E3G

Europe’s Mars Mission

By John Ashton

The Spring 2004 edition of ‘Inside Track’ - the magazine of Green Alliance - was a special edition entitled “All in the same boat: what the US/Europe relationship means for the environment”. John Ashton contributed an article - the text follows below, and can also be found on page 8 of the attached pdf version.

Get used to it: Europeans and Americans are both from Earth

The current dysfunctional state of transatlantic dealings on the environment has deep cultural roots. Noone should imagine that Europe and America will stop talking past each other on issues from climate change to GMO’s and the role of international institutions simply because of a change in US Administration.

The rule of law is fundamental on both sides of the Atlantic. But it operates in different ways. In the US, law is explicit. It must include provision for every circumstance. There is little discretion to interpret the law, even if its rigid application leads to absurdity.

The law is embedded in the founding experience of modern America: as settlers streamed westward, departing wagon trains would agree their own constitutions to govern their affairs on the journey. There were no rules already in place, so everyone got involved in deciding them. From these roots, the letter of the law is everything.

In Europe - whether in common law or Napoleonic jurisdictions - the law has evolved organically, woven out of a richer tapestry of custom and practise. It is a matter of interpretation as well as code. Discretion to interpret the law comes with the job for courts and administrators. A stronger sense of the underlying purpose of laws guides their application. In Europe, the spirit of the law can matter more than its letter.

The EU is thus happy to subject its choices on biosafety or hazardous chemicals to the legally indeterminate precautionary principle. When US negotiators object, that is not necessarily because they are in the grip of corporations with a disregard for those at environmental risk. Rather, it is culturally more difficult for Americans to accept binding commitments without precise rules covering every circumstance in which they might be applied.