Imagine a court with international jurisdiction to set right the wrongs of “environmental injustice.” Sound pretty far out there? According to the Daily Telegraph, a group of British lawyers don’t think so.
The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.
But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the “right to a healthy environment”.
The idea is apparently to give teeth to tough new binding targets for carbon dioxide emissions, which are being talked about this week and next at a UN Climate Change Conference in Poland. Never mind that the UN talks are being held just as struggling economies in Europe are rebelling against their own tough new caps under the EU emissions trading system.The Wall Street Journal reported on the international court idea when it was proposed by Stephen Hockman, a UK high court judge, in a guest column to the Guardian back in August.The proposal, as the WSJ noted then, seems “designed to strike exactly the wrong chord in both the U.S. and China.” And that chord couldn’t be struck again at a more convenient hour, serving as a reminder to those delegations taking part in the climate talks in Poznan that their negotiating partners today, could become their overlords tomorrow.
Mr. Bell is a U.S. Fulbright Fellow to Austria, and MPA student at Seattle University.
This is an example of "why" the GOP continues to drive off Middle American voters. Middle America wants no part of "transnational progressivism". Or as we, out here in flyover country usually call it – internationalism. But the GOP has been hijacked by the "transies" which is, in fact, the #1 reason for waning GOP support in the past 2 major fed elections. Folks do not want outside, foreign entities to have any influence as to how we govern our Nation. That includes the UN, the EU, Mexico, Canada and so on.
The GOP and the Heritage Foundation should purge these "transies" from among their ranks. If they fail to do so they will become irrelevant. Darvin Dowdy
Interesting post and response from Mr. Dowdy. I agree that yet another toothless international court appears to be a waste of time and resources, but then again, if there is no body to enforce said regulations, what is the point of agreeing to them? The League of Nations was a catastrophic failure because there was a) no American support and b) no enforcement mechanism.
And to play devil's advocate, imagine this working to the West's benefit. For example, it's more difficult for American manufacturing to compete with factories in places with lax or nonexistent labor/environmental regulations. By enforcing such regulations, there could possibly be a more level playing field for our factories.
However, to Mr. Dowdy's point, I seriously doubt the reason support for the GOP plummeted in the past two elections was disapproval of internationalism, which as a movement has resulted in unprecedented Great Power peace and greatly increased trade. I strongly disagree that "foreign" institutions or states had more influence over Pres. Bush's administration than any previous administration, and indeed, if you believe Europe, they had substantially less influence. Thus, it stands to reason that there was relatively little foreign influence on Pres. Bush's administration, and his party was twice rebuked in the polls, leading Mr. Dowdy's argument to be categorically refuted.
I am not willing to give up Our Constitution or
Bill of Rights for any reason.We are a Free people
and refuse to go back in time.Anyone negotiating
with the UN is a Traitor to this Great Nation!
What puzzles me is that the GOP has steadfastly OPPOSED granting such control over the U.S. to international authorities. I have no idea why he says this is a problem with the Republican Party. It's Bush and the GOP that has opposed U.S. joining the International Criminal Court; has opposed removing permanent membership status in the UN Security Council; and so on.
There is a reasonable chance that Obama and the Democrats will join the ICC. This did not happen under Bush and would not have happened under McCain or any of the other Republican candidates for President.
How much is too much CO2. Isn't carbon dioxide, one of the food supplys for plant life. Who takes the side,( Criminal Court ), for the plant life. Is this; International Jurisdiction, one sided, or Dicktatorial? If it repesents "Globel Warming" but not the other side; plant life; who will? Should we have Vegetarian Lawyers? I guess I'm out of the loop on this one.
Pingback: In other blogging « Conservative Wonk