Domestic Interests in International Environmental Law: Illegal Logging

            An article from the New York Times that we recently read in class discusses the conflict and violence that have ensued in Brazil over issues including deforestation of the Amazon, illegal logging, and land use. Ironically, I just completed a United Nations Security Council simulation in another class in which students played the role of states in negotiating a resolution over development and conflict in the case of illegal logging operations along the Peruvian-Brazilian border. After taking on the role of Russia in the simulation, noting the agendas of my fellow diplomats, and observing the provisions that other states requested during negotiations, I gained significant insight on the factors that influence states' attitudes toward environmental protection and related issues within the context of international law. The domestic interests of states and how a resolution will set precedent for future actions or policies seemed to be the key players in determining whether a state voted yes, voted no, or abstained from voting.

            The resolution noted that illegal logging along the Peruvian-Brazilian border has led to violence between indigenous people, degradation of the livelihoods of the indigenous people, displacement and destruction of valuable resources in the Amazon. After negotiation amongst states, the authoring country, Chile, proposed a final resolution that was to be voted on. The key points included in this final version were: instructs members to join the Organization of American States and encourages the OAS to intervene directly to prevent military escalation, encourages member states to ensure the protection of indigenous people, offers to dispatch an observer force to keep track of military operations, and calls upon each member state to secure their borders against illegal operations, human rights violations, and instability. Upon being assigned my role as Russia and reading the first draft of the resolution, I did not understand why states would vote against it. There did not seem to be any negatives and violence and resource depletion in the Amazon are clear problems. However, after investigating Russia's position in the UNSC and experiencing the negotiation, I developed a much greater understanding.

            While Russia is supportive of protecting the Amazon and upholding the rights of indigenous people, widespread civil discontent and human rights abuses exist in Russia. I, as Russia, ultimately was one of two countries to veto this resolution. I judged that Russia would not have passed the resolution because it would not want it to be used as precedent that might allow intervention in its own state. The other country that vetoed was China, and for very similar reasons. Though this class assignment was only a simulation, it still revealed to me a different perspective of international law regarding the environment. Despite unanimous agreement that the violence and killings in Brazil must be stopped and the unanimous understanding of the importance of the resources in the Amazon, the resolution did not pass due to domestic interests of two members of the security council.

            Though the United Nations is not the body that primarily deals with international environmental law, the environment is inseparable from certain issues pertaining to peace and international order. The simulation demonstrated the realist idea that the domestic interests of states and concern for security are the primary factors that determine the actions and decisions of states. In class we have debated over whether or not the environment is a threat to national security, and I believe that this case proves it is. The passage of international law concerning the environment is directly connected to the domestic and security interests of states. In many cases, such as the case demonstrated in the simulation, these domestic concerns can be an impediment to progress on environmental issues. Many environmental problems are widespread and require state involvement. However, I believe that developing effective programs and strengthening local and regional governments can often yield faster results than solving problems through national or international institutions. In the case of illegal logging and deforestation in the Amazon, I believe that the killings and conflict amongst farmers and indigenous people could be more effectively combated at a regional level with effective regulation and involvement of the locals. Hearing the opinions of the indigenous population and the farmers could build mutual empathy and foster an accepted solution, rather than having federal authorities play more of an imposing role.