TRANSCRIPTS
the United Nations Charter, all states are equal in sovereignty.
The request for the extradition of a head of state is a very unusual one, occasionally involving a few countries. But now, I’m going to set you a task connected with international public law which potentially involves all the countries in the world. Perhaps you can guess what the topic is – global warming. I want you to do some research into what steps the international community has already taken to counter the effects of climate change. I want you to focus, firstly, on the different international agreements that have addressed environmental problems, particularly with respect to the effects of global warming. Secondly, I’d like you to think about whether these measures to protect the environment could actually be realistically enforced under international law. Finally, I want you to research the precautionary principle. What is it? What is its effect on international law in the area of climate change legislation?
Unit 11, Lesson 3, Exercise E 2.14
The key question is: in what circumstances can a person be extradited? Some people claim that extradition should only apply to serious crimes, others say that certain people, such as heads of state, should be exempt from extradition. I agree with the first but I just cannot accept the second. In the Pinochet case, lawyers for the general claimed that he had sovereign immunity because he had been the head of state at the time the alleged abuses occurred. It is quite clear to me that this argument is false. There was no doubt of his guilt – the evidence against the general was compelling. Indeed, as one of the Law Lords pointed out, these facts were not in dispute.
Unit 11, Lesson 4, Exercise B 2.15 Rio Declaration
Kyoto Protocol human rights League of Nations Friends of the Earth Geneva Conventions Emissions Trading Scheme European Union
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Unit 11, Lesson 4, Exercise E 2.16 Extract 1
The lecturer asked us to research the precautionary principle, particularly in relation to climate change legislation. In my part of the seminar, I would like to define the principle then explain its relevance to environmental laws. Some people say that the climate is changing but many scientists argue that there is no actual proof of this. The precautionary principle states that we must do something to protect ourselves and our children from damage, even if the scientific evidence is not complete. The environmental pressure group Greenpeace, for one, believes in the precautionary principle, pointing out that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain from acting now.
Extract 2
OK, following on from what Majed has said, I’d like to mention some important environmental initiatives. The year 1992 paved the way for the convergence of the precautionary principle, climate change and international law. At Rio de Janeiro, the world acknowledged the precautionary principle in international law when it adopted the United Nations Framework on Climate Change or UNFCC. It basically said that a lack of full scientific research should not stop people from taking action to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Extract 3
Right. Thank you, Evie. I’m going to expand the topic by mentioning the counter argument. The precautionary principle sounds great in theory. I’m sure everyone agrees that we should carefully weigh up the risks and benefits of our actions. However, in my view, it cannot be a good way of evaluating evidence to give more weight to things that have not been scientifically proven. I remember reading somewhere that if we had applied the precautionary principle to the effects of fire, we would all have ended up eating our food raw. And what about other scientific advances such as the development of the X-ray? If the precautionary principle had been implemented, it would probably never have been used in hospitals. In relation to climate change, the precautionary principle says: Act now just in case. In legal terms, the precautionary principle changes the burden of proof. It says to scientists: We will act unless you can prove something is not harmful. It’s like saying: We will convict this man unless you can prove he didn’t kill his wife. The burden of proof in most legal systems is the other way round.
135
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139
