Which of the following best represents the dominant values in American society on individual autonomy and self determination?

How can human rights be protected: Where will people go, who decides and how will they get there?

Where will people go? Who owns the land or housing? Who will pay for it? Will people be able to sustain themselves through the livelihood they maintained at their original home? If people are not able to sustain themselves as they had in their home communities, then who will train them so they can sustain themselves at the place they are resettled to? For those who sustained themselves by harvesting foods from the land and ocean, will they be able to continue to do that at the relocation site and if not, how will they be trained to sustain themselves with a different occupation. What will the impact be on the host communities? How long will the place be safe and not vulnerable to accelerating climate risks? These are the questions that need to be asked and answered in order to ensure that people will be able to adapt and survive.

The collected bundle of existing interdependent and mutually reinforcing human rights found within international human rights and humanitarian law must provide the foundation upon which these questions are answered. The right to self-determination is the most important human right to protect in order to ensure that the horrific consequences of government-mandated relocations are not repeated when climate displaces people and they need to find a new home. In the context of climate-forced relocation, the right to self-determination means that communities make the decision of whether, when, and how relocations will occur. For Indigenous peoples, this initial decision to relocate is arguably the most important step in the relocation process because of their cultural and spiritual connection to their lands.

International law supports the importance of self-determination. Both the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establish that “all peoples have the right to self-determination,” by virtue of which “they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development” (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples includes similar provisions. Article 18 states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making processes which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own Indigenous decision-making institutions,” while Article 19 declares that “states shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them” (UNDOCS, 2007). The inclusion of the right to self-determination in these international human rights documents indicates that it is intrinsic to all political, civil, economic, social, and cultural rights and specifically critical to Indigenous peoples. Since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, when the concept of self-determination was initially interpreted to apply to the right of independence, non-interference, and democracy of a nation state in relation to other nation state governments, its interpretation has evolved (Broderstad and Dahl, 2004; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1991). Now, the concept of self-determination also includes the development of self-government institutions in Indigenous communities (Broderstad and Dahl, n.d.).

In addition to the right to self-determination, the following human rights must be the foundation upon which community relocations occur: (U.N. Doc, 2007)

Right to Food: Relocated communities must be able to ensure food security at the relocation site by designing and implementing strategies so that food is accessible, physically and economically, in a sustainable manner.

Right to Health: Relocated communities must have access to health and medical resources.

Right to Work/Improved Standard of Living: States must take effective measures to improve the economic and social conditions of community residents, including in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, and in this way incorporate human development goals into community relocation planning.

Right to Water: Relocated communities must have sufficient amounts of water for their basic household needs, including drinking, cooking, and hygiene.

Right to Housing/Property: The Pinheiro Principles specifically outline the human rights principles that must guide land, housing and property restitution, which is viewed as an essential remedy for displacement (Ctr. on Hous, 2007a). The right to land ownership restitution requires that specific arrangements be made to recognize claims to land title and ownership, especially for indigenous peoples who may not have formal land titles and who may own land collectively (Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, 2008; Ctr. on Hous, 2007b). Three human rights principles apply to community relocations and the right to housing: (1) right to replacement housing, providing adequate protection from weather hazards and located away from hazardous zones, security of tenure, right to land and rights in land, right to property restitution/compensation; (2) right to habitable housing; and (3) the right to choose the place of one's residence.

In order to ensure these rights are embedded in responses to climate-forced displacement, governments should ensure that appropriate laws and policies are developed to address these rights.

The Autonomy Argument

Individual autonomy, that is, the person's right to self-determination, is a fundamental principle in Western philosophy upheld by other schools of thought and all democratic systems of government around the world (Mill, 1991; Cohen, 2004: pp. 65–67; Caplan, 2008). Philosopher John Stuart Mill stated that “The only part of the conduct of any one for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute” (Mill, 1991: p. 31). Does drug addiction – a self-inflicted harm – affect only the drug user? The cumulative evidence on drug addiction demonstrates that psychoactive substance dependence affects not only the individual addict but also his/her loved ones, immediate family, social network, and the larger community. Already in the nineteenth century, Mill recognized the limitations of his own definition of self-determination, limitations that are relevant to this discussion. He explained:

I fully admit that the mischief which the person does to himself may seriously affect, both through their sympathies and their interests, those nearly connected with him, and in a minor degree, society at large. When, by conduct of this sort, a person is led to violate a distinct and assignable obligation to any person or persons, the case is taken out of the self-regarding class, and becomes amenable to moral disapprobation ….

Mill (1991: p. 96).

Following the harm reduction approach, some analysts invoke the right to self-determination to support the consumption of psychoactive drugs as a person's chosen lifestyle and, therefore, an activity for which the psychoactive drug user should not be stigmatized (e.g., Nicholson et al., 2013; Cruz, 2015; Sides, 2015). This interpretation of the fundamental human right to self-determination is a deviation from the principle as intended by John Stuart Mill and reveals a certain degree of ambivalence among experts. For example, Alan Leshner, an American clinician and former Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, laments that “Society has viewed addicts as being responsible for their problems.” But he adds, “In some sense that is true. Initial drug use is a voluntary behavior. However, over time, users lose control over their drug use and become addicted” (Leshner, 2003: pp. 47–56).

The drug user's right to self-determination is also commonly cited to advocate the provision of voluntary – and subsidized – alternative drug treatments (such as methadone), the ‘needle and syringe’ program (NSP), and the legitimization of hard drugs (Nicholson et al., 2012, 2013; Sides, 2015). One of many illustrations of the implementation of this perspective is the ‘Stockholm experiment’ conducted by the Swedish National Medical Board from 1963 to 1965. The objective of that experiment was to limit ‘the harmful effects of drug use, both in society and individual abusers’ following ‘a liberal and nonauthoritarian view on drug prescription’ whereby drug users were legally prescribed opiates and amphetamines ‘under medical supervision’ but “they were in practice free to decide on their own dosages. If they had finished their prescriptions, they could easily request more drugs” (UNODC, 2007: p. 12). The experiment failed when investigations revealed that “many patients supplied friends and acquaintances with considerable quantities of narcotic drugs obtained on prescription,” prescribed drugs found their way to ‘the illicit drug market,’ and there was sharing of drugs among addicts. These problems were reflected in the increase in the proportion of arrests involving injecting drug abusers in Stockholm ‘from 20% in 1965 to 33% in 1967’ (UNODC, 2007: p. 12). About the same time that the liberal drugs prescription experiment was launched, a welfare official's study of juvenile injecting drug users highlighted the danger of ‘prescribing amphetamine to amphetamine users.’ The official was Nild Bejerot who is considered ‘the founding father of Swedish drug control policy’ (UNODC, 2007: p. 12).

A prominent deficiency of the autonomy or self-determination argument when applied to the discussion of harm reduction in drug addiction is the presumption of freedom of choice. Indeed, the principle of self-determination is based on the logical assumption that the individual is authentically autonomous only when he/she is able to make rational choices, for example, to choose the most beneficial course of action out of a range of alternatives. The presumption that people addicted to drugs are able to exercise authentic autonomy is at the core of the recommendations made by the Reference Group to the United Nations on voluntary treatments for drug dependence (UN, 2010b: pp. 22–25). Unfortunately, this presumption is erroneous: research indicates that making treatment services accessible is not enough because the affected person's ability to make rational choices to protect or enhance his/her well-being is absent or seriously impaired by drug addiction (Caplan, 2008). The deterioration of brain function caused by illicit drug use is well documented (e.g., Barbarin, 1979; Hammer et al., 1997; Kreek, 2000; Van Wormer and Davis, 2003: pp. 95–171; Nasrallah and Smeltzer, 2003: p. 129; Carlezon and Konradi, 2004: p. 48; Uhl, 2004; Verdejo-Garcia and Bechare, 2009; Doweiko, 2009; De Leon, 2010; Meier et al., 2012). Scientist Harold Doweiko summarizes it thus:

Repeated exposure to the drugs of abuse initiates a process of ‘restructuring’ in the brain's reward system, memory centers, and the higher cortical functions that control reward-seeking behavior. Strong drug-centered memories are formed, helping to guide the individual to select behavioral choices that lead to further drug-induced rewards.…Essentially, a normal biological process that evolved to help early humans survived in the wild has been subverted by the reward potential of the compounds that they have invented.

Doweiko (2009: p. 34).

This deterioration of the addict's ability to make rational choices on his/her own is equated with becoming enslaved by the drug. Medical expert and law professor Peter Cohen (2004: p. 67) explains: “Some have proposed that drug dependence is analogous to slavery, a suggestion that is not unreasonable in terms of the concepts presented [by medical scientists] … The ability to suppress external reality and to deny disease is not unique to drug addicts and is present in other brain diseases.”

A clear illustration of the truthfulness of this argument is the negative reaction from advocates of the harm reduction approach. Referring to the New Recovery Movement in Australia and the leadership of mental health professionals, the organization Harm Reduction International declared in 2012:

… the emergence of the ‘new recovery’ movement … is particularly threatening to harm reduction … [and] raises concerns about mental health providers taking the lead in harm reduction services. … [A]lthough mental health provision is an extremely important component of a comprehensive package for drug users, it is dangerous to subsume all drug services under this label, as it suggests that PWUD [people who use drugs] are ‘unwell’ and unable to make informed decisions, thereby undermining efforts to support active drug users to self-organise and advocate.

HRI (2012: p. 176).

This major limitation of the autonomy argument brings us to the discussion of the alternative argument: ethical intervention.

Abstract

Coastal Indigenous Peoples around the world continue to rely on marine ecosystems as central components of culture, tradition, food, livelihoods, and self-determination. Their ecological knowledge has been recognized as important to integrate within resource management and environmental conservation strategies, yet there is a need for much broader inclusion and recognition for their world views in national and international policies. For Indigenous Peoples, fisheries and marine ecosystems form a fundamental part of culture and can be used to convey knowledge and traditions beyond the use or management of resources themselves. Many of the challenges faced by coastal Indigenous peoples are shared with non-Indigenous communities that are similarly exposed and vulnerable to multiple pressures from global climate and economic change, and a focus on equitable policies need not only benefit Indigenous communities. Nevertheless, we must recognize that the cultural importance of fishing as a fundamental aspect of self-identity is particularly salient among coastal Indigenous peoples, for whom the practice of fishing can be as important as the catching of fish.

Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Determine Their Own Development

Because of their history, values and way of life, the UN human rights framework recognizes specific rights for indigenous peoples. Two agreements are fundamental in this.

ILO (1989), the International Labour Organisation (ILO) adopted Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. The convention states that indigenous peoples shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development and to exercise control over their own economic, social, and cultural development. From this self-determination of their own development, the convention derives that indigenous peoples must, in case of measures which may affect them directly, be consulted through appropriate procedures. Such consultations shall be undertaken by the State with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures. The ILO Convention 169 states expressly that the rights of the people concerned to the natural resources pertaining to their lands shall be specially safeguarded. The right of indigenous peoples to be consulted is also referred to in issues relating to land and resources. In article 16 on the issue of relocations, the term of free and informed consent is introduced.

The right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) is incorporated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007, as a general duty which States must comply with before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect these peoples. This includes any measure that negatively affects the specific values and way of life of the indigenous peoples. A significant and direct impact on indigenous peoples’ lives or territories is not permitted without FPIC by those affected (Anaya, 2009).

The right to FPIC is not an abstract right, but rather the precondition for respecting a large number of other rights, such as the right to participation, the right to information, and the right to self-determination. As a result of its incorporation and elaboration by other UN Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures, the right to consultation of indigenous peoples is now widely recognized, even though the 2007 UN Declaration is not binding. However, there are no consolidated standards as to what exactly FPIC requires. Correspondingly, different interpretations exist. According to First People Worldwide,3 the following definition may be possible:

Definition of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent

The “Otherness” of Arctic Native Cultures

Human beings tend to shun people and cultures with which they are not familiar. This has certainly been true for most of the history of interactions between Europeans and Native peoples of the Arctic, before the era of self-determination of Arctic Native peoples (much of it still a work in progress). One of the clearest indications of Western society’s view of Arctic natives can be seen in the education of Native children. Take, for example, the case of Alaskan Native schooling. As reviewed by Barnhardt (2001), policymakers at local, state, and federal levels have initiated education reforms for Alaska and Alaska Native students solely based on short-term localized considerations, or research conclusions drawn from conditions outside of Alaska. This has been a theme throughout the history of reforms in the state, and it continues today as the state looks to the “Lower 48” for quick-fix solutions to long-standing schooling challenges.

In the late 1800s, the federal government established day schools in Alaskan villages and a limited number of state vocational boarding schools. The instruction was provided in the three “R’s,” in industrial skills, and patriotic citizenship. A strict “English-Only” policy prevailed, and students caught speaking their native language were punished. As a result of this, a whole generation of Alaskan Natives grew up not knowing their own language or cultural connections.

In the early 20th century, a dual system of education was initiated, with schools for Alaska Native students run by the Federal Bureau of Education, and schools for white children and a small number of “civilized” Native children operated by the Territory of Alaska and incorporated towns. In recent decades, groups of Alaska Native educators have attempted to find alternatives to federal and state educational reforms by building on the past and the wisdom of their elders.

Such was the novelty of the natives of Arctic North America, lumped together under the name “Eskimos,” that individuals and small groups were put on display in exhibitions in Europe and North America from 1824 to 1909.

Mistrust of natives, such as the Inupiat people of northwest Alaska, can turn up in surprising and shocking ways. On a visit to a research station in this region, run by federal employees from the lower 48 states, I was warned that it was too dangerous to go into town on my own because the Natives were likely to cut my throat and rob me. As far as I could tell, this fear of Native Alaskans was not based on anything rational. Rather, it represented an extreme case of distrust of the Natives because of their “otherness.”

The combination of the frontier mentality, the remoteness of federal governments, and the distrust of the “otherness” of Arctic Natives by people of European origin has wrought havoc with cultural relations between groups. It has also taken a heavy toll on the natural environments of the Arctic. Sadly, these attitudes continue to cast a long shadow over the North. They still shape the attitudes of infrastructure engineers. At first, these people tried to ignore the permafrost swells upon which they were attempting to build structures, roads, railbeds, oil and gas pipelines, and oil drilling sites. Not surprisingly, ignoring such major problems did not make them go away. The ground was going to be unstable and therefore from an engineering sense “uncooperative,” unless the engineers gave it the respect it deserved. In fact, the only way to keep frozen soils stable is to make sure that they do not thaw. The only way to prevent their thawing is to keep them cold through various insulation materials and techniques. I find it startling that the engineers from one country have failed to pay attention to proven engineering techniques in other countries where permafrost has posed problems. For instance, consider the Chinese attempt to bury oil pipelines beneath the permafrost surface on the Tibetan plateau. The Golmud-Lhasa oil pipeline was completed in 1977—the same year as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The engineers building the latter pipeline in Alaska employed thermosiphon technology and placed the pipeline on stilts to further ensure the stability of the underlying permafrost. The pipeline itself was built on a zigzag pattern so that expansion and contraction of the pipe would not cause breakage. Keep in mind that thermosiphon technology was not new in the 1970s. American inventor William Bailey developed a working model in 1909. More specifically, thermosiphon systems have been used for stabilizing permafrost since 1960. Why, then, did the Chinese ignore this seemingly obvious solution to permafrost degradation, rather than burying their oil pipeline in the frozen soil and hoping for the best? Was it because the technology came from the United States? The building of the Chinese pipeline took place just after the ‘Cultural Revolution’ in China, so political considerations may have played the dominant role in this decision.

Children as Study Persons

Nowadays, it is clear that research with children and on children is necessary within both clinical and environmental fields, to provide age-specific and relevant data regarding the efficacy and safety of medical treatments, and regarding assessment of risk from unintended or accidental environmental exposure. The inclusion of children in epidemiological studies and clinical trials were avoided from the doing no harm perspective resulting in lack of appropriate data for risk assessment and for dosing of medicinal compounds.

In this context, the stakeholders are many, including children and their parents, physicians and public health researchers, and the society as a whole, with its ethical, regulatory, administrative, and political components (Fig. 1, adapted from Pedersen et al).

