The International Court of Justice, after
finding Peru not guilty on charges related to poaching in Brazil, agreed on
recommendations to Brazil on necessary improvements in its standards of
environmental protection. This debated
stemmed from the notion that Brazil had caused its own poaching problems due to
a lack of attention to the environment.
However, there remained some
resistance to the idea of imposing regulations on Brazil; Japan and Portugal
believed that the ICJ’s only purpose was to find defendants not guilty or
guilty and, if necessary, assign punishments to the guilty. They suggested that,
while they acknowledge Brazil’s negligence in its environmental obligations, it
was not the function of the court to impose any changes in Brazil. Justice
Thornsberry of Portugal summed up this group’s position by saying that the ICJ
was not here to give out guidelines and suggestions for environmental
improvements.
As an unmoderated caucus progressed,
the justices split into two distinct groups for pending opinion papers. The justices
from China, Russia, Japan, Somalia, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Germany
believed that restrictions on pelts should be implemented. On the other hand,
the justices from Slovakia, Portugal, France, Morocco, New Zealand, and Belgium
believed that security should be a priority and recommended the allocation of
more resources to accomplish this goal.
While the justice from Russia stated
the two groups should find some “common ground” and produce a united decision,
the justice from Somalia protested with “…two, four, six, eight we don’t want
to integrate!” Surprisingly, these statements did promote further discussion of
the two opinion papers. These novel and colorful ways of illustrating this
difference in opinion give insight into the heated nature of the deliberation
of the ICJ.
After another unmoderated caucus,
the two justices from Brazil diverged over the course of action. One Brazilian
justice welcomed whatever suggestions were offered to help reduce poaching,
while the other justice disagreed with this interference in Brazil’s domestic affairs.
 |
| Justices discuss ways to improve the Portuguese proposals |
Portugal motioned to submit a
resolution to create stricter security, more funding, and favorable changes for
the Pantanal Matogrossense National Park.
Also, it proposed the possibility of seeking help from World Wildlife
Foundation (WWF) to achieve these goals. Russia proposed to add an amendment
onto said resolution in order to clarify that would impose more standards for
funding natural preservation.
Although there was some minor
protest to the resolution’s guidelines by Japan in regards to its plans to
restructure the way Brazil allocates funds, the resolution passed by
overwhelming popular opinion with only minor changes. After this decision, the
delegates from Brazil stated that they remained fully open to the conclusions of
the ICJ and would plan to institute the court’s recommendations.
No comments:
Post a Comment