Self-study
P1
In the absence of international statutes prohibiting nations from causing each other environmental damage, scholars of international environmental law typically focus on trying to identify and clarify norms of "customary international law": that body of commonly accepted—but not formalized—legal principles that is manifest in the behavior of nations toward one another. ███
Intro to Topic ·
Environmental principles considered as norms of customary international law
There's no explicitly written international law that prohibit countries from engaging in certain behaviors that could damage the environment of another country. So scholars have to look at the unwritten principles to understand how countries behave in this regard.
Two Principles/Norms ·
1. Don't harm your neighbors; 2. Take due care to avoid risk of (1)
Say you and I are countries. We share a river. I'm upstream of you. (1) would mean that I tell my industries not to dump pollutants into the river. (2) would mean that I tell my industries to think about what other harms might occur and take precautions to prevent them from occurring.
P2
██ ████████ ███████ █ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ █ ████ ██ █████████ █████████████ ███ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ █████████████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████████████ █████████████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██████ ████ ██████ █████████ ████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ███
Criterion ·
Principals are norms only if nations follow them
Apparently there's a distinction between a "principle" (like the two stated in the previous paragraph) and a "norm" which is defined here as what nations actually do. So if a nation doesn't abide by the principle, then it's not a "norm." Okay... where is this going?
Application of Criterion ·
Nations do not abide by these principles
E.g., they let pollutants travel downstream to their neighbors. So these principles are not norms.
P3
████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █████████████ ████████ ████ ████████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ██████████ █████ ████████ ██████████ █████████ █████████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ████████ █████████████ █████████████ ███████ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ███████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ███
Facts ·
Nations and scholars both say one thing and do another
Nations say one thing and do another. They speak as if these are norms but they do not behave accordingly. Scholars also say one thing and do another. They say they based their research on what nations do but actually debate more about what nations say.
Sub-Conclusion / Major Premise ·
These "norms" are not actually norms
Author claims that these so called "norms" are just ideological systems.
P4
██ █████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ █████████ █████████████ ███ █ ████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████████ █████████████ █████ ███ ████████████ █████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ █████ ████ █████████████ ████████ ███ ██████ █████████████ ██████ ████ █████████████ █████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███ █████████ █████ ██ █████████ █████████████ █████████████ █████████ ███
Main Conclusion ·
Scholars should stop studying international court decisions
Most environmental disputes are being resolved directly via negotiations and treaties, not by going to international court.
Main Conclusion ·
Scholars should study negotiations and treaties
And how environmental principles inform those negotiations and treaties.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Problem-analysis
26.
The author's mention of
a
an example of ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ █████████ █████████████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ █████████████ ██████
The pollutants are mentioned as an example of how nations don’t follow the two principles that are purported to be norms of environmental law. The author never claims that debates about customary international law don’t give enough attention to environmental issues.
b
a means of ██████████ ████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ████████ █████████████ █████████████ ████ ██ ██████
The pollutants are mentioned as an example of how nations don’t follow the two principles that are purported to be norms of environmental law. The author never argues that we need stronger enforcement of environmental laws.
c
evidence offered by ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████████
The pollutants are mentioned as an example of how nations don’t follow the two principles that are purported to be norms of environmental law. Treaties and negotiations aren’t mentioned until P3.
d
an acknowledgment that, ██ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ████████████ ████ ███████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ █████ █████████████ ████████ ███ █████████
The pollutants are mentioned as an example of how nations don’t follow the two principles that are purported to be norms of environmental law. The author doesn’t suggest in P2 that concerns about the environment are justified.
e
support for the ████████ █████ ████ ███████ █████████████ █████████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ █ █████████ ███ █████ ██████████ █████ ██ █████████ █████████████ ███
This is the best answer. The pollutants are mentioned as an example of how nations don’t follow the two principles that are purported to be norms of environmental law. And because the nations don’t follow those principles, they do not meet the requirement that nations actually abide by a principle in order for that principle to be a part of customary international law.