Seeking consent/assent for participation in research is required by the application of traditional moral theory or principles such as those that are reported in the Code of Medical Ethics.

Seeking a person’s consent respects their basic right to self-determination (Autonomy). Individuals are best placed to determine what is their best interest and the only justification for infringing this right is to prevent harm to others.

Obtaining consent confers benefit by encouraging active participation of individuals in investigation and treatments, which are intended to restore their health (Beneficence).

Obtaining consent protects patients from the physical and psychological harms that may occur as a result of illness or its treatment (Nonmaleficence).

Obtaining consent involves treating others in a way in which people would expect to be treated themselves. The universal need to obtain consent also involves treating people justly (Justice).

Society and social structures are essential to the existence of the individual. Obtaining consent will broaden the views of the community and its altruism (Community Spirit and Solidarity).

Each research project to be conducted in human beings must be carefully reviewed by a research ethics committee Regional Ethics Committees (REC) for approval. Since it is unethical to carry out studies that cannot give scientific answers, it is important that these committees consider the following questions:

Does the study have a real question or questions?

Is the study designed in the best possible way to answer the questions (test the hypotheses)?

Will the study work in practice (feasibility)?

What are the risks and burdens for the research subjects involved?

Are the results of the study to be published in peer review journals?

Is data protection ensured and eventual future use of data and spare sample properly addressed?

When the REC is convinced that the study is properly designed and the risks for participants will be null or acceptable (low or minimal, considering the benefits) the study can be approved. A REC should consist of different members with different backgrounds, including pharmacists, statisticians, an ethicist, nurses, and of course medical doctors. The Committee should have members with experience in pediatric research.

Conclusion

Contraception and abortion are ethical when they result from informed, voluntary decisions by individual women. They support the woman's agency and authority over her own life. They reflect the principle of bodily autonomy and maximize women's opportunities to be healthy. In situations in which it is possible to provide contraception and safe abortion, these minimize maternal and infant deaths and enhance the health and social well-being of women and children. It is ethical to provide fertility control services for these reasons.

Self-determination and access to contraception and safe abortion are not harmful to women. In contrast, many maternal deaths are caused by unsafe abortion and childbirth without health care. Access to all forms of fertility control, including contraception and safe abortion, is contested across the world, with negative consequences for public health.

Although there are competing claims over a pregnancy, these do not outweigh the ethical value accorded to the autonomy of women and the benefits that flow from self-determination.

The ethical principle of justice supports access to health services for all people. Equitable and confidential access to contraception and abortion are part of any comprehensive public health system.

Contraception and abortion are not the only means of supporting women's self-determination, ability to maximize their health potential, or their ability to raise healthy children. Education and economic independence are critical in supporting the well-being of women and their dependents.

GRAS Ingredients

Also in 1958, it was recognized that expertise other than that in the FDA could be utilized to determine the safety of foods and food ingredients. Statutory language states that a substance is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) and thus outside the scope of the food additive definition if it is “recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and expertise to evaluate its safety, as having been adequately shown through scientific procedures … to be safe under conditions of its intended use ….” Over the years, the Agency has continued to modify this process. There are currently two approaches, the GRAS self-determination (usually managed by the interested company) and the GRAS Notification (managed by the FDA). This latter regulatory process allows a company to submit the details of their successful GRAS self-determination to the FDA, which will critically evaluate all aspects within a predetermined time period. The FDA will then issue a letter to the petitioner and post it publicly on the FDA’s webpage (//www.cfsan.fda.gov). The letter with the best outcome for the submitter may be interpreted as an affirmation of GRAS, but it is a ‘no objection letter,’ that is, the FDA had no objections to the GRAS self-determination. For example, the public letter may read, “Based on the information provided by Company X, as well as other information available to FDA, the Agency has no questions at this time regarding the conclusion of Company X that Ingredient Y is GRAS under the intended conditions of use. The Agency has not, however, made its own determination regarding the GRAS status of the subject use of Ingredient Y. As always, it is the continuing responsibility of Company X to ensure that food ingredients that they market are safe and are otherwise in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.” An alternative response from the FDA is an ‘objection letter,’ which clearly identifies deficiencies in the submitted GRAS Notification.

ISO 14001: what it is and what it is not

ISO 14001 requires that an organization develops an EMS to address all its environmental objectives and targets and describes how each will be achieved. The program must include a specific plan describing the actions required to meet each objective and target, the person(s) responsible for meeting each objective and a detailed time scale of when each target is due to be attained. Objectives and targets are usually prioritized within the program, but all of them must be included (Tansey and Worsley, 1995; //www.trst.com).

One valuable feature of the ISO 14001 standard is the inclusion of a comprehensive and informative annex (Lamprecht, 1996). These core elements are recognized by all the countries (involved) as the minimum that would be acceptable on a global basis (//www.scc.ca.iso14000/). Not surprisingly, the scope of ISO 14001 is very broad and is intended for ‘all types and sizes of organizations’.

The standard is applicable to any company/organization that wishes to:

Implement, maintain and improve an EMS

Assure itself of its conformance with its stated environmental policy and demonstrate it to others

Seek certification/registration of its EMS by an external organization

Make a self-determination and declaration of conformance with this environmental standard.

The opening paragraphs of ISO 14001 emphasize the following general objectives: supporting environmental protection in balance with socio-economic needs. The EMS can be integrated with other management requirements as found in the ISO 9000 series, for example.

In order to achieve environmental objectives, the EMS should encourage organizations to consider implementation of the best available technology where appropriate and where economically viable (EVABAT).

The standard is not intended to address and does not include requirements for aspects of occupational health and safety management. It does not seek to discourage an organization from integrating such management system elements. Furthermore, the standard does not state specific environmental performance criteria (Lamprecht, 1996).

Faced with society's increasing expectations, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) review considers environmental management to be an ever more critical criterion in the allocation of farm subsidies. With the goal of evaluating the environmental friendliness of farm practices, France's agricultural research and extension services have built a range of agricultural/environmental diagnostic tools over recent years. Galan et al. (2007) compared the five tools most frequently used in France required by the ISO 14001: IDEA, DIAGE, DIALECTE, DIALOGUE and INDIGO. All the tools have the same purpose: evaluation of the impact of farm practices on the environment via indicators and monitoring of farm management practices. When tested on a sample of large-scale farms in Picardie, the five tools sometimes produced completely different results: for a given farm, the most supposedly significant environmental impacts depend on the tool used. These results lead to differing environmental management plans and raise the question of the methods’ pertinence.

An analysis grid of diagnostic tools aimed at specifying their field of validity, limits and relevance was drawn up. The resulting comparative analysis enables definition of each tool's domain of validity and allows suggesting lines of thought for developing more relevant tools for:

evaluating a farm's environmental performance

helping farmers to develop a plan for improving practices within the framework of an environmental management system.

3 Sustainable Development: The Context for Recycling

As early as 1942, signatories to the Atlantic Charter had initiated discussions about an organization that could replace the failed League of Nations. Before the final guns were silenced, world leaders had begun to prepare for the future—one without war, in which disputes could potentially be resolved through discussion and cooperation. The structure and substance of the United Nations was agreed among 50 nations with 51 available to sign it into international law.

Signed on June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter came into force on October 24, 1945, as an international organization with the goal of providing a platform for dialog and cooperation among nations in order “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Inherent within the Charter is the recognition that equal rights and self-determination are imperative for each sovereign nation—large or small, wealthy or poor, and must be supported. During the next half-century, these concepts would pervade all aspects of UN undertakings—from decolonization and economic development to environmental and waste issues.

At its inception, five interactive themes were identified: international law and security, economic development and social progress, and human rights. The infrastructure provided for six principal organs: The Trusteeship Council, the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat (see Fig. 1.2). Each organ had its own mission and objectives, which have evolved over time to reflect current issues and needs. The reader will note that the Trusteeship Council is no longer active. It served as a bridge between the now-defunct League of Nations and the United Nations.

Actions related to the environment, and by extension to waste management, can best be described in terms of three broad periods: the postwar period 1945–70; globalization, scientific and environmental awareness 1970–90; implementation and progress 1990 to the present.