> When will we start to see that it is the communication protocols that are driving this failure, and that good-faith bargaining is a fallacy, when there is profit to be made?
There isn't anything here to suggest countries are bargaining in bad faith, they seem to be pretty up front about what they want and why they want it. And I don't see why there is a presupposition that an anti-plastic treaty is a good idea. Plastic is clearly of enormous value to society, and the linked treaty draft looks a bit wishy-washy.
> Parties shall cooperate in order to prevent disputes and shall seek to settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention through negotiation or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The section on settling disputes looks like gainful employment for a veritable office of lawyers with too much free time. I see that this is all backed by the threat of rendering a report if parties can't find common ground. That is so soft that I expect anyone operating in bad faith would just sign on to the treaty then ignore it.
> There isn't anything here to suggest countries are bargaining in bad faith
1) "...countries reiterated familiar talking points"
2) "Instead of whittling down a draft of the treaty that had been prepared late last year during the previous meeting in Busan, South Korea, delegates added hundreds of suggestions to it, placing a deal further from reach"
3) "Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others will try to change the mandate so that it no longer refers to the “full life cycle” of plastics, but just plastic pollution — thus turning the treaty into a waste management agreement"
Not coming to agreement, though rhetorical posturing, bureaucratic leverage or the undermining of the core sentiment, means that the damaging status quo will continue, so I consider these to be bad-faith actions, taken in the interest of continued profiteering.
> Plastic is clearly of enormous value to society
This is absolutely true, and also myopic. Plastic is an astonishing material that can remain stable for thousands of years. Why, then, don't we make products that last this long? Because this would not be good for an economy that needs year-on-year production and consumption to increase.
You've misunderstood what "bad faith" means - it implies lies or dishonesty. What you are describing is just normal disagreement during negotiation. Their position is very clear and there doesn't seem to be any accusations that they are pushing a hidden agenda. They're negotiating in good faith, but you might not like the position they've taken.
I appreciate your optimism, however your position seems to point a willful blindness to the agenda that oil producing countries have maintained. What is hidden to one person may be apparent to another, and completely missed by a third.
I absolutely think that their approach is disingenuous, though the line between this and dishonesty is not something I would claim to understand well. You may say that taking a position that is fundamentally self-interested is valid, but I would point out that, given the scale of the impact that arises from the attachment to this stance, good-faith negotiation must include some form of integration of information regarding the consequences of holding this position.
At this point, where the negative impacts of plastic over-production, micro-scale pollution of biological systems and climate impacts of manufacture are so well documented, clinging to a "what about me" argument is tantamount to a child repeating the same question over and over in order to avoid listening to the response. So, yes, maybe not classically "bad-faith" but certainly a calculated strategy that prevents progress.
There isn't anything here to suggest countries are bargaining in bad faith, they seem to be pretty up front about what they want and why they want it. And I don't see why there is a presupposition that an anti-plastic treaty is a good idea. Plastic is clearly of enormous value to society, and the linked treaty draft looks a bit wishy-washy.
> Parties shall cooperate in order to prevent disputes and shall seek to settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention through negotiation or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The section on settling disputes looks like gainful employment for a veritable office of lawyers with too much free time. I see that this is all backed by the threat of rendering a report if parties can't find common ground. That is so soft that I expect anyone operating in bad faith would just sign on to the treaty then ignore it.