Previous - Next
This is the old United Nations University website. Visit the new site at http://unu.edu
The impact of global change on international structures
Traditionally, international law was based upon the vision of an international society composed of sovereign states that had supreme power over their respective territories and that created legal rules applicable to their relations only by their free will. The focal point of the whole international system was thus the concept of the state, the interests of which were the most important factors in its functioning.
This conception was directly inspired by civil law, whereby private interests predominated and the only condition was that they could not be in contradiction with the more or less vague concept of public order. Global change, which must not be represented as a sudden event but as an evolution that started at the end of the Second World War, deeply modifies this perspective. Its main consequence is the awareness that mankind has common interests that are superior to that of individual states and that are not necessarily - at least in the short-term - the sum of individual states' interests. Thus, the focal point of the whole international system centres more and more on mankind and not individual states. The protection of human rights, the peaceful uses of outer space and the oceans, the development of poor countries, and the conservation of the biosphere, which are considered as major tasks for the international community, cannot be understood if they are not founded on the concept of a common interest for mankind.
One should be reminded of the basic principles of Roman Law, which are at the root of our present legal systems, such as the principle formulated by Ulpianus in the second century: "Publicum ius est. quod as statuary rei Romanae spectat, privatum quad ad singulorum utilitatem."
In the present circumstances the same idea would be expressed by saying that public law is concerned with the state of mankind, while private interests are those of the individual state. The emergence of mankind's common interests that is being achieved by global change must be reflected in international legal rules. This necessarily means a shift in the whole approach of international law from the states' central role towards that of the international community as a whole. Some of the consequences of the change could be the following.
A. The place and role of the state in the international community
While the realm of the competence of states has expanded during the last century, incorporating more and more tasks that formerly were left to private initiative (for example, teaching, health care, and guidance of economic life), a parallel evolution resulted in the modification of our conceptions of the place and the role of the state. For several decades, the justification of the power and even of the existence of states was to ensure to their subjects the enjoyment of fundamental rights, personal security, and the highest standard of living. Thus, a utilitarian approach has replaced the sacred character formerly recognized by states. The target of the competition between socialist and liberal countries in the 1960s was the improvement of the quality of life inside the two camps; the recent collapse of the Eastern systems that have lost the competition are to be explained by this utilitarian approach.
This approach naturally limits the genuine tendency of the states to exercise their power for its own sake. Other factors also contribute to such limitations. If throughout history facts could never be ignored by rulers, today they have a much larger impact on the conduct of national policies. Decisions are preempted by facts and situations stated and interpreted not only by members of royal councils or by politicians, but also by experts whose conclusions cannot be ignored: for example, scientists, economists, and sociologists. No government in the world can ignore expert opinions, in spite of their certain proportion of scientific uncertainty. Given the examples of the expansion of AIDS, the problem of the ozone layer, or global warming, no single government could refuse to take action or, at least, to publicly recognize the need of such action. Moreover, such statements and interpretations generally have an international character, based on the findings of scientists of different countries. Thus, sovereign states are more or less bound to their conduct by external factors over which they have no power.
The impact of scientific findings is greatly intensified by the reactions of public opinion. Today, echoes of major events are heard all over the "planetary village." The rapidity of the awareness of the threatening modification of the global climate, in different countries and even in spheres that are usually not receptive to environmental matters, shows that states are not free to ignore such facts. Indeed, they are limited in their freedom to decide whether they will do anything or not. A concrete example will show the limits of their action in this field. Even if nobody would contest the sovereignty of a given African state over its territory and its wild fauna and flora, reactions within the world's opinion would prevent that state from making the decision of exterminating all the rhinoceros inside its boundaries.
It may be added that, as noted earlier, mechanisms guaranteeing the implementation of international obligations more and more incorporate into their procedure the information regarding international public opinion and sometimes even consultation with its representatives, concerned non-governmental organizations.
