Ozone depletion is a global problem precisely because it affects the developing and the developed countries. Ozone layer is a blanket of diffuse gases encircling the earth at a distance of 13 to 50 kilometers above the surface. The stratospheric ozone layer shields the earth from high-energy ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation from the sun. Stratospheric concentrations of ozone have long been maintained at constant levels through natural, homeostatic processes. Now, it’s been discovered that synthetic chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are interfering with these processes, destroying stratospheric ozone more quickly than it can be replenished. These chemicals when broken down by high-energy radiation release chlorine and bromine ions.

Each of these ions can destroy ten of thousands of ozone molecules. Beginning in the 1940’s global use of CFC’s and other ozone depleting substances expanded dramatically. Chlorofluorocarbons are a group of inert, nontoxic, and nonflammable synthetic chemical compounds used as aerosol propellants, in refrigeration and air conditioning, in plastic foams for insulation and packaging, and as solvents for cleaning electrical components. There are many varieties of CFCs; CFC-11 and -12 are the most common compounds and CFC-113 has important industrial applications as a solvent. Production of CFCs has increased significantly since the 1960's reaching a peak in 1974 before declining as a result of the decreasing use of CFCs as aerosol propellants. Atmospheric concentrations of CFC have also been increasing. Once in the atmosphere, CFCs have a lifetime of about 100 years. It is this long lifetime that is the root of the problem with CFCs. In 1973, two University of Michigan scientists, Molina and Rowland discovered that chlorine released in the stratosphere from NASA rockets could unleash a complicated chemical process that would continually destroy ozone for several decades. A single chlorine atom, through a catalytic chain reaction, could eliminate tens of thousands of the ozone molecules.

So, why is this problem global? Well, first of all because it’s effects can have a huge impact on the world as a whole. Meaning it can endanger human health, agriculture and environment all around the world. This is a relatively knew global problem and the scientific community is still working on proving that the ozone depletion problem is something that needs to be taken seriously by the international community. It all began with the creation of the Montreal Protocol in 1985, which was a unique collaboration between scientists and policymakers. One must realize that an international agreement could not have occurred earlier because the research necessary to support and prove that ozone depletion was really happening required state-of-the art equipment. The lack of technology prevented scientists from obtaining data earlier and with no data international convention was impossible.

Nonetheless this was the beginning to future conferences, legal treaties and regimes that followed. The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was attended by 43 nations (of which 16 were developing countries). The Vienna Convention was the first international agreement to address CFC’s however, with low public interest and hardly any participation by an environmental organization made negotiations very difficult. The result was the "Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer," adopted at a conference of 43 states in March 1985, which outlined the responsibilities of states to protect "human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer." The convention also called for international cooperation in research monitoring, and information exchange. It was designed as an "umbrella treaty" to be supplemented by more specific sub-treaties. While an effort made to include a protocol on controlling CFC production and use with the convention failed, a Resolution on a Protocol Concerning Chlorofluorocarbons was adopted, calling for a protocol to control equitable global production, emissions and use of CFCs.

This was the first step towards the future and by coming together the international community was willing to recognize this as a serous problem that required immediate attention. The main goal of this convention was to encourage research, cooperation among countries and exchange of information. With all its complication and seemingly endless disputes, the Vienna Convention set an important precedent. It represented a common ground on which a protocol would be negotiated. Subsequently, the key question was not so much whether there would be a protocol, but rather how strong it would be. The Montreal Protocol entered into force as scheduled on January 1, 1989. Conditions for entry into force included the ratification of the protocol by at least 11 countries representing two-thirds of the global consumption of CFCs halons controlled under the protocol, and the entry into force of the Vienna Convention. The Vienna Convention was ratifies in June 1988, and the ratification requirements for the Montreal Protocol were met in December 1988. By May 1989, 36 countries had ratified the protocol.

Depletion of stratospheric ozone emerged as a political concern in the early 1970s in the United States in the debate over the development of a commercial fleet of supersonic transports. In the mid 1970s it became a major political issue with regard to the use of CFCs in aerosol spray cans, and in 1978 the United States banned the nonessential use of CFCs as aerosol propellants. Efforts at negotiating an international agreement controlling CFC use began in the 1980s and culminated in the 1987 Montreal Protocol. This paper traces the evolution of policy responses to stratospheric ozone depletion. The evolution of stratospheric ozone depletion policy can best be understood as a two-stage process. The first stage involves the emergence of stratospheric ozone depletion as a domestic issue in the United States and several other countries in the 1970s, while the second stage focuses on its transformation to an international issue in the 1980s. In addition to the emergence of stratospheric ozone depletion as an international political issue, three other factors are important in understanding the sources of the Montreal Protocol: (1) the evolving scientific understanding of the problem, (2) increasing public concern over the problem based on the threat of skin cancer and the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, and (3) the availability of acceptable substitutes for CFCs.

Some problems, such as urban smog, are local problems that occur due to increases in pollutants primarily in the lower atmosphere. Other problems such as the depletion of the ozone layer are due to changes in concentrations of different pollutants (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons) in the stratosphere. Concern over national and regional air pollution problems like acid rain deposition gave way to concerns over global changes in the chemical composition of outer atmosphere, beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Many international actors, through conferences, publications and publicity, have framed our understanding and the importance of this truly global problem.

As industrialization began around the globe, the incidence of trans-boundary air pollution has increased. The Trail Smelter Arbitration of 1941 is one of the first of international environmental incidences which brought the public attention to this growing problem. Some of the regional agreements were: The 1991 U.S-Canada Bilateral Air Quality Agreement Studies, such as M.Soroos’ The Endangered Atmosphere (1997) gave vital information about this growing problem, and also, made explained in a simple language the effects of SO2 and NOx. The UN Economic Commission for Europe’s Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution has been a major part in the link between the many different aspects of conserving the atmosphere and our climate.

In the early 1970s F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina published the first credible explanation of what happens to CFCs and their potential role in destruction of the ozone layer. The article, called Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Atoms-Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone, appeared in the Nature magazine. The National Academy of Sciences, National Aeronautic Administration (NOAA) and academic scientists closely examined this thesis over the next three years in the United States. Since then, the mechanism for ozone layer destruction has since been more fully developed. A clear relationship between the concentration of the intermediary compounds and ozone concentrations has been found over the Arctic. This study published in 1987 showed the first clear link between concentrations of chlorine compounds and ozone depletion. This and other evidence confirmed the role of CFCs and other man-made substances in ozone depletion, leading to a nearly universal consensus among the world’s scientists regarding ozone depletion. (UNEP, Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion). Answers to frequently asked questions and detailed information on the ozone depletion is available at the UNEP Ozone Page. Common household items, such as refrigerators and aerosol sprays emit CFC gases which get traped near the ozone layer, and slowly start to disintegrate it.

The ozone layer protects the Earth and its inhabitants from the harmful Ultra Violet Rays that are emitted by the Sun. What would happen if this crucial layer of protection would deplete and disappear? First, humans and non-humans would cease to exist as a direct result of many kinds of cancer (ex. skin cancer), then, the Earth would be uninhabitable. There would be nothing left of any form of previous life.

The worst ozone depletion is above is above Antarctica, because the ozone-destroying reaction catalyzed by ODSs occurs fastest on the surface of atmospheric ice crystals. This created the Antarctic “ozone hole”. Other scientific reports like the ones made by the UNEP, such as The Impact of Ozone Layer Depletion, added significance to this problem. Some of these reports show that the thinning trend has continued through today. NOAA reported that during the winter of 1994-1995, the region of the ozone layer that protects most of the United States and Europe was 10 to 20% less thick than normal. The ozone layer is closely monitored by special spectrometers, like TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer). Web sites, like the Solcomhouse site provide useful information for everyone who would like to learn more about the ozone hole or view an image of it. Some research over CFC’s role in ozone depletion attracted some public attention. But it was the unilateral public announcement in 1975 by the consumer products company, Johnson Wax, to replace CFCs in its brand leading products such as Pledge and Glade that triggered a competitive race for CFC-free aerosols in the US. Eventually, aerosol was banned in the US in 1978. This action was followed soon after by CFC aerosol bans in Sweden, Canada and Norway. The UNEP funded studies by the World Meteorological Organization, which produced policy documents on ozone layer protection. After the 1981’s agreement for development of and international agreement to protect the ozone layer. Over the next three years, regular meetings of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts for the Preparation of a Global Framework Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. The Vienna Convention (1985) attended by 43 nations and three industry groups produced the first international agreement to address CFCs. Alliance for a Responsible CFC Policy and the Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) and Atochem strongly lobbied against any controls. The Vienna Convention failed to establish controls on production or consumption, which meant that even though the US had strong policies, which lowered US emissions of CFCs, European emissions increased.

