This thesis argues that international environmental law consists of two bodies of rules. The first body of rules consists of the traditional principles of international law which are primarily concerned with the incidents of State sovereignty. The second is made up of modern environmental norms which have been developing since the Stockholm Convention.;It is contended that these two sets of rules are in conflict. The traditional principles of international law aim to protect the independence and equality of States. Modern environmental norms aim to protect the global environment. While these goals are not necessarily incompatible, these rules are based on different justifications which do come into conflict.;The conflict between these underlying justifications is identical to a central conflict within liberal theory: the conflict between the priority of the right versus the priority of the good. This underlying conflict creates a seemingly interminable paralysis in international environmental law with the result that there are insufficient legal obligations protecting the global environment.;The general argument of this thesis is that this underlying conflict between traditional principles of international law and modern environmental norms can be resolved by developing a jurisprudence of responsibility. Such a jurisprudence reconceives both the traditional principles and modern norms of international environmental law. The rights of the subjects of international law should be qualified by more than duties to respect (i) the rights of other subjects, (ii) treaty-contracts and treaty-laws, and (iii) obligations erga omnes. Rights should be limited by responsibilities which are held by the rightholder exercising a right, in virtue of having that right. The analysis of responsibilities is conducted as an integral aspect of rights analysis.;It is contented that this jurisprudence resolves the underlying conflict between traditional and modern principles of international environmental law.
展开▼