However, the most important factor that limits state sovereignty is the unavoidable need to cooperate with others in a growing number of fields in order to solve essential problems. If such cooperation was needed in the first centuries of the existence of modern international law for political and military security, for trade and communications, nowadays no major branch of states' activities can escape it. The list of essential problems include the economy, health care, the protection of human rights development, environmental protection emergencies, meteorology, traffic and communications, the control of drugs and of terrorism: and the list gets longer and longer from one decade to another. The principle of cooperation, which was stressed on several occasions by the International Court of Justice, is in fact as much a necessity inspired by realities as a legal rule. Countries that tried to refuse such cooperation under certain regimes- the USSR, China, Iran - had to pay a heavy price later for their attempt to escape the international system. Global change still reinforces this trend and contributes by limiting the freedom of individual states to act.
B. New factors of the international system
The growing role of a new factor of the international system, public opinion, has just been mentioned. The emerging importance of some others can be added.
One of the dominating trends in the two decades following World War II was decolonization. Seen from a legal point of view, this meant in the first place the recognition that certain peoples were able to select from the state to which they belonged. Formally, the concept has been recognized by the two International Covenants on Human Rights that proclaim that all peoples have the right of self-determination and that they may freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources.75 The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights develops different aspects of the concept of people,76 adding, inter alia, that all peoples shall have the rights to a generally satisfactory environment favourable to their development.77
Certainly, the new concept can be criticized because of its vagueness, although concepts such as "nation," which is the basis of the existence of most modern states, is not easier to define. Still, it exists and even nowadays, after decolonization, it plays an important role in international politics and in the life of a number of states. Should this amount to a consecration of the concept of "peoples" by international law outside the proclamations in different human rights instruments? Maybe "peoples" are not - or not yet? -subjects of international law, but they are certainly factors of the international system. The recognition of their right to their resources and to a generally satisfactory environment may be an important step towards future legal developments.
Another concept has appeared as a consequence of global change. The concept is one of mankind as a whole. The first legal instrument that mentions it was the charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal,78 although one may wonder whether the notion of "crime against humanity" expresses the idea that certain crimes constitute an offense to all mankind as a subject of international law or whether it corresponds to the violation of human feelings, which is a moral concept. Anyway, the idea of mankind appears again with that of "common heritage of mankind" at the end of the 1960s, at the same time as environmental law.79
As a rule, the law takes care of a person when its interests are to be recognized and protected. The recognition of common interests of mankind is an ongoing process: more and more legal instruments imply or even proclaim it. Such instruments can be identified by the fact that they do not provide for reciprocity or any immediate advantage for the contracting states, while these accept obligations. In the past, such conventions usually dealt with specific fields, such as the improvement of the condition of victims of war or that of workers. More recently, various conventions with a much wider application have sought to ensure the protection of human rights. While more than 70 conventions exist, both universally and regionally, in this field, all of them were drafted after the Second World War. The evolution was even faster in the realm of environmental protection: since the end of the 1960s hundreds of texts have been drafted. In all these cases the treaties do not offer any direct advantage for the states that are parties to them - only obligations.
The general recognition that there are common interests of mankind and the definition of the most important of them has been reinforced by the idea that such interests may have materialized in specific fields, such as the deep seabed's mineral resources, the moon and other celestial bodies, or the world's cultural and natural heritage. The basic principle is that such elements of the world should be conserved and in order to do so they must be correctly managed, in the interest of present and future generations. This concept is much less focused on the sharing of benefits than on the conservation and, as a consequence, the obligations of the present holders of such goods: they should be considered as trustees acting on behalf of all mankind.80 The concept of common heritage of mankind could expand in the coming years as we understand more and more that the common interests of mankind include conservation of the ozone layer, of tropical forests, of the global climate, and of genetic diversity - all these elements might, in the future, be considered as belonging to the common heritage of mankind that the present generations must use with wisdom and conserve for future generations. The report of the "Brundtland Commission" on Environment and Development81 shows a way that must be followed in order to avoid compromising the future of the planet.
