Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:59:44.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

North-South Polarity in Inter-American Environmental Affairs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Steven Sanderson
Steven Sanderson*
Affiliation:
Tropical Conservation and Development Program in the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the conclusion of the Earth Summit - or, more formally, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) - in 1992, the world's political leaders have had to deal with an ambitious environmental agenda whose mission is nothing short of saving the biosphere, a spectacular quest that carries an equally impressive price tag. The acceleration of a global environmental agenda over the first part of the 1990s, combined with the accumulated commitments of earlier years - of which the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES), the Ivory Ban, and the Montreal Protocol, are among the most prominent - and the high profile assigned to the environment by the Clinton administration, mean that the December 1994 Hemispheric Summit in Miami will have the opportunity (and the challenge) to set a new environmental agenda.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs , Volume 36 , Issue 3: Special Issue: The Summit of the Americas - Issues to Consider , Fall 1994 , pp. 25 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Awori, H. (1994) “Science: NGOs Frustrate World Bank Attempt to Control Gene Banks.” Inter-Press Service June 27).Google Scholar
Cline, W. (1992) The Economics of Global Warming. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics (HE).Google Scholar
Cycon, D. (1991) “When Worlds Collide: Law, Development and Indigenous People.” New England Law Review 25: 761–794.Google Scholar
Esty, D. (1994) Greening of the GATT: Trade, the Environment, and the Future. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics (HE).Google Scholar
Gunderson, L, Holling, C., and Light, S. (eds.) (1994) Barriers and Bridges to Regional Ecosystem Renewal. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holling, C. (1986) “Resilience of Ecosystems; Local Surprise and Global Change,” pp. 292–317 in Clark, W.C. and Munn, R.E. (eds.) Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holling, C. and Sanderson, S. (1994) “Comparing Ecological and Social Systems. Paper prepared for the Beier Institute of Ecological Economics in Stockholm (Sweden).Google Scholar
McNeely, J., Miller, K., Reid, W., Mittermeier, R., and Werner, T. (1990) Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).Google Scholar
National Research Council (1994). Science Priorities for the Human Dimensions of Global Change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council Committee on Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment in the Humid Tropics (1993) Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment in the Humid Tropics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, R. (1977) The Weak in the World of the Strong. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Said, E. (1993) Culture and Imperialism. New York, NY: Vintage.Google Scholar
Sanderson, S. (1992) The Politics of Trade in Latin American Development. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Sanderson, S. and Redford, K. (1993) “Naming, Claiming and Distributing Biota: Biodiversity Politics and the Contest for Ownership of the World's Biodiversity.” Plenary paper for “After the Ark: Exploring Solutions to the Tropical Biodiversity Crisis,” sponsored by the Center for Tropical Conservation, Duke University, and the Howard Gilman Foundation.Google Scholar
Tennant, C. (1994) “Indigenous Peoples, International Institutions, and the International Legal Literature from 1945-1993.” Human Rights Quarterly 16: 1–57.Google Scholar
Tucker, R. (1977) The Inequality of Nations. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
United Nations. Comisión de Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente de América Latina y el Caribe. (1990) Nuestra Propia Agenda sobre Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente. México, DF: United Nations Development Program, Inter-American Development Bank, and Fondo de Cultura Economica.Google Scholar
United Nations. Comisión de Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente de America Latina y el Caribe. Food and Agriculture Organization. (UN-FAO) (1993). Forest Resources Assessment, 1990: Tropical Countries. Rome, Italy: UN-FAO.Google Scholar
United States. President of the United States. (US-President) (1993). “Message from the President of the United States Transmitting the Convention on Biological Diversity, With Annexes, Done at Rio de Janeiro June 5, 1992, and Signed by the United States at New York on June 4, 1993.” Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
United States. President of the United States. (US-President) Bureau of National Affairs. (US-BNA) (1994) “US Biotech Industry Lends Support for Talks on International Biosafety Pact.” BNA Chemical Regulation Daily (7 July).Google Scholar
White, R. (1993) North, South, and the Environmental Crisis. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
World Resources Institute (WRI) (1994) World Resources, 1994-1995. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar