Reading Comprehension

PT154 · S3 · P4 · Q22 International Environmental Conflicts

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

In the absence of international statutes prohibiting nations from causing each other environmental damage, scholars of international environmental law typically focus on trying to identify and clarify norms of “customary international law”: that body of commonly accepted—but not formalized—legal principles that is manifest in the behavior of nations toward one another.

Topic

The limits of using customary international law to address international environmental issues

Framework

Challenge Position (the author critiques the idea that certain environmental "norms" are truly customary international law)

Main Point

Many supposed norms of customary international environmental law, such as preventing transboundary harm and following the precautionary principle, are not reflected in what nations actually do, so scholars are misguided in relying on "customary international law" to resolve international environmental cases. Instead, more attention should be given to how these principles influence negotiations and treaties. The Most Valuable Sentence: The final paragraph, especially:

P1: The Role of Customary International Law in Environmental Issues

This paragraph explains that, since there aren't formal international statutes against causing cross-border environmental damage, scholars look to "customary international law"—widely accepted but unofficial rules. Two key principles are often cited: preventing transboundary harm and following the precautionary principle to avoid risking environmental damage to other nations.

P2: The Flaw in Calling These Principles Customary Law

Here, the author says that for a principle to count as customary international law, nations must actually follow it, not just praise it. But in reality, many nations don't actually act on these principles—they just say they support them while continuing to allow pollution.

P3: The Reality of "Norms"—More Ideals Than Laws

The passage highlights that though nations and scholars say they focus on what countries really do, in practice they care more about what nations claim to support. These environmental "norms" are more about shared ideals and rhetoric than actual legal practice, and shouldn't really be seen as customary law.

22.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by information in the passage?

Because of their long-standing preoccupation
Too Strong: long-standing preoccupation
The final paragraph involves the author de-emphasizing international courts, so in that sense this feels like it's going against the drift of the passage. But the loaded ideas of "long-standing preoccupation with principles" and "well prepared to make balanced decisions" don't have any support. "International courts" are mentioned once in the passage, in the middle of the 3rd paragraph, and nothing like this answer choice is said in that sentence.
1% picked this
The precautionary principle is not
Too Strong: not concerned
We only hear about the precautionary principle in the final sentence of the 1st paragraph. Nothing in that sentence excludes the government's relationship to private industries in its borders. If anything, since this principle requires nations to exercise due care to avoid putting other nations at significant risk of environmental harm, this principle would potentially motivate a government to intervene if one of its private industries were exporting something to other countries that could cause environmental harm there.
4% picked this
Correct
Nations are rarely held legally
Why this is right
Modern RC sections are increasingly willing to give us correct answers like this, where the support is very thin, but it's better than anything else we've got. The 2nd paragraph informs us that what scholars consider to be norms are often just environmental ideals that a country may have, even if their behavior does not match that ideal. Certain principles, like transboundary harm and precautionary principle, are considered by scholars to be norms (they are purported to be norms). Many nations violate these principles/norms: harmful pollutants constantly cross most international borders, and nations have only rarely attempted to remedy this situation. The fact that nations are constantly violating these principles/norms and rarely attempting to remedy the situation suggests that they are not being held legally accountable for the violations. We also hear in the final paragraph that, "international treaties and direct negotiations, rather than international court decisions, are now the principal means of resolving international environmental disputes", which adds to the notion that nations are rarely held legally accountable (they are rarely being scolded by international court decisions). This answer essentially combines a few of the author's big ideas: 1. countries PROFESS to follow certain principles, but they don't. They violate them constantly 2. scholars for some dumb reason still treat these principles as "norms", even though norms are supposed to reflect actual practice, not just beliefs. 3. international court decisions are not where environmental action/consequences are happening nowadays; it's more about treaties and negotiations.
Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
84% picked this
Most violations of customary international
Too Strong: most Unsupported Causal Relationship
Nowhere in the passage can we get that more than 51% of violations of customary environmental laws are caused by disagreements above what should be considered customary law. It seems just as likely from what is / isn't in this passage, that most violations of environmental law are because industries are able to be more profitable when they don't need to worry about safeguarding other countries from environmental harm. The first sentence of the final paragraph seems to offer some counterevidence to this answer: nations only rarely abide by these "norms", but they nevertheless routinely profess to accept them. This suggests that there is broad agreement about what sort of standards would be desirable, and a customary practice of espousing those norms as desirable ideals, but countries don't actually behave that way.
7% picked this
Established norms of customary international
Out of Scope: airborne pollutants
Nothing in the passage ever talks about airborne pollutants, so we have no support for the idea that "certain norms that primarily address airborne pollutants are outdated".
4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free