Command and control regulation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:28, 20 July 2021

Revision as of 20:57, 1 August 2022

Line 69:

The traditional model of command and control typically involved areas of environmental concern being dealt with by national governments. In recent decades, transboundary environmental problems have risen in prominence. This shift has exposed many of the limitations of a command and control approach when it is applied to a larger and more complex arena.<ref name="james">Evans, J. (2012) Environmental Governance. ''Elsevier.''</ref>

Climate change is often used to exemplify the perceived failings of this regulatory approach. Climate change is good example of a concern that is complex, full of uncertainties and difficult for many people to understand.<ref name="downie">Downie, D. (2005) Global environmental policy: governance through regimes. ''In: Axelrod, R., Downie, D., Vig, N. (Eds.) The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy. 2nd ed.'' Washington DC: CQ pass. pp. 64-82.</ref> This may gohelp someway in explainingexplain the apparent incompatibility of climate change and a CAC approach. Mitigating climate change requires action of a much more proactive nature than traditional CAC models are able to deliver.

One reason for the lack of compatibility with many international environmental agreements is the manner in which the international community is organised. International law cannot be implemented in the same way as law at national level.<ref name="hunter">Hunter, D., Salzman, J., Zaelke, D. (2002) International Environmental Law and Policy. New York: Foundation Press</ref> Given that the CAC approach relies heavily on prohibiting certain activities and then enforcing it through sanctions makes the scaling-up to international level problematic. Without a strong international enforcement body it is unlikely that CAC will be an effective tool for dealing with most transboundary environmental issues, climate change included.<ref name="downie"/>