I first introduced the concept of ‘ratcheting’ when lecturing on the Montreal Protocol. I have since mentioned it in relation to other treaties.
AssignmentTutorOnlineAccording to the dictionary definition, ‘to ratchet’ is to cause something to rise or fall, or get tighter, as a step in an irreversible process.
Explain in your own words why I applied that metaphor to the Montreal Protocol, especially as it has developed over time.
Does the treaty (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) you wrote your report on include any examples of ratcheting (it probably doesn’t, but some do)?
If not, briefly describe an example of ‘ratcheting’ from another area of law. Your example can be international or national law and does not even have to be an environmental law issue.
A positive incentive is something that encourages a legal actor to do a particular thing. A negative incentive is something that encourages an actor not to do a particular thing.
In the ozone lecture I used the phrase ‘carrots and sticks’ as a brief way to explain positive and negative incentives used in combination in the Montreal Protocol.
Choose a treaty or treaty regime apart from Ozone – what are some of the positive and negative incentives that are used to encourage compliance?