Policies are the instrument that governments mobilize for carrying out their intentions to interfere in reality, transforming their vision for the development of the territories they encompass into reality, whether on a national, local or supralocal scale. Several definitions have been proposed for the concept, with the following being suitable for the purposes of this publication: “a process, which involves decisions on the part of governmental bodies and authorities, and actions, carried out by an actor or a group of actors, which consists of goals and the means to achieve them” (Heller & Castro, 2007).

Different studies in the human rights sector and in the water and sanitation sector have explored the concept of accountability and aimed to formulate how the concept might be applied to the specificities of the sector. However, there is no widely understood or agreed definition of the concept, in particular in the context of the realization of the human rights to water and sanitation. Therefore, clarification of the concept is essential for that sector, which involves a variety of actors related to the realization of those rights, including government entities (i.e., central and local governments and regulators), international organizations, transnational and national corporations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). There is also a feeling that a strong accountability benefits the improved access to water and sanitation services.

This chapter analyzes United Nations environmental politics from 1993 to 2021, focusing heavily on the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), or the “Johannesburg summit,” and the 2012 “Rio+20” United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). The chapter examines the institutional ambiguities created by the 1992 Rio “Earth Summit” and international efforts to address them. It analyzes in detail failed institutional bargaining surrounding WSSD and carries the empirical investigation forward to the Rio+20 summit. The second Rio Earth Summit constituted a Temporal Focal Point in the history of United Nations environment governance and precipitated large-scale institutional change. Among the significant institutional changes emerging from the conference were the transformation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the creation of a High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), and the approval of a process for articulating the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 2030 Agenda. The chapter also provides a brief discussion of more recent UN environmental cooperation, focusing on UNEP, the HLPF, and the SDGs, including progress in combatting climate change and the loss of biodiversity.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development contains a broad set of goals requiring unprecedented global commitment and cooperation between countries (United Nations, 2015d, 2015e). From the human rights perspective, the agenda reflects elements of international human rights law and offers critical opportunities to further advance the realization of human rights for all people everywhere without discrimination (OHCHR, n.d.-c). The challenge posed is to ensure that strategies and policies to implement the 2030 Agenda are effectively based on the established human rights framework. Goal 17 of the Agenda refers to strengthening the means of implementation and “revitalizing the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.” Several targets of Goal 17 aim at the full implementation of official development assistance by developed countries, reaching certain proportions of aid relative to gross national income.

The law of the sea is a great laboratory for observing the fabric of international law through the interactions between a variety of judicial bodies with jurisdiction to interpret and apply the same legal rules and principles. At first, the plurality of judicial fora available under UNCLOS has created concerns of fragmentation and of competition and forum shopping. These have proved so far unwarranted, since the tribunals generally deliver a uniform interpretation of the applicable law or tend at least toward harmonization. Tribunals have aimed to achieve clarity and consistency of the case law as well as transparency and predictability of the delimitation process. The concept of acquis judiciaire has been used to designate this mechanism of gradual building of a uniform law through the reiteration and cross-referral to existing judicial decisions. It is both a concept and a regulatory tool. It underlies a wilful search of harmonization and shows that judges are essential actors for ensuring the coherence of the international legal system.

Human rights have become a principle and a value that have increasingly gained the support of various segments of society. Human rights are often associated with democracy, the rule of law, the civilizing process and human dignity. They are also associated with the idea that everyone, anywhere and regardless of their citizenship status, has basic rights, which must be respected by others and the state (see, among others, Sen, 2004).

A question frequently arises in the field of human rights as to why the rights do not become real, even when they are recognized in legal frameworks. More specifically, how to convert economic, social and cultural rights into concrete reality? Why do not the legal frameworks translate into equality, changing the circumstances of those living in vulnerable conditions? Or, more specifically, what are the conditions that favour or hinder the implementation of ESCR?

By the end of 2019, about 75.9 million people – 26 million refugees, 4.2 million asylum seekers and 45.7 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) – had been forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, armed conflict, other situations of violence or human rights violations (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2020). In addition, millions of migrants are forcibly displaced as a result of extreme poverty, discrimination, climate change, forced evictions and other situations.

This chapter introduces a new framework that analyzes the role of timing and temporality in international institutions and world politics. It describes the temporal coordination dilemmas facing international actors. The chapter details the challenges posed by gradually accumulating incentives to alter international institutions and by the large number of actors that must be brought into the picture if institutional change efforts are to succeed. In realizing major change, a large array of moving pieces must be synchronized at one point in time, entailing considerable complexity and transaction costs. Indeed, the political and analytical investments – both international and domestic in nature – involved in recasting institutions are very substantial. Actors’ willingness to incur a sharp increase in transaction costs depends on their expectations that others will engage in a parallel effort. Thus, even as incentives to alter institutions mount, the inertial drift of institutional life persists until actors are able to reach a temporal convergence of expectations. At that time, actors make substantial investments in change processes and alter fundamentally their bargaining behavior.

This chapter provides a detailed analysis of the state of United Nations environmental cooperation between 1963 and 1972, focusing extensively on the 1972 “Stockholm conference.” It shows how a gradual deterioration of the global environment since the Industrial Revolution produced growing incentives to increase the level of international cooperation in global environmental politics. These incentives lay unrealized for more than a decade, however, until momentum gathered in the lead-up to the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. The Stockholm conference, which became a landmark event, produced substantial institutional change, including a Declaration, Action Plan, and ultimately the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The conference, which was originally planned as a largely technical affair, gathered a momentum that was unanticipated by all when it was initially proposed. This momentum is explained by the emergence of a Temporal Focal Point triggered by a series of visible environmental incidents that highlighted long-standing institutional suboptimality. The Stockholm Temporal Focal Point was crystallized by an entrepreneurial conference secretariat led by Maurice Strong.