Reading Comprehension

PT154 · S3 · P4 · Q23 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.

23.

The author claims that which one of the following is true of the precautionary principle and the principle that nations should prevent transboundary harm?

They have commonly been used
Opposite, if anything
The first sentence of the passage tells us that there aren't any international statutes prohibiting nations from causing each other environmental damage. The passage never talks about drafting formal statutes, so we couldn't support this answer. But given that we're told there aren't any statutes we seem to have counter-support.
5% picked this
Correct
They reflect standards that nations
Why this is right
This is a weird way of expressing our 2nd idea: - nations profess to believe these principles, but their actions often go against them. The idea that author is selling us in the 2nd paragraph is that these principles are things a nation will pretend to believe, when it's time to complain about some other nation, but a nation will cast aside these principles when it comes to their own behavior. "Do as I say, not as I do." In the 3rd paragraph it says: In reality, international environmental "norms" primarily reflect the evaluative standards that nations use to ... criticize the actions of other nations. Since the author is putting "norms" in quotes, she is alluding back to the first paragraph, where scholars often hold that the precautionary principle and transboundary harm principle are international environmental norms.
Skill tested: Locate Detail · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
80% picked this
Scholars have not reached a
Out of Scope: hard to distinguish
The passage never discusses any issues that scholars have had in de-coupling these two principles from other environmental principles.
5% picked this
Scholars have debated whether their
Out of Scope: inhibit negotiations
Nothing in the passage talks about scholars who are worried that these two principles might inhibit negotiations. "Negotiations" are not brought up until the final paragraph, at which point the author has moved on to a new topic. So the discussion of 'negotiations' isn't even relevant to these two principles. The author's final paragraph is saying, "Instead of worrying about these two principles, scholars should be looking more at treaties and negotiations."
4% picked this
They are often held to
Unrelated: treaty formation
The first paragraph says that these principles are often held to be "established norms of customary international law". Nothing in the passage connects these two principles (or connects established norms) to treaty formation. "Treaty formation" is not brought up until the final paragraph, at which point the author has moved on to a new topic. So the discussion of 'treaty formation' isn't relevant to these two principles. The author's final paragraph is saying, "Instead of worrying about these two principles or looking for other supposed norms, scholars should be looking more at treaty formation and direct negotiations."
6% 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