Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-6q656 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-03T14:54:29.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - The World Heritage Convention and Climate Change: The Case for a Climate-Change Mitigation Strategy beyond the Kyoto Protocol

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2009

William C. G. Burns
Affiliation:
Santa Clara University, School of Law
Hari M. Osofsky
Affiliation:
Washington and Lee University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Between 2004 and 2006, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from several countries submitted four petitions and a report (collectively, the Petitions) to the World Heritage Committee to list certain World Heritage sites on the “List of World Heritage in Danger” (the “in danger” list) because of the deterioration these sites have endured as a result of climate change. These sites include Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal, Huascarán National Park in Peru, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park in the United States and Canada, and Belize's Barrier Reef Reserve System, which suffer from two of the most dramatic effects of climate change on natural areas – coral bleaching and glacial ice loss. The Petitions argue that pursuant to their obligations under the World Heritage Convention (WHC), State Parties must develop a mitigation strategy that prevents anthropogenic interference with the climate system sufficient to halt further deterioration of World Heritage sites threatened by climate change. At the heart of the Petitions, then, is a call for all State Parties to the WHC to make drastic cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

The World Heritage Committee first considered the Petitions, except the petition concerning Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park (Waterton-Glacier), at its regular meeting in Durban, South Africa, during July 2005. The Committee adopted a decision recognizing the threat climate change poses to the integrity of World Heritage sites.

Type
Chapter
Information
Adjudicating Climate Change
State, National, and International Approaches
, pp. 255 - 271
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

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

Burns, Wil et al., International Environmental Law, 40 Int'l Law. 197, 199 (Summer 2006)Google Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends 379 (Hassan, Rashid, Scholes, Robert, & Ash, Neville eds., 2005)
QC, Michael I. Jeffery, An International Legal Regime for Protected Areas, in IUCN Environmental Law & Policy Paper No. 49, 23 (Scanlon, John & Burhenne-Guilmin, Françoise, eds. 2004)Google Scholar
Kunz, Josef L., The Meaning and the Range of the Norm Pacta Sunt Servanda, 39 Am. J. Intl. l.180 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankowska, Maria, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Before United States Courts, 28 Va. J. int'l L. 281, 298 (1988)Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Sir Gerald, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951–1954, 33 Brit. Y.B. Int'l. L. 203, 204 (1957)Google Scholar
Meyer, Robert L., Travaux Preparatoires for the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 2 Earth L.J.45, 53 (1972)Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Sir Gerald, The Law of Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Treaty Interpretation and Other Treaty Points, 28 Brit. Y.B. Int'l. L.1, 4 (1951)Google Scholar
Barrett, Scott, The Problem of Averting Global Catastrophe, 20 Chi. J. Int'l L.527, 549–50 (2006)Google Scholar
Childs, David W., The Unresolved Debates that Scorched Kyoto: An Analytical Framework, 13 U. Miami Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.233, 251 (2005)Google Scholar
Abate, Randall S., Kyoto or Not, Here We Come: The Promise and Perils of Piecemeal Approach to Climate Change Regulation in the United States, 15 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol'y369 (2006)Google Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses375 (Chopra, Kanchan et al. eds., 2005)
Harris, P. G., Common but Differentiated Responsibility: The Kyoto Protocol and United States Policy, 7 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 27 (1999)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×