechanisms. From this perspective, a crucial question arises: Does the UNGA still needs to play the role of an anchor, even in the positive sense of a stable platform, to convene further global environmental conferences as done in the past five decades? It seems to result in a negative answer.
Overall, the current times do not seem be too promising for further environmental law-making, although an important step has been made by the UNGA to identify gaps with a view to these being addressed by a future comprehensive instrument. 74 Judging from the past development and the outcome of the global environmental conferences, it seems doubtful, if a Stockholm + 50 (2022) conference would lead to the adoption of a legally binding encompassing treaty on international environmental law, even if this would indeed be a missing piece in the SDG process. 75 Moreover, even if the UNGA via another conference could spark such a development, it would be the states’ responsibility to transform such an instrument into applicable national rules and enforce these against national actors. Judging from today’s shortcomings, it is often not a lack of international law but a lack of its implementation. 76
The most important issue of our times, the disastrous effects of climate change, does not lack a legally binding frameworks but ambition and implementation. This gap would not be closed even by legally binding reduction targets instead of voluntary state commitments. Where there are formal treaty-drafting processes, as in the case of the international legally- binding instrument on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, they are lengthy and reflect the difficulties to find compromise. Yet, the UNGA can still initiate such processes where they seem viable by establishing working groups and by responding to their and the ILC’s findings and establish diplomatic conferences. Likewise, soft-law in the form of declarations and resolutions on specific environmental issues does not need a general global conference. Moreover, while several non-binding documents issued by global environmental conferences have contributed to the development of customary rules of law and also led to an abundance of soft-law norms and action plans, they largely share the lack of enforcement by the governments. Even the ‘hard law’ rules, like the UNFCCC and the CBD, that formally fall into the category of legally binding treaties, are relatively ‘soft’ in substance, as the obligations they impose are at most aspirational, phrased weakly and rather loosely, instead of defining clear-cut obligations. 77
In essence, the same that has been said for environmental law-making under the UNGA auspices likewise applies to institution-building: there is no lack of institutions and there is no will to provide fora like UNEP and the UNEA, the UNDP or the HLPF with more competences. The UNGA, in any case, cannot create institutions with mandates that go beyond its own limited capacities. If states were willing to establish a “green security council” or a new specialised UN Agency for environmental protection 78 or a revival of the UN Trusteeship Council with a new mandate for the global environment and the global commons 79 outside of the UNGA they could set up the relevant institutions and mandate them with effective powers as autonomous international organisations.
Another potential pathway for change would be the active engagement of the UN Security Council instead of the UNGA. Yet, the organ faces its own limitations in the light of Art. 39 UN Charter: before the Security Council can adopt enforcement measures, it has to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression. The range of situations which the Security Council determined as giving rise to threats to the peace includes country-specific situations such as inter- or intra-State conflicts or internal conflicts with a regional or sub-regional dimension. While climate change has been identified as a potential threat to international peace and security due to its implications, other environmental degradation, such as ocean pollution or air pollution, has not yet been considered to be of comparable implications. Overall, the Security Council is reactive in nature and, unlike the UNGA with its commonly broadly interpreted mandate, not tasked with the progressive development of environmental governance.
A cynical evaluation of the UNGA’s role in the context of environmental conferencing might lead to the conclusion that the global conferences only ensured that states had to take the environment into consideration at least once a decade but that they remained without effect on the implementation level and lack proper enforcement of the agreed-upon goals and recommendations. Consequently, one could describe the UNGA as an anchor that merely maintains the status quo of international environmental law and policy. This conclusion, however, does not do justice to the stable forum that the UNGA continues to provide for environmental issues, the efforts to create institutions and the inherent lack of capacity to act beyond the will of the assembled governments on the other. The institution itself can only offer the platform to spark developments on the law-making and institutional level but cannot guarantee implementation and enforcement. The outcomes and, particularly, the implementation of objectives are the responsibility of the member states and it remains to be seen if the UNGA can contribute in a futuristic pathway to bottom-up approaches for enhanced implementation of soft and hard law regulations by more innovative approaches in the future within or beyond the environmental issues identified by the Agenda 2030.
Footnotes
For a detailed analysis of this, see, generally, B.H. Desai, “Threats to the World Eco-System: A Role for the Social Scientists”, Social Science & Medicine (Oxford: Pergamon Press), vol. 35, no. 4, 1992, pp. 589-96.
P. Birnie, A. Boyle and C. Redgwell, International Law and the Environment, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 44.
An example for this can be seen in the establishment of the Ad-hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction that has resulted in the decision by the UNGA in Resolution 72/249, 19 January 2018, UN Doc. A/RES/72/249, to establish the Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity or Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, commonly known as the “BBNJ” process, to negotiate an international legally binding instrument under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on the issue.
Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter), 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
Art. 9 I UN Charter.
Art. 10 UN Charter.
Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell, n.2, p. 59.
Art. 13 I a) UN Charter.
B.H. Desai, “UN General Assembly as the Conductor of a Grand Orchestra”, Global Perspectives on a Global Pact for the Environment - Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, Columbia Centre on Sustainable Development, Columbia University, New York (accessed on 8 February 2021). Also see, B.H. Desai, Institutionalizing InternationalEnvironmental Law (New York: Transnational Publishers, 2003), pp.144-145; desai (jnu.ac.in)
This is inter alia the case for the General Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res. 217 A (III), 10 December 1948, UN Doc. A/RES/3/217 A that is not legally binding per se but reflects customary international law. The same must be assumed for the content of the resolutions on permanent sovereignty over natural resources, e.g. UNGA Res. 1803 (XVII), 14 December 1962, UN Doc. A/RES/1803/(XVII) and the predecessors to which it refers. In addition to the recognition of sovereignty over natural resources as a rule of customary international law, legally binding treaties refer to the concept as well, e.g. Art. 193 LOSC and the preamble to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
P. Sands and J. Peel, Principles of International Environmental Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018, p. 61; Also see, Art. 13 I b) UN Charter where a multitude of different political fields is mentioned.
So far the UNGA has convened 31 special sessions on issues that demanded particular attention, including the question of Palestine, United Nations finances, disarmament, international economic cooperation, drugs, the environment, population, women, social development, human settlements, HIV/AIDS, apartheid and Namibia, COVID-19, for further Information see: available at: 
(accessed on 10 January 2021). Also see, Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell, n.2, p. 58.
The UNGA’s interest in the marine environment was primarily seen as a reaction to the Torrey Canyon ship wreck disaster, which lead to significant oil pollution of the North Sea and British and French coastlines and is commonly seen as the first oil pollution accident that resulted in global awareness.
Sands and Peel, n.11, p. 10.
To read more of the concurrent discourses at that time see: P.H. Sand, “The Evolution of International Environmental Law”, and, J.S. Dryzek, “Paradigms and Discourses”, both in: D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée and E. Hey (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford: OUP, 2007, p. 29 and 44.
Sands and Peel, n.11, p. 61; Agenda 21, para. 38.9, 12 August 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF. 151/26, Annex II.
Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell, n.2, p. 60 et seq.
B.H. Desai, Institutionalizing International Environmental Law, New York: Transnational Publishers, 2003, p.154.
UNGA Res. 2997 (XXVII) 1972, 15 December 1972, UN Doc A/RES/2997 (XXVII).
UNGA Res. 2029 (XX) 1965, 22 November 1965, UN Doc A/RES/2029 (XX).
Sands and Peel, n.11, p. 61.
U. Beyerlin and T. Marauhn, International Environmental Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011, p. 7.
For report of the 1972 UNCHE see, United Nations Official Document (accessed on 8 February 2021); Also see, L.B. Sohn, The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 14, 1973, p. 423.
P.-M. Dupuy and J.E. Viñuales, International Environmental Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 8 et seq.
Sohn, n.23, pp. 423-424.
ECOSOC Res. 1346(XLV), 30 July 1968, Question of convening an international conference on the problems of human environment.
UN, Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/Rev.1, p. 37; available at: Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment - A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (un-documents.net) (accessed on 8 February 2021). Also see, Sohn, n.23, pp. 423-424.
Influential publications like R. Carson, Silent Spring, Greenwich: Crest Books, 1962 on the effects of pesticides on bird populations in the US contributed to the public awareness of the world eco crisis; available at: Silent_Spring-Rachel_Carson-1962.pdf (uniteddiversity.coop) (accessed on 8 February 2021).
The Ramsar Convention, 2 February 1971, 996 UNTS 245.
The World Heritage convention, 16 November 1972, 1037 UNTS 151.
CITES, 13 March 1973, 993 UNTS 243.
European Commission proposal, (1972) OJ C 52/1.
Programme of action of the EC on the environment (1973) OJ C 112, p.1.
For report of the 1992 UNCED see, A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1(vol.I) - E - A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1(vol.I) -Desktop (undocs.org) (accessed on 8 February 2021).
UN, UN, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August4 September 2002; UN Doc.A/CONF.199.20; available at: Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development - A/CONF.199/20 (un-documents.net) (accessed on 8 February 2021)
UN, Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 20-22 June 2012 UN Doc. A/CONF.216/16; available at: United Nations Official Document (accessed on 8 February 2021).
Sands and Peel, n.11, p. 48.
P.-M. Dupuy, “Soft Law and the International Law of the Environment”, 12 Michigan Journal of International Law (1991), 420.
Thürer, n.38, p.36.
A.E. Boyle, “Some Reflections on the Relationship of Treaties and Soft Law”, 48 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1999), 901, 902 et seq. See also J. Friedrich, International Environmental “soft law”, 2013.
Declaration of the United Nations on the Human Environment (Stockholm Declaration) and Action Plan for the Human Environment, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1, p. 3, 6; available at: United Nations Official Document (accessed on 8 February 2021).
