Comments on paper by Susan Rose-Ackerman and Achim A. Halpaap

Date15 August 2002
Publication Date15 August 2002
AuthorFarhana Yamin
Farhana Yamin
This paper is a thorough and helpful guide to the substantive contents of
the Convention, especially the political economy section linking political
institutions, literature and the environmental policy field.
Aarhus has not been the focus of as much concerted European NGO
attention as it might have been, given that many NGO's resources were diverted
by other negotiations e.g. the Kyoto and Biosafety protocols. But those who
followed it were extremely committed activists.
1. Paper's remit: to analyze and explain the anomaly between the rapid
ratification of the convention by post-communist countries (Central Asian states)
and lack of equivalent speedy ratification by EU and other UN/ECE countries.
The paper
rather than establishes, that these are explanations for this
disparity, other than those relating to the complexity/timing of completing the
ratification process.
Conventions, like other bills and regulation, compete for parliamentary/
beaurocrats' time. Aarhus seems to be in a 'holding pattern', maybe because
other aspects of environmental policy, e.g. climate change and biosafety and
GMOs have taken up the lion's share of beaurocrat's time and are "waiting to
hand". Given that the EU Commission has not prioritized Aarhus ratification
until 2002/2003 it should not be surprising that MS are waiting for the EU to
take the lead.
An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Environmental Policy: Issues in Institutional
Design Volume 20, pages 6.5-67.
© 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
ISBN: 0-7623-0888-S

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT