In the absence of international statutes prohibiting nations from caus

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
(5) “customary international law”: that body of commonly
accepted—but not formalized—legal principles that is
manifest in the behavior of nations toward one another.
Two environmental principles are often held to be
established norms of customary international law. One
(10) of these principles proscribes transboundary harm:
nations should prohibit activities within their borders
that cause significant environmental harm beyond those
borders. The other is the closely allied precautionary
principle, which requires nations to exercise due care
(15) to avoid putting other nations at significant risk of
environmental harm.

In debating whether a given principle should be
classified as a norm of customary international law for
the purposes of deciding international cases,
(20) scholars of international environmental law generally
accept an established criterion: principles are norms
only if nations customarily abide by the principles in
actual practice rather than merely affirming them as
desirable standards. In fact, however, many purported
(25) “norms” of customary international environmental
law, including the duty to prevent transboundary harm
and the precautionary principle, do not reflect the
actual behavior of many nations. Although systematic
empirical studies are lacking, experience shows that
(30) harmful pollutants constantly cross most international
borders, and that nations have only rarely attempted to
remedy this situation.

Even though nations only rarely abide by these
environmental “norms,” they nevertheless routinely
(35) profess to accept them. Similarly, while scholars
discussing customary international law claim to focus
on what nations do, their debates are almost invariably
based on what nations profess. In reality, international
environmental “norms” primarily reflect the evaluative
(40) standards that nations use to justify their own actions
and criticize those of other nations. Hence these
environmental “norms” are not properly classifiable as
norms of customary international law. They might more
accurately be characterized as an ideological system,
(45) since they merely represent some collective ideals of
the international community.

In light of this fact, those scholars who seek
in customary international law a firm grounding for
decisions in international environmental cases are
(50) misdirecting their efforts. This is especially true given
that international treaties and direct negotiations, rather
than international court decisions, are now the principal
means of resolving international environmental
disputes. It would be more productive for scholars to study
(55) such disputes from perspectives more consonant
with this trend. Specifically, attention should be directed
toward how the affirmation of core environmental
principles can contribute to negotiations and treaty
formation. This approach would promote progress
(60) toward agreements that could effectively hold nations
to appropriate standards of environmental conduct.

1. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

(A) Preventing transboundary harm is often at odds with the economic interests of many nations.
(B) International law is an ideological system of collective ideals reflecting what nations do rather than what they profess.
(C) Many scholars believe that passing international laws to prohibit environmental damage is less effective than negotiating and forming treaties between nations.
(D) The debate regarding which environmental norms are part of customary international law is critical in deciding which nations have violated laws governing transboundary harm.
(E) Solutions to international environmental conflicts are more likely to be found in treaties and direct negotiations than in judicial decisions that are based on customary international law.


2. Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by information in the passage?

(A) Because of their long-standing preoccupation with principles of customary law, international courts are well prepared to make balanced decisions concerning transboundary pollution.
(B) The precautionary principle is not concerned with a government's relationship to private industries under its jurisdiction.
(C) Nations are rarely held legally accountable for violations of principles that are commonly considered by scholars to be norms of customary international environmental law.
(D) Most violations of customary international environmental law result from disagreements about what constitutes customary law.
(E) Established norms of customary international environmental law that primarily address transboundary airborne pollutants are outdated.


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

(A) They have commonly been used as models for drafting formalized statutes.
(B) They reflect standards that nations use to criticize other nations.
(C) Scholars have not reached a consensus concerning how to distinguish them from other environmental principles.
(D) Scholars have debated whether their status as part of international law tends to inhibit negotiations.
(E) They are often held to be firmly established models for environmental treaty formation.


4. Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the final paragraph and the first paragraph?

(A) In the final paragraph, the author opposes a scholarly approach mentioned in the first paragraph, proposes an alternative to that approach, and argues for that proposal.
(B) In the final paragraph, the author questions the legal significance of two principles mentioned in the first paragraph, proposes alternative principles, and defends the new principles.
(C) In the final paragraph, the author considers a critique of a practice mentioned in the first paragraph, explores further implications of that critique, but finally accepts the original practice.
(D) In the final paragraph, the author criticizes scholars for focusing on a particular issue and argues that those scholars should instead focus on the legal status of two principles mentioned in the first paragraph.
(E) In the final paragraph, the author reaffirms a claim about legal scholars that is made in the first paragraph, attributes a proposal to those scholars, and argues for a way of carrying out that proposal.


5. It can be inferred that both the author and the scholars mentioned in the passage would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

(A) Until extensive empirical studies determine the rate of international conformity to principles of international environmental law, environmental treaties will be largely ineffective.
(B) Judicial decisions that are grounded in customary international law have proven less effective than direct negotiations in resolving international environmental disputes.
(C) If it is difficult to ascertain whether a particular nation generally acts in accordance with the precautionary principle, that principle is not a norm of customary law for the nation in question.
(D) If it can be shown conclusively that nations generally do not act in accordance with a principle, that principle cannot be legitimately considered a norm of customary international law.
(E) Until a large percentage of nations enact treaties embodying the norms of customary international environmental law, there will be no reliable basis for deciding international environmental disputes.


6. The author's mention of harmful pollutants crossing international borders (last sentence of the second paragraph) functions primarily as

(A) an example of the author's contention that debates concerning customary international law put too little emphasis on environmental issues
(B) a means of suggesting that stronger enforcement of existing international environmental laws is needed
(C) evidence offered by the author in support of the claim that treaties and negotiations are largely ineffective in protecting the environment
(D) an acknowledgment that, in spite of the author's general disagreement with certain scholars mentioned earlier in the second paragraph, their environmental concerns are justified
(E) support for the author's claim that certain international environmental principles do not meet a criterion for being considered norms of customary international law


7. The author states that there is a dearth of systematic empirical investigation into which one of the following?

(A) the extent to which the actions of nations conform to principles of customary international environmental law
(B) the proportion of international environmental disputes that are remedied by treaties and negotiations as compared with those that are remedied by the application of customary international environmental law
(C) the relative success rates of different attempted legal remedies for the problem of international transboundary pollution
(D) the extent to which the pollution currently crossing international boundaries is in violation of negotiated international treaties
(E) the extent to which scholars of international environmental law agree about which principles are norms of customary international environmental law