President Joe Biden signed an executive decree to allow the United States to be governed in one of his first acts at the White House Join the Paris Climate Agreement. It marked a significant step towards the country’s commitment to taking action to combat climate change after Trump’s withdrawal from the accord.
Biden’s move was hailed worldwide by leaders and applauded at home by environmentalists. The climate convention was not the only international environmental agreement that the country has been absent from.
Here are four international agreements that have been ratified but not by the United States.
1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
1982 Law of the SeaThe International Seabed Authority was established to create regulations for deep seabed mining.
Originally, the U.S. government supported the treaty as it was being completed in the late 1970s. But when President Reagan took office, he demanded a review of the negotiations. He fired the State Departments head for negotiations and appointed his own people, who created a new list. Kristina GjerdeA professor adjunct at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and a senior high-seas advisor to the International Union for the Conservation of Natures Global Marine and Polar Programs.
Reagan’s team did not sign the treaty because it was not reworked to address those needs. Although the treaty would have been signed by the United States in 1994, it has yet to be ratified by the country. To do so, the Senate must approve it at least two-thirds.
Gjerde states that the Law of the Sea has been supported by all parties, including the U.S. Navy and the Department of Commerce. It is not supported by anyone except those who don’t want the U.S. to be involved in multilateral institutions.
Unfortunately, the Senate has enough people who think this way to block the treaty and many others. But that hasn’t stopped people from pushing for the United States to accept the Law of the Sea.
There are many reasons why it would be a good idea for the country. Gjerde said that one of the most important reasons right now is that the United States needs to be in the background while regulations are being developed on deep seabed mines.
She states that the United States is not allowed to help ensure that regulations are appropriately environmentally protective. The country also has many islands and waters that could be affected by seabed mining by other countries.
2. Convention on Biological Diversity
The treatyThe 1992 Rio Earth Summit saw the first signings of the ‘Planning for the Future’ document. It has been called the best weapon against the extinction crisis. It has three main objectives: the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and equitable sharing of the benefits that result from the use of genetic resources.
Although the United States was a key player in the negotiation of the agreement’s draft, George W. Bush declined to sign it after 150 countries offered their support. Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1993 after he was elected, but it didn’t receive the Senate’s ratification vote.
It still hasn’t.
The United States is currently the only United Nations member that has not ratified it. This is a shame. Maria IvanovaProfessor of global governance and director of Center for Governance and Sustainability at University of Massachusetts Boston, he is also a writer.
She says that this omission is in stark contrast with the country’s history of conservation commitments.
Ivanova says that the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species was originally called the Washington Convention. This was because it was the first meeting to be held in Washington. The United States was a champion of the convention and was the first country to establish national parks.
She says that this commitment started to fade with run-amok capitalism in the 1980s. This means you can use nature without worrying about replenishing it.
The United States still participates in the Conference of Parties that assemble to discuss the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, it has not ratified the agreement so its status is now that of an observer. In the hopes of strengthening the United States commitment towards biological diversity, a California delegation will also be attending this year.
3. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
The Stockholm ConventionThe 2001 adoption of the, a measure to protect the environment and people’s health from harmful chemicals, was a major step in protecting the environment and their health. The treaty names persistent chemicals that can bioaccumulate in the food chain and stay in the environment.
Currently, nearly 30 chemicals are covered by the treaty. This could mean that countries have to restrict or ban their usage, limit their trade or develop strategies for properly disposing of stockpiles or other sites contaminated by these chemicals.
The agreement has been ratified by 184 countries so far. Although the United States signed the agreement in 2001, it has not been ratified by Congress since then. This means that the United States is often behind other countries in banning harmful chemicals such as those found in the Pentachlorophenol, a highly toxic pesticide.
4. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes (and Their Disposal)
The United States has signed, but not ratified, the agreement. Basel ConventionThis international treaty was signed in 1992. This international treaty regulates the movement between countries of hazardous waste (except radioactive materials). It was designed to curb the practice by richer, industrialized countries of dumping their hazardous materials into less developed and more wealthy countries.
The convention is now tackling the global problem of plastic waste, which is the main focus of the United States. largest contributor. A new provision was put into effect this year to limit the export of waste to other countries. This prevents waste from being sent to countries that cannot be recycled. Instead, it is burned or emitted into the environment.
Electronic waste has been addressed by the Basel Convention. Experts say that the failure of the United States of ratifying the treaty has allowed companies to shift the recycling of toxic computer components. Developing countries. Recent research has linked plastic and e-waste recycling exported from the U.S.A to developing countries to chemicals entering the food supply chain. Eggs eaten by the poorest people in the world.
Next Steps
If you’re seeing a pattern of the United States signing but not recognising treaties, you’re not wrong. Ivanova says that the Senate is the largest hurdle to ratifying a treaty in America.
Despite the fact that the United States has been unable to fully participate in certain international agreements for decades, there is still hope for a different outcome. Gjerde says that it is the dream of many who are involved in international action that the United States join these important international processes.
She said that the Law of the Sea, in particular, is an opportunity to show global leadership and tackle the many oceanic challenges.
There might be others who disagree.
Ivanova said that there is a lot of argument from policymakers worldwide that the United States has been doing fine without them in the negotiations. Maybe it’s better for the United States to not sign.
This could be because the United States can object and cause problems as negotiations progress. Or, because each country can negotiate from its national interest point of views.
She says that the United States is a country with disproportionate global governance power. Or it used. It has to regain its credibility, and the legitimacy it has lost.
She says that the United States could reap more benefits by ratifying the conventions, and be a rightful actor in the world.
She says that all of these problems are global and require international cooperation. All hands are needed. The United States of America is a powerful nation that brings with itself a lot additional expertise and engagement.
The United States has a number of top universities and NGOs that are involved in advocacy and research. Ivanova says that the United States brings all of the intellectual and financial power that it has when it is part of an accord.
Participation exposes the country to criticism and reduces the likelihood of other countries improving their laws. Recent examples of environmental failures in the United States have been highlighted by ChinaWhenever its own record may be questioned.
With this in mind the United States should take immediate action to improve its environmental credibility. Ivanova said that while the Obama administration was able to convey the message, it did not adequately match its actions. It is imperative to do better.
Many people are not clear about the global part. [of these international treaties]She said. You can implement them at your home and not have to travel to other states. You have to act at home in order to achieve these goals.
