10. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
205
ecosystems and even entail risks to the existence of the biosphere. It
also causes problems in international relations since sovereign states
are rather biased when defending their independence and caring
for the quality of their environ ment and natural resources. Thus,
individual countries are guided by their interests in assessment of
international environ mental issues and their solutions.
In some cases – climate change, ozone depletion, trade in en dan-
ge red species – the principles of environ mental protection are logical
and internationally imperative. In other cases complications arise,
for example, concerning transportation of toxic waste across borders.
Since globally the amount of toxic
waste is rapidly increasing, it
seems plausible that there are many countries which cannot afford
building safe toxic waste recycling enterprises and landfills, which
is why toxic waste is transported to other countries. However, the
UN stand on this issue is unequivocal: the disposal of toxic waste in
developing countries, as practised by developed countries, should be
banned.
The most important global environ mental issues concern the
atmo sphere, especially climate change and excessive catch in the
World Ocean. They are truly issues of the whole of humanity since
every body uses the air and resources of the sea.
The prospective
exploit ation of the Antarctica also belongs to these issues, as every-
body might benefit from it.
G. Hardin proposed the metaphor of ‘the tragedy of the
commons’ because such world natural resources are very sensitive
to overuse or pollution. Nobody owns these resources – neither
an individual state nor a corporation nor a physical person. This
explains the fact that no restrictions have been imposed: there are
no private property borders or exploitation quotas. Consequently,
every body can go on exploiting the commons for one’s needs up
to the depletion of the resource or the collapse of the system. Any
country may emit an unlimited amount of greenhouse gasses into
the atmo sphere or deplete all the fish in a particular fishing area.
As a result, the common resources are being depleted at an
alarming rate.
The tragedy, according to G. Hardin, is inevitable
since the world resource reserves, limited as they are, are being
devastated. He compares the problem to a lifeboat: ‘We cannot have
everybody on board the lifeboat because there are a limited number
of seats.’ To avoid such a tragedy, each individual
must support the
implementation of an authoritative management of the common
resources. Hardin proposes to appoint a leader who would see to the
exploitation quotas.
Doubtlessly, the society must take it into consideration and make
provisions for preservation of these common resources. However, it
is a complicated international task for there are too many culprits
According to the clas‑
sification of the United
Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP), the
quality
of environment
and its trends of change
can be divided into four
categories:
atmosphere (climate,
ozone depletion, air
pollution – local or
transboundary),
water (inland, coastal
and sea ecosystems),
earth (forests,
desertification, use of
land, soil),
biological diversity.
Considering the complex
nature of international
diplomatic relations,
attempts
are being made
to distinguish global and
transboundary environ‑
mental issues, or to seek
solutions for global and
trans boundary issues
separately.
206
ENVIRONMENT, POLLUTION, DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF UZBEKISTAN
as well as victims, and it is difficult to determine their respective
responsibilities and duties. At present the only solution is to reach an
international agreement and adopt international binding multilateral
treaties.
The prospective exploitation of the Antarctica is also considered
a problem of common environ mental significance as many might
benefit from it. Territorial claims to the Antarctica are being con-
tested although they are not adjudicated because the Antarctic
Treaty of 1959 is still in force. This international treaty obligates the
signatory countries to preserve the Antarctica and the surrounding
seas south of 60° S latitude free for scientific research to any country
of the world. The Treaty established this territory as a demilitarised
zone free of nuclear weapons, also stipulating measures of nature
and environ mental protection.
90°
90°
0°
30°
30°
60°
60°
70°
60°
120°
120°
150°
150°
180°
AUSTRALI
A
AU
STR
NEW ZEALAND
FRANCE
ARGENTINA
NORWAY
UK
CHIL
E
W
ithout
clai
m
Undefined limit
While the Antarctic Treaty was still relatively flexible, it was
under considerable pressure since there
was an immense interest in
the exploitation of the resources (oil, industrial minerals, shrimp,
fish). This conflicted with the environ mental protection demands.
Today increasingly pressing demands are being voiced to modify
the Antarctic Treaty, coming from non-member countries as well (in
fact, these countries are not able to carry out any essential scientific
research on the territory of the Antarctica). Non-governmental
organisations, too, call for UN mediation to transfer the control over
the Antarctica to all countries of the world, not just the member
states of the Treaty. There are certain tendencies that might lead to
the mitigation of the 1988 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