Throughout the years, US satellites gathered data on the ozone depletion, but still there was no proof of CFCs’ role in creating the Antarctic hole. The WMO and UNEP also gathered information. The Vienna Convention launched huge international scientific studies. The UNEP also held a number of informational workshops to review mechanisms for CFC reductions. Many lobbyist were at work in influencing the course of the ozone depletion problem. Today, Ozone Maps are available at the NASA web page for the general public to view the changes in the ozone layer.

At the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987), over 60 countries participated, many industrial and environmental groups, and wide media coverage, the world’s attention focused on CFCs. Twenty four countries signed the Montreal Protocol, and it was hailed as a diplomatic triumph. The parties have met regularly since 1987, but every time the reduction schedules have been tightened and new compounds brought under control. To inform governments on the current state of science, an Ozone-Trends Panel was formed with over 100 scientists from 10 countries. They concluded that Ozone Depletion has been present over the Northern Hemisphere. This study also represented the first solid data of chemical mechanisms linking halons and CFCs with ozone depletion. The media highly publicized the study and Dupont and many other large companies announced a “voluntary halt to all CFC and halon production by the year 2000”. The parties met in London, in 1990, to add the London Amendments to the protocol. One of the important discussed topics was the difference between the developing and the developed countries. Whit however much the developed countries reduced their CFC emissions, the developing countries increased theirs by much more.

Many Non-Governmental Organizations and International Organizations, such as Green Peace took great interest in the issue of ozone depletion. Many campaigns were designed to build public awareness about the importance of the ozone layer.

The Copenhagen Amendments in 1992 moved the ban forward to 1996, instead of 2000, and instituted a ban on halon by 1994. Many other compounds were also banned. Then, the Seventh Meting of the Parties in Vienna in 1995 moved some other bans forward, too. Since the Copenhagen Amendments, two new meetings were held, the Montreal Amendments in 1997 and the Beijing Amendments in 1999. These two Amendments set new deadlines for bans and also added many other harmful ozone depleting chemicals to the already existing list of banned chemicals.

Currently, under Article 7, the parties are now required to report a wide range of information to the secretariat. In order to improve reporting, The World Bank has proposed licensing the import of controlled substances both to facilitate data collection and to control imports. Many law enforcement agencies around the world are trying to stop the black market operations of CFC traders. To provide financial and technical assistance, including the transfer of technologies to developing countries, the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund was established.

The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on Earth from the harmful effects of the sun's radiation. It is being damaged by emissions to the atmosphere of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and a number of other man-made chemicals. In order to protect the ozone layer these substances need to be phased out as soon as practically possible. This phase-out is continuing to gather momentum. Through the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer a number of solvents, extensively used in chemical analysis are now effectively no longer available in the purity required for their intended use. Both industry and non-governmental environmental organization (non-state actors) have closely monitored the Protocol’s development and provided the critically important impetus for rapid implementation. For example, ICOLP (International Cooperative for Environmental Leadership) is an association of international electronics and aerospace corporations created to find economically viable and effective alternatives to the use of ODS as solvents; to distribute information about these alternatives; and to encourage companies to use these alternatives.

Also, many other treaties have been implemented around the world, which could possibly have an effect on the depletion of the ozone layer. This is truly a global problem and the attention and cooperation of the whole world is needed in order to save our ozone layer.

Scope and Incidence [TOP]

The largest ozone hole has been discovered in Antarctica and it’s size is estimated to be larger than the entire United States. To make matters worse this isn’t the only place on earth ozone depletion is occurring. A similar hole has now been discovered above the Arctic. In few other places like Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand ozone depletion has been measured as well. Just like any global environmental problem this one is not exception to harmful side effects. Again because there are no concrete results that can specify what will happen in the future it doesn’t mean that this problem is not something that needs to be taken seriously by both the developed North and the developing South. The chemicals causing the depletion are man-made and they need to be reduced if they can’t be eliminated. Everyday we cause so much pollution not only on a local level but on the global as well. The world is moving towards a very technologically depended place and the more we produce the more harm we cause to the environment. A lot of countries that are only beginning their development are all concerned with reaching their full potential in the global economy, which often leads them to ignore the pressing facts of pollution and resource depletion. Developing countries like India, Brazil and China are on their way to large growth in their economies and as they are enriching their wealth they often fail to recognize that the environment is the one suffering.

During the early stage of the process of formulating stratospheric ozone policy in the early and mid-1970's, CFC-induced stratospheric ozone depletion emerged as a major environmental and political issue primarily in the United States. Other nations like Canada and the Scandinavian countries were concerned about the problem, most European countries particularly the EC countries showed little interest. There were several reasons for this difference. First, the threat of stratospheric ozone depletion from the proposed fleet of U.S. commercial supersonic transports was one of several potential environmental impacts that had been used by environmentalists to stop the project. Then the U.S. public interest over the fate of the ozone layer was built both on the growing importance of environmental problems as political issues and on the growing public concern with cancer and the substances and activities that might cause it. Even if the Europeans were not convinced that a problem existed the U.S. pushed for control measures.

United States along with other countries realized that the high manipulation of resources and the pollution created by CFCs is rising the concentration of bromine and chlorine ions. As the concentrations of these harmful chemicals continue to rise the stratospheric ozone levels will continue to fall. The long-term impacts of this global problem are still largely unknown. We can’t distinguish between who is causing more harm, the South or the North, we should not even attempt to, but one thing is for sure and that is there is harm being done to us. In order to make the problem less threatening the international community has to come together as a team and accept responsibility for what might happen to the earth fifty years from now. The debate between countries over the issues of CFC-induced stratospheric ozone depletion was a turning point in politics not only because it identifies the potential threat that human activity might pose to the ozone layer, but more generally because it marked the beginning of a period in which technological development would increasingly have to be balanced with other societal goals. Policy makers faced a lot of challenges when dealing with the implementation of CFC control measures primarily because no single agency or law provided a comprehensive framework for implementing and enforcing regulations.

The greatest resistance to CFC regulations came from France and Britain, both major producers and users of CFCs. While ozone depletion had emerged as a major environmental policy issue in the United States and several other countries by the late-1970s, the issue was by no means resolved. Among the major CFC producer/user nations, only the Unites States had taken substantial action, and then only concerning CFC use in aerosols. Ozone depletion was a global problem, and it was becoming increasingly clear that an effective response would have to be international. Between 1977 and 1985, the problem of stratospheric ozone depletion moved from the national to the international political arena. In 1985, the Vienna Convention legitimized stratospheric ozone depletion as an international political issue, and provided the framework under which the Montreal Protocol would be negotiated.

The Montreal Protocol was an outgrowth of the 1985 Vienna Convention, which legitimized stratospheric ozone depletion as an international environmental issue and established the basis for negotiation that would eventually lead to the protocol. However, other factors critical to building international consensus on the need for substantive measures controlling global production and use of CFCs were not fully in place in 1985. These factors were: (1) the evolving scientific understanding of stratospheric ozone and its influence on policymaking; (2) increasing public concern based on t he threat of skin cancer and the perception of potential global catastrophe associated with the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole; and (3) the availability of acceptable substitutes. It was the evolution of these factors that finally opened the door to the Montreal Protocol. The evolving scientific understanding of stratospheric ozone was a key factor in reaching agreement on a protocol. While there was considerable disagreement among scientists over the problem of stratospheric ozone depletion in the 1970's improvements in the collection and assessment of data and in models in the past decade have led to the development of a stronger scientific base on which to argue for and develop control strategies. Major scientific assessment projects have continued to point to and elaborate on the threat that CFCs posed to atmospheric ozone. While the Montreal Protocol is not a perfect document, it is nevertheless a landmark agreement. It is the first international agreement aimed at resolving a global atmospheric problem. It is important not only because it outlined measures agreed on by the international community to protect the ozone layer, but also because it signifies that innovative approach to major global environmental problems is possible.

Diagnosis: Human and Environmental Impacts [TOP]

Mainly the problem with ozone depletion is the increased amounts of UV-B radiation striking the earth Earth’s surface and endangering human health, agriculture and the environment. Rates of skin cancer and cataracts may increase because of more exposure to radiation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that a one percent decrease in ozone could result in two percent increase in UV-B,8 and a one percent increase in UV-B could result in a two to five percent increase in the rate of non-melanoma skin cancers. The EPA has estimated that if CFC use continues to grow at 2.3 percent a year until 2050, an additional 150 million skin cancer could result, causing more than 3 million deaths in the U.S. population alone. Moreover, this is a global problem that can have the same effects on the population all over the world especially in Australia.

UV-B exposure also suppresses the body’s immune response system, causing skin color pigmentation as well as making the body more vulnerable to certain diseases. But, humans are not the only ones to suffer; radiation may inhibit the growth of many plants decreasing crop production, especially commercial species such as soybeans and cotton. The water world may also suffer because radiation causes developmental abnormalities in fish, amphibians and many more. Another harm to the water world is radiation reduces the productivity of phytoplankton, which form the base of the ocean’s food web. Reductions in this fundamental food source could dramatically affect the biodiversity of the oceans. Aside from plants, increased radiation could have dramatic consequences for the aquatic world, which would be a serious setback for humans, considering the fact that this is an area of science we know the least about and could greatly benefit from further research. We do know that increased radiation can reduce the growth of phytoplankton, which is the base of the ocean food chain. UV-B radiation also damages midge larvae, the base of many fresh-water ecosystems. Amphibians and fish are also susceptible. Some researchers are already linking ozone depletion with the global decline in frog species. Update predicts that, all other things being equal, a sustained 10% decrease in ozone will cause and additional 300,000 non-melanoma skin cancers each year and up to 1.75 million additional cases of cataract per year world-wide. In addition CFCs are also an effective greenhouse gas in the lower atmosphere. Given the present rate of increase of all greenhouse gases, the radiative equivalent of a doubling of CO2 ( an average global warming of 1.5-4.5 degrees C) could be reached by as early as 2030. Any action taken to control CFCs in order to protect the ozone layer also acts to contain global warming.

Ozone depletion is not a small-scale problem where one region like Antarctica can solve the problem on its own. Neither can a sovereign state or one body of government fix this. We are all affected by this problem and even though it is happening slowly, it is happening all around the world. There are future generations that will be affected by this problem if we don' t take the necessary measures. This is a critical issue and the one that needs to be taken seriously by the international political world as well as the regional and local body of government. The real measure of success for the protocol is how well it works as an incentive to develop economical and environmentally safe alternatives to CFCs and halons.

Legal Initiatives [TOP]

The issue of ozone depletion first emerged in the United States when supersonic transports were going to be the American Way of traveling. Research conducted by NASA showed that these high flying airplanes (like the concords in France) would severely deplete the Ozone Layer. Then, evidence was discovered that the Earth's natural ozone layer was being depleted by the CFCs and other harmful gases used by the industry, such as gases in aerosol spray cans and in refrigerators. At this point, global change had to take place in order to preserve the ozone layer.

International lawyers developed legal strategies that rest on the assumptions (theoretical) that they would be successful. They want to design some sort of operational change that would slowly fix or reverse the problem. Before the Vienna Convention, there were not any treaties about the ozone depletion problem. In the topic of the Ozone Depletion, the two major treaties that have been initiated and signed were The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer in 1985, and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987. Representatives from 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement designed to reduce the worldwide production and use of chlorofluorocarbons. This protocol is the result of years of negotiation fostered by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) among the major CFC producing countries. Its formulation was a response to a growing international consensus on the need to protect stratospheric ozone from depletion by CFCs. The Montreal Protocol is a landmark agreement in that it is the first international treaty for mitigating a global atmospheric problem before serious environmental impacts have been conclusively detected. As such, the Montreal Protocol has stirred much interest, and both scientists and policymakers have suggested that it can be used as a model for international agreements on other global environmental problems, especially the problem of CO2 and trace-gas induced global warming.

The strategy that was developed on informational meetings and at these two conventions is the phase out of CFCs and other carbon based compounds. Bans on production and use of these compounds have been established. Since great progress has been made in the phase out process, many of these bans have been move forward in time, with an earlier deadline for the completion of the total phase out. Also, many institutions and scientific communities have been set up to monitor and gather data about the process of the depletion of the ozone layer. Many non-governmental actors got involved with this process. Also, new technologies are developed in creating substitutes that could replace these harmful carbon compounds. Since the Montreal Protocol, new Amendments have been added to the Treaty, making it more efficient and functional. Scientific research is being done by the different signatory states and the ozone layer is constantly monitored to keep track of changes caused by CFCs. Many more states, especially developing states, have become concerned about the issue of the ozone layer and joined in the global cooperation to save the Earth's natural defense system.

Climate change and ozone depletion overlap somewhat. Both CFCs, the main cause of ozone depletion, and ozone itself are GHGs. Thus, the addition of CFCs to the atmosphere adds directly to global warming but in destroying ozone it leads to global cooling. The two effects cancel each other out. The situation is further complicated, because most of the substitutes allowed for CFCs under the Montreal Protocol regime are more potent greenhouse gases than CFCs.

Many other treaties and initiatives took place, like the ones on the long-range transport of air pollutants, and on the climate change. As found in the Annex III section of the main text, these are some of the major international legal initiatives that have been taken or proposed to deal on an international level with similar to the problem of and could effect the depletion of the ozone layer.

In 1937, the world saw the first international dispute dealing with the air and the atmosphere. The Trail Smelter case involved Canada and the United State. This case dealt with the migration of air pollution from Canada into the United States. This case highlighted the fact that air pollution affects more than just the country that pollutes. In 1963, a treaty was created for banning Nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, in outer space, and in the water. Scientific research in the 1960s and 70s proved that weather patterns could spread pollution all over the globe, and that one country's pollution could affect the whole world. In 1973, the (OCED) measures to Reduce all Man-Made emissions of Mercury to the environment. Scientist began to realize that air pollution was becoming a real problem and that it was adversely affecting our environment. They also understood, that people could no longer look at air pollution as a national problem, now they must look at it as a global problem. In 1979, this conclusion was made more apparent when the convention on Long-Range Tran boundary Air pollution convened. Coal burning on the east coast of the United States could lead to Acid rain in Canada. In 1992, the UN held a convention that dealt with climate change or global warming. This convention led to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Although, scientific data about the ozone layer has just recently been discovered, treaties dealing with air quality and the atmosphere have been around for several decades.

Some treaties are regional, but others are broad, global. This complex set of interlocking initiatives are very important to identify and relate existing problems with possible new ones coming to surface in the near future. One can draw conclusions and learn lessons from past mistakes that were made in dealing with other international problems.

The debate is still going on today about this topic of great importance. Since by fixing this problem one might cause global warming, it makes you think about the importance of these two problems. Save the ozone layer or stop the global warming? This is a question that cannot be easily answered, but the only solution is for scientists to develop new compounds that could fix the two problems at the same time. This will take a long time to develop, but this seems to be the only logical solution.

The Earth's ozone layer protects all life on earth from excessive exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation, also called UV, is a type of light invisible to the naked eye and emitted by the sun or certain kinds of lamps. Exposure to ultraviolet radiation is one of the main causes of skin cancer. Cancer is not the only health effect. Increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation can also cause sunburn, tanning, premature skin aging, cataracts and a decrease in the response of the immune system. (More on this at the Health Canada web page. ) This is why it is so important for the World to work together, and protect our ozone layer from total destruction. If humans keep up the pace of the destruction they have caused in the last five decades, not just the plants and the animals will be destroyed, but eventually, humans will cease to exist. This truly global problem can only be solved by all the World's countries' cooperation.

