International environmental treaties cannot be reformed through rational design

"Your Comment article asserts rightly that the collapse of negotiations for the United Nations plastics treaty reflects broader systemic problems affecting international environmental law and governance ( R. E. Kim and P. Bridgewater Nature 646, 1054-1056; 2025). But in our view, the authors' suggested solution - a global scientific body that would assess and issue binding recommendations for environmental bodies and treaties - is wrong-headed."

"The authors declare no competing interests."

The collapse of negotiations for the United Nations plastics treaty reflects broader systemic problems affecting international environmental law and governance. A proposed global scientific body to assess and issue binding recommendations for environmental bodies and treaties is judged to be wrong-headed. The proposed institutional fix risks misdiagnosing root causes by privileging technocratic oversight over political consent, treaty design, and governance realities. Addressing transboundary plastic pollution requires solutions that engage legal, political and institutional complexities rather than relying primarily on a centralized scientific authority. No competing interests were declared.

Read at Nature