Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T21:12:56.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation and Environmental Management in the Americas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Stephen P. Mumme  and
Pamela Duncan
Stephen P. Mumme
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
Pamela Duncan
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To what extent has the North American Free Trade Agreement contributed to strengthening and deepening international environmental management in the Americas? Should the system be broadened to incorporate other nations? While a complete answer to these queries is currently beyond reach, there should be little doubt that NAFTA has influenced and continues to influence the direction of environmental management in North America and the hemisphere at large. The agreement has spawned a series of new institutions that are already reshaping current practices and that have considerable promise for broadening the range of international commitments to environmental management in the Americas. The most prominent and most relevant of these is the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , Winter 1997 , pp. 41 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Assetto, Valerie (1996) Personal communication. February 23.Google Scholar
Audley, John J. (1995) “Environmental Interests in Trade Policy: Institutional Reform and the North American Free Trade Agreement.” Social Science Journal 32, 4: 327–360.Google Scholar
Bath, C. Richard (1992) “The Emerging Environmental Crisis Along the U.S.Mexico Border,” pp. 89–112 in Herzog, Lawrence A. (ed.), Changing Boundaries in the Americas. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexico Studies, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Borderlines (1995) (Newsletter of the Interhemispheric Resource Center) “Budgetlines.” Silver City, NM: Interhemispheric Resource Center. 3,10 (November): 3.Google Scholar
Carroll, John (1983) Environmental Diplomacy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Charnovttz, Steve (1994) “The NAFTA Environmental Side Agreement: Implications for Environmental Cooperation, Trade Policy, and American Treatymaking.” Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 8, 2: 257–314.Google Scholar
Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) (1998) “Trinational Group Reviews NAFTA Environmental Side Accord.” Montreal (Quebec), Canada, 29 April. Email announcment posted on the BECCnet listserver (Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona), 14 May.Google Scholar
Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) (1996) “North American Environmental Management and NAFTA: Transboundary Agreements Database Project.” Unpublished manuscript. Montreal (Quebec), Canada: Transboundary Activities Program.Google Scholar
Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) (1994) 1995 Annual Program and Budget for the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation. Handout. Montreal (Quebec), Canada. October 26.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly (1998) “GOP Hints at Compromise on Fast-Track Authority.” (3 May): 1011.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly (1995a) “GOP Fast-Track Plans May Split Fragile Free-Trade Coalition.” (8 July): 1992-1993.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly (1995b) “Panel Restricts Clinton's Control in Negotiations.” (23 September): 2873.Google Scholar
EcoRegion (1995a) (Newsletter of the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation) “Structured to Meet the Challenge.” 1, 1 (Summer): 4-5.Google Scholar
EcoRegion (1995b) “CEC Secretariat Directory.” 1, 1 (Summer): 2.Google Scholar
EcoRegion (1995c) “CEC Responds Swiftly to Bird Deaths.” 1, 2 (Fall): 1-2.Google Scholar
Environment Watch Latin America (1995) “North American Environment Commission Investigates Duck Deaths.” (Mexico City: Cutter Information Corporation) 5 (July): 1–2.Google Scholar
Fox, Annette B. (1977) The Politics of Attraction. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
George, Stephen (1985) Politics and Policy in the European Community, 2d ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haggard, Stephan and Simmons, Beth A. (1986) “Theories of International Regimes.” International Organization 41, 3 (Summer): 491–517.Google Scholar
Houseman, Robert F. (1995) Statement, 100-102 in U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, Accession of Chile to the North American Free Trade Agreement. 104th Congress, 1st Session. 21 June. Washington, DC: GPO, Y4/W36: 104-21, Doc.Google Scholar
International Legal Materials (1993) “North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.” Canada-Mexico-United States. Vol. 13 (8 September): 352.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Harold K. and Weiss, Edith Brown (1995) “Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accords: Preliminary Observations from a Collaborative Project.” Global Governance 1 (May-August): 119-148.Google Scholar
Jamail, Milton H. and Mumme, Stephen P. (1982) “The International Boundary and Water Commission as a Conflict Management Agency in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands.” Social Science Journal 19, 1 (January): 45-62.Google Scholar