Citations [TOP]

Morrisette, P.M. "The evolution of policy responses to stratospheric ozone depletion." Natural Resources Journal 29: 793-820. 1989.
"United Nations Environmental Programme." UNEP. 1981. http://www.unep.ch/ (May 2 2001)
"World Bank." The World Bank Group. 2000. http://www.worldbank.org (02 May 2001)
"USEPA/ICEL Manuals" ICOLP. 1998. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/icel/icel.html (02 May 2001)
Jurgielewicz, Lynne M. "Global Environmental Change and International Law" University Press of America. 1996.
Weiss, Magraw and Szasz. "International Environmental Law: Basic Instruments and References 1992-1999." Transnational Publishers. 1999.
Churchill, Robin, R. and Geir Ulfstein. "Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law." The American Journal of International Law October, 2000.
Brunnee, Jutta. Acid Rain and Ozone Layer Depletion: International Law and Regulation. 1988.
"Ozone Secretariat Depositary" United Nations Office of Legal Affairs 2001.
http://www.unep.org/ozone/ratif.shtml (15 May 2001)
Farman, Joe. "The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. " UNEP. 1981. http://www.unep.ch/ozone/vienna.shtml (19 Apr 2001)
Sparling, Brian. “The Ozone Layer” NASA. 2001. http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Services/Education/Resources/TeacherWork/Ozone/Ozone.layer.html (01 May 2001)
"Labs wanted for round-robin, hexane replacement study." Environmental Laboratory Washington Report Vol. 12, No. 1. January 18, 2001.
"Faster phaseout proposed for ozone hazard." Environmental Laboratory Washington Report Vol. 11, No. 22 December 21, 2000.
Simonovic, Ivan. "State Sovereignty and Globalization: Are Some States More Equal?" The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law Summer, 2000.
Dobson, Tracy. "Acid Rain and Ozone Layer Depletion: International Law and Regulation." The American Journal International Law. April, 1990
Porras, Illena M. "Ozone Discourses. Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation The American Society of International Law." The American Journal International Law. October, 1996.
“Thinning of the Ozone Layer—The Health Effects.” Health Canada. 1997. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/general/iyh/thinning.htm (01 May 2001)
“Alternatives to restricted laboratory solvents.” Romil. 2000. http://www.romil.com/ozone.htm (01 May 2001)
“Index Page.” UNEP. 2000. http://www.unep.ch/ozone/index.shtml (01 May 2001)
“Ozone Layer.” UNEP. 2000. http://www.unep.ch/ozone (01 May 2001)
“Ozone Treaties.” UNEP. 2000. http://www.unep.ch/ozone/treaties.shtml (01 May 2001)
“Action on Ozone” UNEP. 2000.http://www.unep.ch/ozone/pdf/ozone-action-en.pdf (01 May 2001) “Frequently Asked Questions About the Ozone Layer and Related Environmental Effects.” UNEP. 2000. http://www.unep.ch/ozone/faqs.shtml (01 May 2001)
McPeters, Richard Dr. “Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer.” NASA. 2001. http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (01 May 2001)
“The Ozone Hole.” Solcomhouse. 2000. http://www.solcomhouse.com/ozoneHole.htm (01 May 2001)
“The Ozone Hole.” Socomhouse. 2000. http://www.solcomhouse.com/ozonevent.htm (01 May 2001)
Taylor, Maxwell. “The Ozone Layer” Soton.1997. http://www.soton.ac.uk/~engenvir/environment/air/oz_func.htm (01 May 2001)
Taylor, Maxwell. “Ozone Layer.” Soton. 1997. http://www.soton.ac.uk/~engenvir/environment/air/oz_gases.htm (01 May 2001)
“Thinning Antarctic Ozone Layer Alarms Researchers” Environment News Service. 2000. http://ens.lycos.com/ens/aug2000/2000L-08-29-02.html (01 May 2001)
“New Canadian Satellite to Study Arctic Ozone Thinning.” Environmental News Services. 2000. http://ens.lycos.com/ens/mar2000/2000l%2D03%2D13%2D01.html (01 May 2001)
“Ozone Depletion” United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ (01 May 2001)
Hunter, Davis, Salzman, James and Zaelke, Durwood. International Environmental Law and Policy. New York: Foundation Press, 1998.

[Top]