What is international law, anyway? The short story of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

I can understand why people struggle with international law. What does it mean to have ‘law’, when there is no overarching authority handing out justice and punishments for crimes? What are crimes, when there is so much we can’t agree on? Who are all of these men in suits, using long words and making terribly serious speeches that mean nothing to us? And what has international law done for us, anyway?

Over the next few weeks, I’ll do my best to answer some of these questions. But first, let’s set the scene with the story of one of the most successful international treaties: the ozone treaty.

In 1987, nearly every country in the world put aside their differences to agree on an international treaty to heal the ozone layer, which scientists say acts like an invisible protective blanket, keeping the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation away from the Earth’s plants, animals and people. Climate researchers claimed in the 1970s that ozone filters out harmful ultraviolet rays, and that certain chemicals, which were being used all over the world in really useful ways, such as making refrigerators cold, harmed the ozone layer. They suggested that we needed to stop using those chemicals, so that the ozone layer could heal. Then, the most amazing thing happened: world leaders, prime ministers and presidents all said ‘yesss, let’s do this!’ and made an agreement called a treaty. 



The ozone treaty is a success story, even if you don’t believe that ozone depletion is a thing we should be worried about. Nations working together towards a common goal, technological innovation, and conversations about how we might improve our world together – what’s not to like?

To adopt the treaty, most of the world’s governments promised to look at other types of chemicals which would work differently, and to design new, improved technology which would do the same work in ways that would not harm the ozone. By 1987, most of the world’s countries, including some who made huge profits from producing the harmful chemicals, using them in factories, and building products, had signed an agreement promising to change their business practices and come up with new technologies to gradually heal the ozone layer. A treaty was passed to honour that promise.

 

This treaty, called the Montreal Protocol, is a binding agreement. This means that all the world’s businesses in every country must obey it. Since the treaty was ratified, new technologies have been created to replace the old ones. It also levelled the playing field, making the industry advances fair and easy for everyone, production processes more efficient, and innovation shared.

Without the treaty, many corporations might have continued to use harmful chemicals and technologies, simply because it was cheaper and easier. They might have invested, at a fraction of the cost, in a lovely marketing campaign to say that their business practices were ‘sky-blue’, with a smart blue ‘Atmosphere Friendly’ sticker on each new refrigerator, but they wouldn’t have needed to actually change their practices. There would be no accountability process to ensure that businesses were following safe processes. Those corporations which did invest in really updating their technologies would have seen lower profits in comparison. Shareholders might have rushed to sell their shares in those companies, investing instead in the more profitable businesses with the nice blue stickers. The ozone layer might not have begun to heal.

Recently, scientists studying the ozone layer announced that it is on track to be repaired in just a few decades. Ozone harming chemicals in the atmosphere have reduced. The opportunity to investigate new technologies has driven all sorts of improvements. The Montreal Protocol proves that international laws can help us all work together to build a fair, safe world, and getting organised within an international legal framework created these opportunities.

The story of the ozone layer treaty presents some of the core themes of international law: sovereignty, where each nation gets to decide their own path; consensus, or mutual agreement for the benefit of all; accountability; and levelling the playing field. Each of these themes has its own problems and arguments, often raised by smaller nations or interest groups who argue that the playing field isn’t truly level or consensual, and that powerful nations get to have more sovereign power than smaller ones. Even the Montreal Protocol took years to be adopted and isn’t universally loved. Still, the international legal framework persists, and no nation, not even the smallest, has ever objected to the framework of international law, even if they refuse to follow individual treaties or object to some of the processes. They know that they are protected by the institutions which bind all nations and give us the stability and predictability we’ve become used to. Critique - disagreement - is what drives international law to evolve and improve, and the ability to get together and discuss our objections and come to agreements is built into international law’s framework.

So what international law gives us is not an authoritarian ruler who tells us what we have to do, but a mutually agreed set of guidelines and principles which govern how nations, people, and corporations should behave for the benefit of all. And it’s not all about international conferences, war crimes trials and courtrooms. The guidelines and principles of international law impact our individual everyday lives more than you might think, and we’ll have a look at how they do, next week.

Share

Still here? Yay! If you want more, please read on.

You can see the remaining articles in this introductory series here. If you’re on social media, and prefer a video clip, head over to @nansheppard on instagram.

Comments

Post a Comment