The question has been raised as to how mankind, which constitutes the framework of the international legal system, can be a subject of international laws. One should not forget in this regard that in national legal orders, the state itself is a subject of the law that it created and that it enforces: it can defend its interests and other subjects can protect themselves against it by legal means. This is one of the aspects of the "rule of law" that is the aim of present democratic societies.
The very idea of a common heritage for mankind states that all the resources and all the cultural wealth that we have inherited shall be transmitted to future generations. Is the present state of law such that we can speak of a right of future generations to inherit cultural wealth? In-depth studies lead to a positive answer.82 Anyway, it raises the question of the representation of future generations and it stresses the importance of a factor that is emerging in international law: time. While the first question, which concerns institutional implications of global change, will be treated later on, the new perspective, that of time, is an important factor that has to be discussed as such.
Traditionally the role of law has been considered to be mainly the protection of existing values and interests, without necessarily caring for the impact of present or future evolutions. The necessity to conserve the environment is a dynamic concept, particularly since mankind is transforming the biosphere in an unprecedented way and our knowledge of the biosphere and its mechanisms is constantly progressing. The growing scarcity of resources, such as clean water or space, increases their economic and moral value. Hence, natural resources and their continued interrelationships need to be more and more protected, which requires the constant development of legal rules and the updating of existing ones. When examining the implications of global change on the law-making process, different techniques were used, which resulted from the need for developing and adapting international law in this new field. Examples of these new techniques include procedures recognizing and formulating new values, progressive techniques in the international regulatory process, and simplification of the modification of existing rules. Thus, global change introduces a sort of ferment of dynamism into the legal systems that naturally tend to be static. This is another aspect of the functional approach imposed by it.
However, the meaning of the time factor is not only technical: it also has an influence on the very finality of law in general and of the international legal system in particular. The simple idea that our biosphere must be protected includes the perspective of the future, i.e., the objective of legal rules is the preservation not only of existing values and situations but also of those that have yet to come into existence. Indeed, if we do not care for the coming decades and centuries, the entire biosphere can be destroyed for the benefit of the present. Rules that we adopt today in order to preserve the ozone layer will only stop its destruction in several decades. There is thus a close link between environmental protection and fairness to future generations: both are future-oriented.
C. The implications of global change for international institutions
The transformation of the international community, due to the expansion of areas where international cooperation became a necessity, has required since the Second World War the creation of a growing number of international institutions. Indeed, the nineteenth-century pattern, whereby the fate of the world could be settled by periodic international conferences, had to gradually be replaced by permanent cooperation, which is necessarily institutional. Global change enhances this development by adding new fields that must be covered by cooperation and by making the intrusion of the international concern into the life of nations even deeper. Meeting the modification of the global climate means drastic reductions in the use of fossil fuel, i.e., a deep impact on national and even personal activities. The consequence will be the strengthening of international cooperation, which is in most cases necessarily institutional.
Inside and outside international institutions, negotiation between states plays a growing role. It was not too surprising that after the nuclear accident of Chernobyl, negotiations started in a very short time in order to adopt international regulations imposing the duty of early notification on the states where the accident took place.83 In bilateral relations, the obligation of states that intend to start activities that may damage the environment of foreign states to inform the latter and to consult with them may imply negotiation. The procedures foreseen by framework conventions such as the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution84 or the 1985 Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layers imply that further progress in cooperation will be achieved - which again means negotiation.
The care that must be taken to prevent the depletion of existing natural resources, and at the same time to ensure their continued use, also imposes upon us more and more institutional cooperation and more and more negotiation. Conservation and continued use of resources imply management and eventually such management will become international, unless we are willing to take the risk that conflicts, of a well-known type, for space and resources will prevail. Thus, international regulation will increase and will govern national legislation.
