Browsing by Subject "http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p28446"

The thesis deals with multilateral negotiations under the United Nations on the sustainable use and protection of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, i.e., the high seas (BBNJ negotiations). The object of research is how the environmental impact assessment (EIA) will be internationalized in the new BBNJ treaty: how strongly should the EIA process remain within the jurisdiction of states or be managed by global institutions that are being established. By comparing the positions of the negotiating parties on internationalization of EIA, characteristics and challenges of multilateral environmental negotiations aimed at consensus can be viewed. The thesis examines the positions of the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) and the United States on the internationalization of EIA. The first three rounds of intergovernmental negotiations in 2018-2019 are covered. The materials used in the theory-driven content analysis are UN documents on the negotiations in addition to which the views of the negotiating parties are compared based on the negotiation reports of International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) as well as the parties’ statements. The connection PSIDS and the United States have to the ocean is mapped using versatile sources, including research literature and statistics. The negotiations are studied using Andrew Moravcsik's theory of liberal intergovernmentalism. The central concept guiding the negotiation analysis is asymmetric interdependence according to which the parties have different levels of negotiation power depending on their need for the new agreement. The analysis shows clear differences of opinion between the two parties on internationalization of EIA: PSIDS supported the internationalization of EIA more compared to the United States, who wanted to keep EIA largely state-led without the supervision of a supranational instruments. The positions can be understood through the parties' issue-specific preferences deriving from their connection to the ocean as well as the benefits and costs of the agreement. PSIDS has a strong connection to the ocean economically, culturally and socially: the states are often dependent on ocean resources. The United States, on the other hand, is a great power that benefits from using high seas resources, but on the other hand, is not as dependent on the well- being of marine biodiversity as PSIDS. In general, international integration of the EIA could be considered relatively more important for PSIDS, while the US had relatively less incentive to coordinate EIA policies internationally. The United States would be better able to cope with the obligations of the agreement on its own, due to its strong national capacities. Thus, following Moravcsik, it can be argued that the United States also had more negotiating power than PSIDS. The next step in the research would be to investigate the final agreement reached in the spring of 2023: how has the EIA been internationalized and whose voice can be heard in the final treaty text.