L.B. Sohn, “The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment”, 14 Harvard International Law Journal (1973), p. 423, 429.
See the Stockholm Declaration (1972), Principle 21; available at: United Nations Official Document and the Rio Declaration (1992), Principle 2; available at: 1992 UNCED.Rio Summit.pdf (accessed 12 January 2021).
UNGA Res. 44/228 of 22 December 1989; available at: A/RES/44/228 - UN Conference on Environment and Development - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements (un-documents.net) (accessed on 8 February 2021).
UN, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, UN Doc. A/42/427, 4 August 1987, Annex; available at: A/42/427 - Development and International Co-operation: Environment - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements (un-documents.net) (accessed on 8 February 2021).
P.H. Sand, “The Evolution of International Environmental Law” in: D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée and E. Hey (eds.), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford: OUP, 2007, p. 29, 40.
UNGA Res. 44/228 on “UN Conference on Environment and Development” of 22 December 1989; available at: A/RES/44/228 - UN Conference on Environment and Development - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements (un-documents.net) (accessed on 8 February 2021).
Sand, n.15, p. 29, 40.
UNGA, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Annex I, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol.I), 12 August 1992; available at: 1992 UNCED.Rio Summit.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2021).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 9 May 1992, 1771 UNTS 107.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 5 June 1992, 1760 UNTS 69.
Beyerlin and Marauhn, n.22, p. 18.
UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), 17 June 1994, 1954 UNTS 3.
On the historical development and the involvement of UN bodies see W.C. Burns, “The International Convention to Combat Desertification: Drawing a Line in the Sand?” 16 Michigan Journal of International Law (1995), p. 831, 850 et seq.
L. Hens and B. Nath, “The Johannesburg Conference”, 5 Environment, Development and Sustainability (2003), p. 7, 8.
Ibid, p. 7, 21 et seq.
UNGA Res. 66/288, The Future we want, UN Doc. A/RES/66/288, 11 September 2012; available at: United Nations Official Document (accessed on 8 February 2021).
Sands and Peel, n.11, p. 49.
UN, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UNGA Res.A/RES/70/1; available at: 21252030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web.pdf (un.org) (accessed on 8 February 2021).
UNGA Res. 2887 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972; Also see, Sands and Peel, n.11, p. 63 et seq.
UNGA Res. 47/191, Institutional Arrangements to Follow up the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/RES/47/191, 29 January 1993.
B.H. Desai and B.K. Sidhu,
Sands and Peel, n.11, p. 67.
UNGA, “Change of the designation of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme”; UN Doc. A/Res/67/251, 25 July 2013; available at: A/RES/67/251 - E - A/RES/67/251 -Desktop (undocs.org) (accessed on 8 February 2021).
UNGA, “Follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the global level UN Doc. A/Res/70/299, 18 August 2016; available at: A/RES/70/299 - E - A/RES/70/299 -Desktop (undocs.org) (accessed on 8 February 2021).
Sand, n.15, pp. 29 and 41.
UN, The Ocean Conference, 5-9 June 2017, New York; The Ocean Conference | 5-9 June 2017 Press Release - 09 June 2017.:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. A High-Level event slated to take place in the Summer of 2021, preparing for the Second UN Ocean Conference, has been postponed to be held in Lisbon in 2022 in Lisbon as soon as public health conditions allow; 2020 UN Ocean Conference | United Nations (accessed on 8 February 2021).
UNGA, “Towards a Global Pact for the Environment”, Resolution 72/277 of 10 May 2018; UN Doc. A/RES/72.277, 14 May 2018; available at: A/RES/72/277 - E - A/RES/72/277 -Desktop (undocs.org). Also see: Global Perspectives on a Global Pact for the Environment - Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (accessed on 8 february 2021).
UNGA, Global Pact for the Environment, UN Doc. A/RES/73/333; more critical on the concept of “gaps” in this context: S. Biniaz, The UNGA Resolution on a ‘Global Pact for the Environment’: A chance to put the horse before the cart, 28 RECIEL (2019), p. 33, 34.
Y. Aguila, “A Global Pact for the Environment: The Logical Outcome of 50 Years of International Environmental Law”, Sustainability 2020, 12, 5636, p. 4.
On these identified “implementation gaps” see C. Voigt, How a “Global Pact for the Environment” could add value to international environmental law, 28 RECIEL (2019), p. 13, 19.
P.H. Sand, Transnational Environmental Law, Lessons in Global Change, 1999, p. 64 et seq.
Beyerlin and Marauhn, n.22, p. 18. Also see, B.H. Desai, “The Quest for a UN Specialized Agency for the Environment”, The Round Table (London: Routledge), vol.101, no.2, 2012, pp.167-179.
B.H. Desai, “On the Revival of the UN Trusteeship Council with a New Mandate for the Environment & the Global Commons”, Environmental Policy & Law, vol.48, no.6, 2018, pp.333-343; Yearbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford: OUP), vol.27, 2016, pp.3-27.