The expansion of fields where the presence of mankind's common interests have been recognized make it necessary to create adequate institutions that can defend such interests. In several fields such as the protection of human rights institutions exist but sometimes need to be improved. In others, such as the protection of the global environment, or the preservation of the rights of future generations, existing organizations should be given the necessary power to represent those interests. Of course, new ones can also be created, although there is a general trend not to establish new international organizations. Anyway, the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, established by the Paris Convention of 23 November 1972, could be considered in this regard as a subject for further reflection.86
Therefore, it seems that global change encourages the present trend of the international system to behave like a real system, i.e., a more and more intricate web of dynamic relations. As a consequence, the approach must also be a global one, envisaging the international community as a whole and considering the different functions inside it according to its needs and its aimsand no longer according to the interests of individual states. The distribution of such functions has to be empirical: the principles included in all the programmes of action of the European Economic Community in the field of the environment are good examples of this: "In each different category of pollution it is necessary to establish the level of action (local, regional, national, community, international) that benefits the type of pollution and the geographical zone to be protected should be sought."87
The guidance is thus given by way of the level of action that ensures the best solution. In other words, the basic criterion is the common interest of the community, which must be mankind when global change is at stake. However, this needs a fundamental basis, which can be found in the emergence of real world ethics.
1. See, Controversies autour de l'ontologie de droit, 11, 27, 53 (P. Amselek, ea., Presses universitaire de France, 1989).
2. Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 22 Mar. 1985, 26 I.L.M. 1529 (1987) (hereinafter Vienna Convention), completed by the Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, Final Act. 16 Sept. 1987 (Reference File) Int'l Env't Rep. (BNA) 21:3151, 261. L.M. 1550 (1987) (hereinafter Montreal Protocol).
3. This is especially the case of the "greenhouse effect" resulting from the global warming of the earth's climate. See, U.N.G.A. Res. Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations of Mankind, U.N. GAOR A/Res/43/53 (1989).
4. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 Dec. 1982, 21 I.L.M. 1261 (1982) (hereinafter Law of the Sea Convention), Art. 175, 1297.
5. Id. at Art. 145, 1308.
6. See, e.g., Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 22 Nov. 1978, U.S. - Canada, Annex 9, 30 U.S.T. 1383, T.l.A.S. 9257; Bonn Convention on the Protection of the Rhine Against Chemical Pollution, 3 Dec. 1976, 16 I.L.M. 242 (1977); Convention Concerning Accidental Pollution of Lake Geneva, 5 May 1977, XXV Int'l Protections of the Environment, 285 (Ruester, Simma, and Bock, eds., Oceana, 1981).
7. Law of the Sea Convention, supra note 4. See also, London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter! 29 Dec. 1972, 26 U.S.T. 2403, T.l.A.S. No. 8165; Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, 16 Feb. 1976, 15 I.L.M. 290 (1976).
8. Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, 13 Nov. 1979, 18 I.L.M. 1442, T.l.A.S. 10541 (1979) (hereinafter L.R.T.A.P. Convention).
9. Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 19 Sept. 1979, E.T.S. 107 (1979). See also, A. Kiss, "La protection internationals de la vie sauvage," 1980 Annuaire français de droit international, 661 -686.
10. See, e.g.. South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, 6 Aug. 1985, 24 I.L.M. 1440 (1985); Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal, 22 Mar. 1989, UNEP/IG-80/3 (1989) (hereinafter Basel Convention).
11. Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 16 June 1972, 11 I.L.M. 1716 (1972) (hereinafter Stockholm Declaration).
12. U.N.G.A. Res. 37/7, 37 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51); The World Charter for Nature at 17, U.N. Doc A/37/51 (1982).
13. This was the case of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights followed by the two UN Covenants on Human Rights.