Kelly, Mary (1993) “NAFTA's Environmental Side Agreement: A Review and Analysis.” Austin, TX: Center for Policy Studies, September.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. and NYE, Josephs. (1977) Power and Interdependence. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Lafranchi, Howard (1995) “Chile, the Slender Success Story, Hopes to Fatten on US Trade Ties.” Christian Science Monitor (25 July): 1.Google Scholar
Lemarquand, David (1993) “The International Joint Commission and Changing Canada-United States Boundary Relations.” Natural Resources Journal 33, 1: 59–92.Google Scholar
Levy, Marc, Keohane, Robert, and Haas, Peter M. (1993) “Improving the Effectiveness of International Environmental Institutions,” pp. 397–426 in Haas, Peter M., Keohane, Robert O., and Levy, Marc (eds.) Institutions for the Earth. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Minette, Mary (1995) Statement, 222-223 in U.S. House of Representatives, Joint Hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules, Fast Track Issues. 104th Congress, 1st Session, 11 and 17 May. Washington, DC: GPO, Y4/W36: 104-22, Doc.Google Scholar
Mumme, Stephen (1993) “Innovation and Reform in Transboundary Resources Management: A Critical Look at the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico.” Natural Resources Journal 33, 1 (Winter): 3–120.Google Scholar
Mumme, Stephen P. and Duncan, Pamela (1996) “The Commission on Environmental Cooperation and the U. S.-Mexican Border Environment.” Environment and Development 5, 2 (June): 197–215.Google Scholar
Mumme, Stephen P. and Moore, Scott T. (1990) “Agency Autonomy in Transboundary Resources Management: The United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico,” Natural Resources Journal 30, 3 (Summer): 661–684.Google Scholar
Munton, Don (1981) “Paradoxes and Prospects,” pp. 60–97 in Spencer, Robert, Kirton, John, and Nossal, Kim R. (eds.) The International Joint Commission Seventy Years On. Toronto (Ontario), Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Munton, Don and Kirton, John (1994) “North American Environmental Cooperation: Bilateral, Trilateral, Multilateral.” North American Outlook 4, 3 (March): 59–87.Google Scholar
National Journal (Washington, DC) (1998a) “Trade Fatigue.” (18 January): 116-118.Google Scholar
National Journal (Washington, DC) (1998b) “McLarty Has a Bridge to Build Too.” (8 February): 275.Google Scholar
Ojeda, Mario (1983) “The Future of Relations Between Mexico and the United States,” pp. 315–330 in Reynolds, Clark and Tello, Carlos (eds.) U.S.-Mexico Relations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Recchia, Steve (1995) Canadian Domestic Foundations in the NAFTA. Unpublished paper. Fort Collins, CO: Political Science Department, Colorado State University.Google Scholar
Rivera, Sandra (1995) “After NAFTA: Western Hemisphere Trade Liberalization and Alternative Paths to Integration.” Social Science Journal 32, 4: 389–408.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Alan M. (1994) “Canada-U.S. Environmental Relations: A Look at the 1990s.” American Review of Canadian Studies 24, 4 (Winter): 489–508.Google Scholar
Spencer, Robert, Kirton, John, and Nossal, Kim R. (eds.) (1981) The International Joint Commission Seventy Years On. Toronto (Ontario), Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
United States. Department of State (1944) Treaty Regarding Utilization of Waters of Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande. U.S.Mexico, 59 Stat. 1219. 3 February.Google Scholar
United States. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1992) Integrated Border Environmental Plan, First Stage 1992-1994. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
United States. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1983) United States and Mexico Border Environment Cooperation Agreement. La Paz, Baja California Sur. August: p. 14.Google Scholar
Weiss, Edith B. (1993) “International Environmental Law: Contemporary Issues and the Emergence of a New World Order.” Georgetown Journal of International Law 81 (March): 675–710.Google Scholar
Willoughby, William R. (1979) The Joint Organizations of Canada and the United States. Toronto (Ontario), Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Winham, Gilbert R. (1994) “Enforcement of Environmental Measures: Negotiating the NAFTA Environmental Side Agreement.” Journal of Environment and Development 3, 1: 29–42.Google Scholar
World Resources Institute (1995) World Resources 1994-1995. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wyman, Donald L. (1978) “Dependence and Conflict in U.S.-Mexican Relations, 1920-1975,” pp. 83–142 in Paarlberg, Robert L., Park, Eul Y., and Wyman, Donald L. (eds.) Diplomatic Dispute: U.S. Conflict with Iran, Japan, and Mexico. Cambridge, MA: Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. Studies in International Affairs, No. 39.Google Scholar
Young, Oran (1990) International Governance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Oran (1989) International Cooperation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar