The International Environmental Law - Some tendencies of development in the anthropocence
The International Environmental Law - Some tendencies of development in the anthropocence
The term “anthropocene” was invented to defne the epoch in which
man became the main driving force of environmental change. While
scientists argue about whether a new geological epoch should be ofcially singled out in the history of Earth, the fact remains the following:
a rapid increase in the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affects the climate and leads to reduction in biodiversity, and excessive
consumption of natural resources causes irreparable harm to Nature.
However, efcient solutions have not yet been found. At the same time,
we observe a collective denial of these problems everywhere, supported
by a naive belief in the power of progress, the ideology of consumerism
and economic lobbyism.
The term “anthropocene”, introduced by American biologist Eugene F. Stormer, became widespread in early 2000 thanks to the Netherlands scientist and the Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry Paul
Krutzen. It has appeared in the titles of about a hundred of scientifc
publications and articles, and is increasingly used in the mass media
nowadays.
While the natural scientists are proving that we live in a fundamentally new time — the Anthropocene epoch and informing what changes have occurred in the outside world, it is also important for us, international lawyers, to understand what transformations need to be made
in the International law. The International law today is generally facing
the Antropocene challenge and, thus, serious measures are needed,
such as systemic changes at the institutional and regulatory levels, oth
Preservation of the environment: the possibilities of society and law38erwise large-scale environmental changes will lead to the fragmentation
and the threat to the existence of the Rule of law1. The transformation
of the International environmental law as a branch of the International public law is also extremely important. As it was mentioned, “the
Anthropocene and its rapid environmental change pose signifcant
descriptive and normative challenges for international environmental
governance”2.
The approach of Professor Oran Young who poses an ambitious
question — what governance tools are needed to solve the problem of
the Anthropocene — is quite impressive3. He frankly says that we do
not need small adjustments in the international system, but breakthrough innovations. Conscious, innovative and breakthrough solutions
are required. Realization of the Anthropocene epoch as a global phenomenon requires changes in the normative and institutional parts of
the International environmental law. Thus, in the institutional part of
the International environmental law, in addition to the creation of the
World Environmental Organization4, a creation of the special International Environmental Court will be required.
Let us consider the genesis of the International environmental law.
In our opinion, the International environmental law is primarily a
“brainchild” of the twentieth century. Certainly, the rules governing
relations between individuals with regard to the use and protection of
the environment, had been existing before. For example, professor
Nicholas Robinson drew attention to the Charter of the Forest adopted in 1217, following the adoption of the Magna Carta Libertatum in
1215, which “contributed to the sustainable maintenance of ecosystems”5. However, this is an exception rather than a rule.1Biermann F. et al. 2012. Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance. Science 335:1306–7.2Jefferies, C., Seck, S., & Stephens, T. 2018. International Law, Innovation, and Environmental Change in the Anthropocene. In N. Craik, C. Jefferies, S. Seck, & T. Stephens (Eds.), Global Environmental Change and Innovation in International Law,
1-18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P.3.3Young O. R. 2017. Governing Complex Systems: Social Capital for the Anthropocene.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. P. 11.4Biermann F. & Bauer S. (ed.). 2005. A World Environment Organization, Ashgate.5Robinson Nicholas A. The Charter of the Forest: Evolving Human Rights in Nature,
in Magna Carta and the Rule of Law 311 (Daniel Barstow Magraw et al., eds. 2014).
URL: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/990/.
§ 1 Chapter 239Religions of the world prohibit harming the environment. For example, one of the Old Testament books, which is a common Holy
Scripture for both Judaism and Christianity, says the following: “When
you lay siege to a city for a long time, fghting against it to capture it,
do not destroy its trees by putting an axe to them, because you can eat
their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should
besiege them?” (Deut. 20:19).
It is at the very end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th
century that one can observe the emergence of international environmental cooperation. At the end of the ninetieth century a unique decision within the framework of the interstate dispute “On the fur seals of
the Bering Sea” (1893) was made, which contributed a lot to the protection of marine living resources. The frst international environmental agreements that were adopted in the second half of the 19th century concerned mainly the joint consumption of reservoirs and fsheries,
as well as the intensifcation of the international struggle against phyloxera (grape louse)1. At the dawn of the twentieth century, the Convention Designed to Ensure the Conservation of Various Species of
Wild Animals in Africa, which are Useful to Man or Inoffensive, was
adopted in London in 1900, and the Convention for the Protection of
Birds Useful to Agriculture was adopted in 1902. The frst major conference on international nature conservation was held in Bern 1913.
Over a little more than 100 years, the International environmental
law has made a signifcant breakthrough in its development. How efcient was this breakthrough? Probably, only the descendants will be able
to appreciate. In any case, international lawyers have something to
discuss today. There are many achievements, but also a lot of problems.
More than 1,300 international multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and more than 2,100 regional MEAs have already been
developed and adopted. It can be said with absolute certainty that such
a normative phenomenon is evidenced in no other branch of the International law. In this regard, it is possible to state that there is an exces-1Convention Between Alsace-Lorraine And The Two Initial Parties To The Convention
Between Baden And Switzerland Concerning Fishing In The Rhine And Its Influxes
As Well As In Lake Constance 1877; Convention Between Russia And Sweden And
Norway Regulating The Salmon Fishery In The Tornea 1897; Treaty Concerning The
Regulation Of Salmon Fishery In The Rhine River Basin 1885; Convention On Measures To Be Taken Against Phylloxera Vastatrix 1878. https://iea.uoregon.edu/.
Preservation of the environment: the possibilities of society and law40sive regulatory legal array, but there is no vertical connection among
the norms of various MEAs, and the horizontal connection among
them is quite weak. On the one hand, the whole capability of such large
number of MEAs contributes to an increase of protection and preservation of the environment level, on the other hand, it leads to the irrational use of fnancial and human resources.
Today, the efforts are targeted at solving this problem: they are
seeking and looking for synergy between the international environmental agreements. For example, a joint meeting of the participants to the
three conventions aimed at combating waste, has been held1. But in
2013 a new international treaty was adopted in this area of regulation —
the Minamata Convention on Mercury. And now it is necessary to
embed a new international legal instrument in the multi-year process
of synergy of the three conventions.
In this context, we should highlight an interesting trend: recently the
amendments to existing MEAs or additional protocols to them have been
adopted (the 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and
the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefts Arising from their Utilization
to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity or the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). In another words, there is a “setup point”
of the international legal regulation of environmental protection.
Of course, the process of developing new international agreements
is slowly but surely undertaken. Among the newly concluded and signed
international treaties, it is worth to mention the 2015 Paris Climate
Agreement. Another great achievement, which took place in Latin
America, is the adoption of the Escazu Agreement. After 6 years of
negotiations, the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (the Escazu Agreement)2 was adopted on1Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; Basel Convention on the
Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes, which are devoted to the
wastes which existence or handling endangers human life, health and the environment,
and their disposal, and the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent
Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides.2Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in
Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean 2018. Available at: https://
repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/43583/1/S1800428_en.pdf
§ 1 Chapter 2414 March, 2018 in Escazú by 24 States, and almost two-thirds of them
have already signed the Treaty. In order to combat marine plastics, the
international community is considering the possibility of adopting
amendments to existing international treaties (the Basel Convention on
the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
their Disposal and the MARPOL Convention) or developing a special
treaty in this area.
It is also impossible to ignore the global strategic plan for the development of the international community for 15 years adopted in 2015
“UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. We should mention
here that the 2030 Agenda also implies the adoption of new international environmental instruments, for example, Convention on the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of areas
beyond national jurisdiction is currently being drafted1.
Availability of a large number of MEAs in connection with the above
problems of theoretical and practical nature exacerbates the necessity
to conclude a Global Pact for the Environment. This has been discussed
for a long time, but now the signifcant steps are being taken within the
framework of the UN. For the frst time, the UN General Assembly
adopted the resolution 72/277 “Towards a Global Pact for the Environment”, in which the Assembly requested the UN Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session in
2018 a technical and evidence-based report that identifes and assesses
possible gaps in the International environmental law and environment-related instruments with a view to strengthening and to speed up
their implementation. This gives great hope for the adoption of a global international agreement in the feld of environmental cooperation in
the foreseeable future.
Alongside with the growing number of international environmental
agreements, there is an increase of the number of treaty bodies (compliance committees) established on the basis of the MEAs. Today there
are more than 30 MEA treaty bodies that serve to: carry out the monitor of the states — participants' following their international legal ob-1Preparatory Committee, established by General Assembly, adopted the resolution
69/292: Development of an international legally binding instrument under the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of
marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. URL: http://www.
un.org/depts/los/biodiversity/prepcom.htm.
Preservation of the environment: the possibilities of society and law42ligations; consider individual / collective complaints; interpret the
provisions of the MEA. These bodies have also worked out and adopted a huge number of international documents, they certainly promote,
strengthen and stabilize the law enforcement practice and contribute
to the protection of environmental human rights. For example, the
Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee received 150 individual
complaints1 and 2 interstate complaints2. Of course, the MEA compliance committees do not solve all the problems of environmental justice,
and in this regard the following trends can be identifed:– a lot of work is being done to improve the qualifcations of international and national judges. In particular, for this purpose, the Global Judicial Institute on the Environment and the European Union
Forum of Judges for the Environment were established; there, judges
can discuss environmental justice issues, share expert opinions, etc.;– at the international level, the idea of founding an international
environmental court has been discussed for more than 15 years;– the number of environmental cases at the UN International
Court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Permanent Court of Arbitration is growing;– environmental courts are being created at the national level in
various countries of the world.
Another important tendency in the development of the International environmental law is the growing importance of environmental human rights and the emergence of new mechanisms for their protection
at the international level. This is evidenced by the practice of human
rights treaty bodies and regional human rights courts; the establishment
of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights and Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment. Significance of the already mentioned Aarhus
Convention of 1998 (Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) is growing — 47 states have adhered to the Convention
so far, which is almost ¼ of the world's states. As it has been indicated1United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. https://www.unece.org/-env/pp/
cc/com.html.2United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. https://www.unece.org/submissions.html.
§ 2 Chapter 243above, the Escazu Agreement was adopted in the countries of Latin
America and the Caribbean.
Processes of institutional building are being undertaken now in the
framework of international environmental cooperation. As for today,
there is a fairly extensive network of international organizations that to
some extent deal with environmental issues, though the leading role
still belongs to the United Nations, where an institutional reform has
recently been undertaken in the environmental area. First, the so-called
«global environmental parliament» was established — the UNEP Governing Council (58 members) was transformed into the United Nations
Environment Assembly of UNEP (193 members) which meets once every
two years. Secondly, the Commission on Sustainable Development
(CSD) was transformed into a High-Level Political Forum, where the
above-mentioned Sustainable Development Goals for 2016–2030 were
developed. Of course, the measures taken do not remove from the
agenda the issue of establishing an International Environmental Organization based on the UNEP in the nearest future.
In conclusion, it would be worth and necessary to note that while
we demand the states to fulfll their international environmental obligations, it should not be forgotten that in the long run these are the
individuals who make environmentally unfriendly decisions. And Art.
58 of the Constitution of Russia says that “everyone is obliged to preserve nature and the environment, to take care of the natural resources”.
So, here, we should remember the ecology of the soul. As the Christian
monk, theologian and philosopher Maxim the Confessor, who lived at
the turn of the 6th and 7th centuries, put it, “one can turn the whole
Earth into the Paradise only when one carries the Paradise inside himself”.
The term “anthropocene” was invented to defne the epoch in which
man became the main driving force of environmental change. While
scientists argue about whether a new geological epoch should be ofcially singled out in the history of Earth, the fact remains the following:
a rapid increase in the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affects the climate and leads to reduction in biodiversity, and excessive
consumption of natural resources causes irreparable harm to Nature.
However, efcient solutions have not yet been found. At the same time,
we observe a collective denial of these problems everywhere, supported
by a naive belief in the power of progress, the ideology of consumerism
and economic lobbyism.
The term “anthropocene”, introduced by American biologist Eugene F. Stormer, became widespread in early 2000 thanks to the Netherlands scientist and the Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry Paul
Krutzen. It has appeared in the titles of about a hundred of scientifc
publications and articles, and is increasingly used in the mass media
nowadays.
While the natural scientists are proving that we live in a fundamentally new time — the Anthropocene epoch and informing what changes have occurred in the outside world, it is also important for us, international lawyers, to understand what transformations need to be made
in the International law. The International law today is generally facing
the Antropocene challenge and, thus, serious measures are needed,
such as systemic changes at the institutional and regulatory levels, oth
Preservation of the environment: the possibilities of society and law38erwise large-scale environmental changes will lead to the fragmentation
and the threat to the existence of the Rule of law1. The transformation
of the International environmental law as a branch of the International public law is also extremely important. As it was mentioned, “the
Anthropocene and its rapid environmental change pose signifcant
descriptive and normative challenges for international environmental
governance”2.
The approach of Professor Oran Young who poses an ambitious
question — what governance tools are needed to solve the problem of
the Anthropocene — is quite impressive3. He frankly says that we do
not need small adjustments in the international system, but breakthrough innovations. Conscious, innovative and breakthrough solutions
are required. Realization of the Anthropocene epoch as a global phenomenon requires changes in the normative and institutional parts of
the International environmental law. Thus, in the institutional part of
the International environmental law, in addition to the creation of the
World Environmental Organization4, a creation of the special International Environmental Court will be required.
Let us consider the genesis of the International environmental law.
In our opinion, the International environmental law is primarily a
“brainchild” of the twentieth century. Certainly, the rules governing
relations between individuals with regard to the use and protection of
the environment, had been existing before. For example, professor
Nicholas Robinson drew attention to the Charter of the Forest adopted in 1217, following the adoption of the Magna Carta Libertatum in
1215, which “contributed to the sustainable maintenance of ecosystems”5. However, this is an exception rather than a rule.1Biermann F. et al. 2012. Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance. Science 335:1306–7.2Jefferies, C., Seck, S., & Stephens, T. 2018. International Law, Innovation, and Environmental Change in the Anthropocene. In N. Craik, C. Jefferies, S. Seck, & T. Stephens (Eds.), Global Environmental Change and Innovation in International Law,
1-18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P.3.3Young O. R. 2017. Governing Complex Systems: Social Capital for the Anthropocene.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. P. 11.4Biermann F. & Bauer S. (ed.). 2005. A World Environment Organization, Ashgate.5Robinson Nicholas A. The Charter of the Forest: Evolving Human Rights in Nature,
in Magna Carta and the Rule of Law 311 (Daniel Barstow Magraw et al., eds. 2014).
URL: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/990/.
§ 1 Chapter 239Religions of the world prohibit harming the environment. For example, one of the Old Testament books, which is a common Holy
Scripture for both Judaism and Christianity, says the following: “When
you lay siege to a city for a long time, fghting against it to capture it,
do not destroy its trees by putting an axe to them, because you can eat
their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should
besiege them?” (Deut. 20:19).
It is at the very end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th
century that one can observe the emergence of international environmental cooperation. At the end of the ninetieth century a unique decision within the framework of the interstate dispute “On the fur seals of
the Bering Sea” (1893) was made, which contributed a lot to the protection of marine living resources. The frst international environmental agreements that were adopted in the second half of the 19th century concerned mainly the joint consumption of reservoirs and fsheries,
as well as the intensifcation of the international struggle against phyloxera (grape louse)1. At the dawn of the twentieth century, the Convention Designed to Ensure the Conservation of Various Species of
Wild Animals in Africa, which are Useful to Man or Inoffensive, was
adopted in London in 1900, and the Convention for the Protection of
Birds Useful to Agriculture was adopted in 1902. The frst major conference on international nature conservation was held in Bern 1913.
Over a little more than 100 years, the International environmental
law has made a signifcant breakthrough in its development. How efcient was this breakthrough? Probably, only the descendants will be able
to appreciate. In any case, international lawyers have something to
discuss today. There are many achievements, but also a lot of problems.
More than 1,300 international multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and more than 2,100 regional MEAs have already been
developed and adopted. It can be said with absolute certainty that such
a normative phenomenon is evidenced in no other branch of the International law. In this regard, it is possible to state that there is an exces-1Convention Between Alsace-Lorraine And The Two Initial Parties To The Convention
Between Baden And Switzerland Concerning Fishing In The Rhine And Its Influxes
As Well As In Lake Constance 1877; Convention Between Russia And Sweden And
Norway Regulating The Salmon Fishery In The Tornea 1897; Treaty Concerning The
Regulation Of Salmon Fishery In The Rhine River Basin 1885; Convention On Measures To Be Taken Against Phylloxera Vastatrix 1878. https://iea.uoregon.edu/.
Preservation of the environment: the possibilities of society and law40sive regulatory legal array, but there is no vertical connection among
the norms of various MEAs, and the horizontal connection among
them is quite weak. On the one hand, the whole capability of such large
number of MEAs contributes to an increase of protection and preservation of the environment level, on the other hand, it leads to the irrational use of fnancial and human resources.
Today, the efforts are targeted at solving this problem: they are
seeking and looking for synergy between the international environmental agreements. For example, a joint meeting of the participants to the
three conventions aimed at combating waste, has been held1. But in
2013 a new international treaty was adopted in this area of regulation —
the Minamata Convention on Mercury. And now it is necessary to
embed a new international legal instrument in the multi-year process
of synergy of the three conventions.
In this context, we should highlight an interesting trend: recently the
amendments to existing MEAs or additional protocols to them have been
adopted (the 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and
the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefts Arising from their Utilization
to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity or the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). In another words, there is a “setup point”
of the international legal regulation of environmental protection.
Of course, the process of developing new international agreements
is slowly but surely undertaken. Among the newly concluded and signed
international treaties, it is worth to mention the 2015 Paris Climate
Agreement. Another great achievement, which took place in Latin
America, is the adoption of the Escazu Agreement. After 6 years of
negotiations, the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (the Escazu Agreement)2 was adopted on1Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; Basel Convention on the
Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes, which are devoted to the
wastes which existence or handling endangers human life, health and the environment,
and their disposal, and the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent
Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides.2Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in
Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean 2018. Available at: https://
repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/43583/1/S1800428_en.pdf
§ 1 Chapter 2414 March, 2018 in Escazú by 24 States, and almost two-thirds of them
have already signed the Treaty. In order to combat marine plastics, the
international community is considering the possibility of adopting
amendments to existing international treaties (the Basel Convention on
the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
their Disposal and the MARPOL Convention) or developing a special
treaty in this area.
It is also impossible to ignore the global strategic plan for the development of the international community for 15 years adopted in 2015
“UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. We should mention
here that the 2030 Agenda also implies the adoption of new international environmental instruments, for example, Convention on the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of areas
beyond national jurisdiction is currently being drafted1.