14. Although it is difficult to know how far national legislation has been influenced by non-mandatory international instruments, it seems that principles such as those stated by the Council of Europe's Declaration on Air Pollution Control, 8 March 1968, Resolution (68)4, or the guidelines established by the UNEP Working Group of Experts on Environmental Law on Aspects Concerning the Environment Related to Offshore Drilling and Mining within the Limits of National Jurisdiction, February 1981, 7 Environmental Policy and Law, 50, February 1981, have inspired national legislators.
15. Unesco Convention Conceming the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 16 Nov. 1972, 27 U.S.T. 37, T.l.A.S. 8226, 11 I.L.M. 1358 (1972). Art. 5.
16. L.R.T.A.P. Convention, supra note 8.
17. Id. at Art. 2, 1443.
18. Id. at Art. 3, 1443.
19. Id. at Art. 6,1444.
20. A. Kiss, Droit international de I'environnement, 206 (1989).
21. Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land Based Sources, 4 June 1974, 13 I.L.M. 352, 355 (1974).
22. Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 23 June 1979, 19 I.L.M. 15 (1980).
23. Vienna Convention, supra note 2.
24. Id.
25. Montreal Protocol, supra note 2.
26. Id.
27. Helsinki Protocol (to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution) on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or Their Transboundary Fluxes by at Least 30 Per Cent, 8 July 1985 (Reference File) Int'l Env't Rep. (BNA) 21:3021, U.N. Doc. ECE/EB AIR/12 27 I.L.M. 707 (1988); see Sofia Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Concerning the Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides or Their Transboundary Fluxes, 31 Oct. 1988, 18 Envt'l L. & Pol'y J. 228 (1988).
28. Montreal Protocol, supra note 2 (Reference File) Int'l Env't Rep. (BNA) 21:3156, 26 I.L.M. 1555.
29. Stockholm Declaration, supra note 11.
30. See, e.g., U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel. Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 Dec. 1984, U.N.G.A. Res. 39/46, Doc. A/39/51, which develops Article 7 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 19 Dec. 1966. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted in Rome on 4 Nov. 1950, had been completed by eight protocols. four out of which (Protocols nos. 1, 20 Mar. 1952; 4, 16 Sept. 1963; 6, 28 April 19X3; and 7. 22 Sept. 1984) extend the scope of the Convention.
31. The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 27 Jan. 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, T.I.A.S. No. 6347, 610 U.N.T.S. 205 (1967), has been completed by four other international treaties regarding the assistance to and rescue of astronauts (1] April 1968), liability for damages caused by space objects (29 Mar. 1972), and activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies (18 Dec. 1979).
32. Law of the Sea Convention, supra note 4.
33. The best examples of the utilization of this method are the '`regional seas" treaties drafted under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme. We note here only the first and most developed of them. the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, 16 Feb. 1976, supra note 7, which is an umbrella treaty completed by four protocols concerning: cooperation in combating Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency (Barcelona, 16 Feb. 1976); the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft (Barcelona, 16 Feb. 1976); the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution from Land-Based Sources (Athens, 7 May 198()): and Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas (Geneva, 3 April 1982).
34. Conventional systems following the pattern of the Barcelona Convention have been established for the Gulf, western and Central Africa, the south-east Pacific, the Red Sea, and the Gulf of Aden, the Caribbean Region and South Pacific. see Kiss, supra note 20, at 143145.
35. See, e.g., Article XV(2) of the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, supra note 7, adopted on 29 Dec. 1972; and Article 16 of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, supra note 9.
36. L.R.T.A.P. Convention, supra note 8 at Arts. 3-6.
37. Basel Convention, supra note IO, UNEP/IG-80/3 at Art. 4.
38. See, Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 3 Mar. 1973, 27 U.S.T. 1087, T.l.A.S. 8249, 993 U.N.T.S. 243. See also, Edmonds, Guidelines for National Implementation of the Convention on International Trade In Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (IUCN, 1981), Art. 11(3).
39. Edmonds, supra note 38 at Art. IV.
40. Basel Convention, supra note 10 at Art. 5.
41. London International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 2 Nov. 1973, 12 I.L.M. 1319 (1973), Art. 4 (hereinafter M.A.R.P.O.L.).
42. G. Scelle, Droit International Public: Manuel Elémentaire (1944), pp. 21-22.
43. Law of the Sea Convention, supra note 4 at Art. 218, 1312.
44. Id.
45. Stockholm Declaration, supra note 11.
46. See, Humphrey, "The United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities," 62 A.J.I.L. 869 (1968).
47. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 Nov. 1950, Art. 20, Europe. T.S. No. 5, 213 U.N.T.S. 222 (1950).
48. Id. at Art. 38: American Convention on Human Rights, 22 Nov. 1969, Art. 52 s. (1969).
49. African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 27 June 1981, O.A.U. Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 Rev. 5.21 I.L.M. 59 (1982), at Art. 47.
50. American Convention on Human Rights, supra note 48 at Art. 44.
51. See European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, supra note 47 at Arts. 24. 25.
52. Id. at Arts. 26-27.
53. T. Buergenthal, International Human Rights, 247, 73 (1988).
54. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, supra note 47 at Art. 32(3).
55. American Convention of Human Rights, supra note 48 at Art. 63.
56. M.A.R.P.O.L., supra note 42.
57. Id.
58. Basel Convention, supra note 10.
59. See M.A.R.P.O.L., supra note 42.
60. Basel Convention, supra note 10 at Art. 13(2) and (3), 21.
61. Id. at Art. 16(1)(b), 26.
62. Id. at Art. 15(5). 24.
63. Per un Tribunale Internazionale dell'Ambiente (A. Postiglione, ea.. 1990).
64. World Commission on Environment and Development, Experts'
Group on Environmental
Law, Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development,
Legal Principles and Recom mendations (Martinus Nijhoff,
1987).
65. Kiss, supra note 20 at 106-110.
66. Id. at 118.
67. Law of the Sea Convention, supra note 4 at Art. 235, 1315.
68.Id.
69. Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy, 29 July 1960, U.K.T.S. 69 (1968), 55 A.J.I.L. 1082 (1960); Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, 21 May 1963, 2 I.L.M. 727 (1963). See also Brussels Supplementary Convention (to the 1960 Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy), 31 fan. 1963, U.K.T.S. 44 (1975), 2 I.L.M. 685 (1963).
70. Brussels International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 29 Nov. 1969, 9 I.L.M. 45 (1970); London Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage Resulting from Exploration for and Exploitation of Seabed Mineral Resources, 1 May 1977, 16 I.L.M. 1450 (1977).
71. Wellington Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, 2 June 1988, 211. L. M. 868 (1988).
72. Law of the Sea Convention, supra note 4 at Art. 235, 1315.
73. Basel Convention, supra note 10.
74. London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter supra note 7.
75. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 6 I.L.M. 360 (1967); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 1.
76. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, supra note 49 at Arts. 19-24.
77. Id. at Art. 24.
78. The Charter of International Military Tribunal, London, 8 Aug. 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 284 (1945).
79. A. Kiss, La notion de patrimoine commun de l'humanite. Académie de droit international, Recueil des cours 1982-11 (Martinus Nijhoff. 1983), pp. 99-256.
80. A. Kiss, "The Common Heritage of Mankind: Utopia or Reality?" 40 International Jour nal, 423, 439 (1985).
81. The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford, 1987).
82. E. Brown Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations (Transnational/United Nations University, 1989).
83. I.A.E.A. Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident, 26 Sept. 1986, 25 1. L. M. 1370 (1986).
84. L.R.T.A.P. Convention, supra note 8.
85. Vienna Convention, supra note 2; see also Montreal Protocol, supra note 2.
86. Unesco Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, supra note 15.
87. Declaration of the Council of the European Communities and of the Representatives of the
Governments of the Member States, 22 Nov. 1973, 1973 O.J. (C 112).