International Environmental Conflicts

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong5% picked this

   Until extensive empirical studies determine the rate of international conformity to principles of international environmental law, environmental treaties

   We can't really support this strongly worded notion that, "Until X happens, Y will be largely ineffective" from either party. The author, in particular, thinks that treaties and negotiations are our better hope of effectively holding nations to appropriate standards of environmental conduct, so this sounds too pessimistic for her.

   5%
2. B

   Unsupported for Scholars17% picked this

   Judicial decisions that are grounded in customary international law have proven less effective than direct negotiations in

   This answer sounds more like where these two parties diverge. It sounds like something the author would say as a way of objecting to what the scholars are currently doing. The scholars believe in the effectiveness of court decisions grounded in customary international law. The author thinks that we're more likely to be effective by going after negotiations and treaties, and treating these professed principles as ideals rather than norms.

   17%
3. C

   Unsupported for Scholars15% picked this

   If it is difficult to ascertain whether a particular nation generally acts in accordance with the precautionary principle, that principle is not a norm

   This answer sounds more like where these two parties diverge. It sounds like something the author would say as a way of objecting to what the scholars are currently doing. The scholars have been treating precautionary principle as a norm, even when nations don't seem to be acting in accord with it. The author (and this answer) say that's the wrong way to handle it.

   15%
4. D

   Correct54% picked this

   If it can be shown conclusively that nations generally do not act in accordance with a principle, that principle cannot be legitimately considered

   Why this is right

   This is very similar to (C), so it would probably provoke us to go find what wording there is on this topic. Do we ever define a ground-rule for when a principle can / can't be considered a norm of customary international law? Yes, the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph: In debating whether a given principle should be classified as a norm of customary law ... scholars generally accept an established criterion: Principles are norms, only if X applies. (By contrapositive, if X doesn't apply, a principle cannot be considered a norm) If nations do not customarily then the abide by the principles in principle should actual practice rather than ? not be classified merely affirming them as as a norm of desirable standards custom int'l law The scholars are supposed to agree with this because it says "scholars generally accept" this rule. And the author seemingly agrees with it, because he keeps yelling at these scholars as the passage continues that they are treating principles as norms when they should be (since nations aren't actually obeying these principles in practice).

   Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   54%
5. E

   Too Strong8% picked this

   Until a large percentage of nations enact treaties embodying the norms of customary international environmental law, there will be no reliable basis

   We can't really support this strongly worded notion that, "Until X happens, there will be no reliable basis for Y." Neither the author nor the scholars ever discussed a crucial threshold of "large percentage of nations enacting treaties embodying certain norms" as a requirement for having any reliable basis for deciding disputes.

   8%