Key Idea: Few past-paper parts test this lens yet: 44 marks in 8 parts, most on laws at different scales, UN agreements and making laws work. Expect a Paper 1 'Through the lens of environmental law, suggest how...' [6] and a Paper 2 Section B (c) [9].
1. Laws at three scales (most marks)
- Laws are made at local, national and international level; higher levels override local ones.
- Local: San Francisco's sorting law (2009). National: the US Clean Air Act (1970). International: CITES.
- Zakynthos: EU Habitats Directive, a Greek marine park (1999), nesting beaches closed at night.
2. UN conventions and protocols
- A convention sets the goal; a protocol adds binding targets: Vienna (1985), then Montreal (1987).
- Montreal worked: every country ratified it by 2009, and about 99% of ozone-destroying chemicals are gone.
- Kyoto (1997) bound few countries; Paris (2015) covers all, but world emissions still rose.
3. Making law work
- A law only works if it is enforced: monitoring, fines and courts.
- Brazil: satellite alerts and IBAMA raids cut Amazon clearing from 27,772 km² (2004) to 4,571 km² (2012).
- When enforcement fell (2019-2022), clearing rose again, to 13,038 km² in 2021.
How it is examined:
| Question | How to score |
|---|---|
| [6] Paper 1: Through the lens of law, suggest how X could lead to Y | A chain of linked points; name a law, treaty, court or fine in each step. Without the law link, at most [4]. |
| [4] Explain how a species is protected at different levels | Top down, one level per point: IUCN or EU listing, the national plan, the park's own local rules. |
| [4] Outline arguments for and against funding a UN environment body | For: a shared problem, rich countries' past pollution. Against: national control, no legal duty to pay. |
| [2] Outline why national laws struggle with a problem | The causes cross borders or are natural; enforcement is weak; laws are slow to make. |
| [9] Paper 2 Section B (c), with a lens: have laws or treaties worked? | Named agreements at different scales, successes against failures, then a clear judgement. |
| [1] State an advantage of international standards | One standard everywhere, set by international science, not national politics. |
Key terms, one line each:
| Term | In one line |
|---|---|
| Convention | an international agreement that sets shared goals |
| Protocol | an agreement under a convention that adds binding targets |
| Ratify | a country formally agrees to be bound by a treaty |
| Enforcement | making sure a law is obeyed, by monitoring, fines and courts |
| Transboundary issue | an environmental problem that crosses national borders |
| Environmental constitutionalism | writing environmental rights or duties into a country's constitution |
| Legal personhood | giving a river or forest legal rights, with people who can go to court for it |
Last-minute check: answer, then tap to see.
A local rule clashes with a national law. Which wins? The national law: higher levels override local ones.
How does a protocol differ from a convention? A convention sets the goal; a protocol adds binding targets, as Montreal did under Vienna.
Why did Amazon clearing rise again after 2019? Enforcement and fines by IBAMA fell sharply in 2019-2022.
Name a river that is a legal person. The Whanganui River, New Zealand (2017), with two guardians to act for it.
In 1987 countries signed the Montreal Protocol, under the Vienna Convention (1985), to phase out CFCs and other chemicals that destroy the ozone layer. Through the lens of environmental law, suggest how this protocol could lead to the recovery of the ozone layer.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Exam tips
- Through the lens of law: name the law, treaty or court in every step of the chain.
- Give the scale of each law: local, national or international.
- Judge a treaty by its results: Montreal (ozone recovering) against Paris (emissions still rose).
- In a [9], weigh successes and failures at different scales, then give a clear judgement.