229
2 Overview of the Global Pact for the Environment
The draft GPE is a short document comprising a preamble which ends with the
phrase “[a]ffirming the need to adopt a common position and principles that will
inspire and guide the efforts of all to protect and preserve the environment [the
Parties have] agreed as follows:” (GPE 2017). The GPE then lists twenty-six principles of which twenty could be considered basic principles of international environmental law. At first glance it appears to be a brief and generalized synthesis of
the 1992 Rio Declaration, 1982 World Charter for Nature, the Earth Charter and
other international environmental legal instruments.
The ambition or objectives of the GPE can be described as both political/aspirational and as being of a more technical legal nature. As regards the first, Laurent
Fabius referred to the GPE as a response to the ‘post Paris paradox’ i.e., the growing
urgency to act on climate change in face of the very significant loss of state political
will to act (Fabius 2017).
1
Fabius chaired initial GPE drafting sessions, was the
President of Climate Change COP 21 (which delivered the lauded 2015 Paris
Agreement) and is the current President of the French Constitutional Council. In
2017 he became a United Nations (UN) Environment Patron on Environmental
Governance in recognition of his political expertise in achieving the Paris Agreement
and his initiation and promotion of the GPE (Unenvironment.org). Laurent Fabius
is clearly the legal and political figurehead of a French diplomatic and legal initiative intended to strengthen global support for universal action to protect the
environment.
2
From a more technical legal perspective, the GPE’s objectives are threefold: (1)
to be a global legally binding environmental law instrument, based on the consensus
agreement of states; (2) to clarify and codify all major principles of international
environmental law in one instrument; (3) and progressively develop the law by
assisting the evolution of principles from soft to hard law and achieving global recognition of a human right to live in an ecologically sound environment. To this end,
the GPE includes well recognised principles of law (precaution, prevention and
sustainable development), together with some emergent principles (non-regression,
role of non-state and subnational actors) (Kotzé and French 2018). Leaders of the
GPE’s drafting identify seven current deficiencies in the body of international environmental law which justify the need for the Pact and have shaped its content and
character as an ‘overarching statement of binding principles’ (Aguila and
Viñuales 2019a).
Why then did the Pact’s main proponents declare that it failed and suffered a serious set-back, following the OEWG’s final meeting in May 2019? To at least begin
to unravel this we need to first define what failure means in this context. It is used
here to mean the difference between the OEWG’s final recommendations to the
UNGA and what the proponents desired.
1 This is my interpretation of Fabius’ phrase ‘‘significant concerns about future decisions”.
2 The additional involvement of the French President and government is considered further below.
Opportunity Within Failure: Can the Global Pact for the Environment Learn…
2 Overview of the Global Pact for the Environment
The draft GPE is a short document comprising a preamble which ends with the
phrase “[a]ffirming the need to adopt a common position and principles that will
inspire and guide the efforts of all to protect and preserve the environment [the
Parties have] agreed as follows:” (GPE 2017). The GPE then lists twenty-six principles of which twenty could be considered basic principles of international environmental law. At first glance it appears to be a brief and generalized synthesis of
the 1992 Rio Declaration, 1982 World Charter for Nature, the Earth Charter and
other international environmental legal instruments.
The ambition or objectives of the GPE can be described as both political/aspirational and as being of a more technical legal nature. As regards the first, Laurent
Fabius referred to the GPE as a response to the ‘post Paris paradox’ i.e., the growing
urgency to act on climate change in face of the very significant loss of state political
will to act (Fabius 2017).
1
Fabius chaired initial GPE drafting sessions, was the
President of Climate Change COP 21 (which delivered the lauded 2015 Paris
Agreement) and is the current President of the French Constitutional Council. In
2017 he became a United Nations (UN) Environment Patron on Environmental
Governance in recognition of his political expertise in achieving the Paris Agreement
and his initiation and promotion of the GPE (Unenvironment.org). Laurent Fabius
is clearly the legal and political figurehead of a French diplomatic and legal initiative intended to strengthen global support for universal action to protect the
environment.
2
From a more technical legal perspective, the GPE’s objectives are threefold: (1)
to be a global legally binding environmental law instrument, based on the consensus
agreement of states; (2) to clarify and codify all major principles of international
environmental law in one instrument; (3) and progressively develop the law by
assisting the evolution of principles from soft to hard law and achieving global recognition of a human right to live in an ecologically sound environment. To this end,
the GPE includes well recognised principles of law (precaution, prevention and
sustainable development), together with some emergent principles (non-regression,
role of non-state and subnational actors) (Kotzé and French 2018). Leaders of the
GPE’s drafting identify seven current deficiencies in the body of international environmental law which justify the need for the Pact and have shaped its content and
character as an ‘overarching statement of binding principles’ (Aguila and
Viñuales 2019a).
Why then did the Pact’s main proponents declare that it failed and suffered a serious set-back, following the OEWG’s final meeting in May 2019? To at least begin
to unravel this we need to first define what failure means in this context. It is used
here to mean the difference between the OEWG’s final recommendations to the
UNGA and what the proponents desired.
1 This is my interpretation of Fabius’ phrase ‘‘significant concerns about future decisions”.
2 The additional involvement of the French President and government is considered further below.
Opportunity Within Failure: Can the Global Pact for the Environment Learn…