Availability of a large number of MEAs in connection with the above
problems of theoretical and practical nature exacerbates the necessity
to conclude a Global Pact for the Environment. This has been discussed
for a long time, but now the signifcant steps are being taken within the
framework of the UN. For the frst time, the UN General Assembly
adopted the resolution 72/277 “Towards a Global Pact for the Environment”, in which the Assembly requested the UN Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session in
2018 a technical and evidence-based report that identifes and assesses
possible gaps in the International environmental law and environment-related instruments with a view to strengthening and to speed up
their implementation. This gives great hope for the adoption of a global international agreement in the feld of environmental cooperation in
the foreseeable future.
Alongside with the growing number of international environmental
agreements, there is an increase of the number of treaty bodies (compliance committees) established on the basis of the MEAs. Today there
are more than 30 MEA treaty bodies that serve to: carry out the monitor of the states — participants' following their international legal ob-1Preparatory Committee, established by General Assembly, adopted the resolution
69/292: Development of an international legally binding instrument under the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of
marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. URL: http://www.
un.org/depts/los/biodiversity/prepcom.htm.
Preservation of the environment: the possibilities of society and law42ligations; consider individual / collective complaints; interpret the
provisions of the MEA. These bodies have also worked out and adopted a huge number of international documents, they certainly promote,
strengthen and stabilize the law enforcement practice and contribute
to the protection of environmental human rights. For example, the
Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee received 150 individual
complaints1 and 2 interstate complaints2. Of course, the MEA compliance committees do not solve all the problems of environmental justice,
and in this regard the following trends can be identifed:– a lot of work is being done to improve the qualifcations of international and national judges. In particular, for this purpose, the Global Judicial Institute on the Environment and the European Union
Forum of Judges for the Environment were established; there, judges
can discuss environmental justice issues, share expert opinions, etc.;– at the international level, the idea of founding an international
environmental court has been discussed for more than 15 years;– the number of environmental cases at the UN International
Court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Permanent Court of Arbitration is growing;– environmental courts are being created at the national level in
various countries of the world.
Another important tendency in the development of the International environmental law is the growing importance of environmental human rights and the emergence of new mechanisms for their protection
at the international level. This is evidenced by the practice of human
rights treaty bodies and regional human rights courts; the establishment
of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights and Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment. Significance of the already mentioned Aarhus
Convention of 1998 (Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) is growing — 47 states have adhered to the Convention
so far, which is almost ¼ of the world's states. As it has been indicated1United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. https://www.unece.org/-env/pp/
cc/com.html.2United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. https://www.unece.org/submissions.html.
§ 2 Chapter 243above, the Escazu Agreement was adopted in the countries of Latin
America and the Caribbean.
Processes of institutional building are being undertaken now in the
framework of international environmental cooperation. As for today,
there is a fairly extensive network of international organizations that to
some extent deal with environmental issues, though the leading role
still belongs to the United Nations, where an institutional reform has
recently been undertaken in the environmental area. First, the so-called
«global environmental parliament» was established — the UNEP Governing Council (58 members) was transformed into the United Nations
Environment Assembly of UNEP (193 members) which meets once every
two years. Secondly, the Commission on Sustainable Development
(CSD) was transformed into a High-Level Political Forum, where the
above-mentioned Sustainable Development Goals for 2016–2030 were
developed. Of course, the measures taken do not remove from the
agenda the issue of establishing an International Environmental Organization based on the UNEP in the nearest future.
In conclusion, it would be worth and necessary to note that while
we demand the states to fulfll their international environmental obligations, it should not be forgotten that in the long run these are the
individuals who make environmentally unfriendly decisions. And Art.
58 of the Constitution of Russia says that “everyone is obliged to preserve nature and the environment, to take care of the natural resources”.
So, here, we should remember the ecology of the soul. As the Christian
monk, theologian and philosopher Maxim the Confessor, who lived at
the turn of the 6th and 7th centuries, put it, “one can turn the whole
Earth into the Paradise only when one carries the Paradise inside himself”.
