Why States Disobey International Law: Compliance Theories Explained

The MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verification) module addresses transparency requirements under the Paris Agreement. Key components include: (1) Mitigation - assessing progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through historical inventories and future projections, plus monitoring individual mitigation actions; (2) Adaptation - monitoring and evaluating adaptation actions to understand their impacts; (3) Finance - tracking incoming climate finance flows (international and national, public and private), their allocation to projects/programs, and resulting impacts. Key activities include: (1) Setting up institutional arrangements including MRV steering groups, defining lead agencies, and establishing rules for data sharing; (2) Assessing data gaps and needs by extending existing reporting systems rather than creating entirely new ones; (3) Designing MRV systems for mitigation, adaptation, and finance; (4) Establishing data management processes including independent verification, internal quality assurance, auditing, data archiving, and stepwise improvement plans; (5) Building capacity for MRV covering all three areas plus UNFCCC reporting requirements and legal documentation for data sharing arrangements; and (6) Continuously improving the MRV system over time.

The Paris Agreement established a strong transparency regime (MRV - Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) to keep countries honest and ensure mutual accountability. This system requires countries to report on their emissions and progress toward targets. The key innovation was moving away from the Kyoto Protocol paradigm where developed countries had intensive reporting requirements while developing countries had minimal requirements. Instead, the Paris Agreement created a single system where everybody is in the same framework, with flexibility for countries with limited capacity. This was crucial because countries are not motivated to act unless they know their competitors and partners are also taking action, addressing the tragedy of the commons problem.

How a country builds its MRV system determines how measurement and reporting is done. In Ghana, the MRV working group includes CSOs, making the process independent because it involves different stakeholders generating data, not just government. For results-based payment programs and carbon markets, there is third-party validation and verification that constitutes independent monitoring. The question of who is doing the monitoring and how the system is structured is what matters most.

Effective Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems for supply chain commitments require specific design principles. An ideal MRV system should not be a privately held certification scheme but rather an open-access public practice that can be used by anyone and owned by no one. Such systems must involve Brazilian civil society organizations and ensure compliance with relevant regulations like the Forest Code. The system should disclose information regularly and specify what data suppliers must gather and report on, enabling downstream customers to carry out proper due diligence and verify supplier compliance independently.

The Protocol is a tool of the MRV system (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification). In this system, first, the slaughterhouse generates information in the monitoring stage. Second, in the reporting stage, this information becomes available. Third, in the verification stage, the information undergoes analysis through a unified audit process in the Brazilian Amazon states. Audits are conducted annually by third-party institutions, and results are published and administered by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office.

In a globalizing world, non-state actors have begun to wield real influence not directly linked to material resources. Transnational corporations engaging in global trade and business have wielded concrete political influence, though much may be malevolent. While negative influences exist from the arms industry and military-industrial complex, today's multinational companies are more genuinely multinational in ownership and methods, with genuine interest in promoting a rules-based world order. Civil society organizations (CSOs) include NGOs, grassroots campaigns, and elite organizations. While CSOs can include beneficial aid organizations, they can also include religious fundamentalist organizations or self-appointed crisis mediators who may be part of the problem. CSOs are welcome new international actors and can achieve significant results, such as the international campaign to ban landmines (awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997) and campaigns to stop the trade in blood diamonds.

Non-state actors play a very important role in diplomacy. Increasingly, more and more organizations are becoming more assertive in their programs and actions, and in terms of providing resources for them to undertake their activities globally. Even though their programs may not achieve immediate results, they register important messages that the international community must reckon with. Non-governmental organizations normally initiate and lead movements, most of which are volunteers. They may be small but can bring people due to their own works and continuous efforts. Civil society movements can break sieges and become the straight voices for those who cannot be heard through traditional diplomatic channels.

The video introduces the concept of Deep State and George Soros as political actors who allegedly work to cause harm to nations. The speaker claims these actors have caused problems in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya by organizing movements among frustrated people. Non-state actors operate by identifying dissatisfied individuals in social and political fields, then providing financial support to leaders to create unrest. The Shahin Bagh case and farmer movements are cited as examples. Foreign foundations like Ford and Rockefeller provided funding to organizations that later opposed the Indian government, raising questions about their true purposes and accountability.

The Commission is not unaware of problems generated by non-state actors including organized crime, paramilitary groups, and increasingly corporate abuses in agroindustry and extractive industries. However, the focus of most human rights organizations has been on state actions and omissions, making the state the fundamental actor in dialogue and claims. Maintaining and strengthening the state's capacity to respond positively to these problems is important for democracies. The system should consider how to engage non-state actors while maintaining focus on state responsibility and strengthening democratic institutions.

While nation-states remain central to international law under the Westphalian system, non-state actors have historically held significant power and have been increasingly important. In the Middle Ages, religious orders like the Knights Templar and Jesuit priests wielded influence rivaling states, even founding countries like Prussia. Chartered companies like the British and Dutch East India Companies exercised state-like powers during colonialism. Modern NGOs, while mostly small, can rival nation-states in scale—BRAC has revenues in the hundreds of millions and tens of thousands of staff. NGOs influence intergovernmental organizations through observer status and formal treaty negotiation seats, as demonstrated by the 1,000+ NGOs that secured a seat at the table for the landmine ban treaty. NGOs also play crucial roles in monitoring compliance with international laws on torture, environmental protection, and chemical weapons bans.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), established in 1946 as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, consists of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms, serving individually rather than as state representatives; the court has two main functions: settling disputes between states through contentious cases (where state consent is required and judgments are binding) and providing advisory opinions to UN bodies on legal questions (which are non-binding); despite its name 'World Court,' its jurisdiction is limited to cases where states have consented to its authority, making it more specialized than its name suggests.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Countries can submit disputes to the ICJ for resolution through legal proceedings. The video explains that Cambodia formally requested the ICJ to resolve border disputes with Thailand following military incidents, demonstrating how international law provides mechanisms for peaceful dispute resolution between nations.

Under international law, the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been recognized as militarily occupied territory since 1967. Israel, as occupant, has the right to protect itself but also has responsibilities to maintain law and order and ensure the well-being of the occupied population. The ICJ case is solely about genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention and will not judge war crimes or crimes against humanity. In previous cases (Bosnia, Myanmar, Ukraine), the court did not order ceasefires except in the Ukraine case, which was different because Ukraine accused Russia of using genocide accusations as justification for invasion. The ICJ has no enforcement powers, and its rulings can only be enforced through the UN Security Council, where the US can veto anything adversely affecting Israel.

The International Court of Justice has specific jurisdictional limitations making it unsuitable for Greece-Turkey disputes. Article 34 of the ICJ Statute restricts parties to sovereign states, meaning the Turkish Cypriot administration cannot be a party. Additionally, the EU itself cannot be a party to ICJ cases as it is a supranational entity. The ICJ selects judges through the five permanent UN Security Council members, meaning Greece would be subject to judges influenced by major powers. Greece and Cyprus should resolve their EEZ delimitation through the EU Court rather than the ICJ, as both are EU member states bound by EU law.

The International Court of Justice settles legal disputes between states that have consented to its jurisdiction. For example, the ICJ has heard cases related to the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir. The Court's decisions are binding on the parties involved, and it also provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred by UN organs and specialized agencies.