Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
138
result(s) for
"Brunnée, Jutta"
Sort by:
Procedure and Substance in International Environmental Law
The interplay between procedure and substance has not been a major point of contention for international environmental lawyers. Arguably, the topic's low profile is due to the mostly uncontroversial nature of the field's distinction between procedural and substantive obligations. Furthermore, the vast majority of environmental law scholars and practitioners have tended to welcome the procedural features of multilateral environmental agreements and their potential to promote regime evolution and effectiveness. However, recent developments have served to put the spotlight on certain aspects of the procedure substance topic. ICJ judgments revealed ambiguity on aspects of the customary law framework on transboundary harm prevention that the field had thought largely settled. In turn, in the treaty context, the Paris Agreement's retreat from binding emissions targets and its decisive turn towards procedure reignited concerns in some quarters over the \"proceduralization\" of international environmental law. The two developments invite a closer look at the respective roles of, and the relationship between, procedure and substance in this field and, more specifically, in the context of harm prevention under customary and treaty law.
eBook
International climate change law
This textbook, by three experts in the field, provides a comprehensive overview of international climate change law. Climate change is one of the fundamental challenges facing the world today, and is the cause of significant international concern. In response, states have created an international climate regime. The treaties that comprise the regime - the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement establish a system of governance to address climate change and its impacts. This book provides a clear analytical guide to the climate regime, as well as other relevant international legal rules. The book begins by locating international climate change law within the broader context of international law and international environmental law. It considers the evolution of the international climate change regime, and the process of law-making that has led to it. It examines the key provisions of the Framework Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. It analyses the principles and obligations that underpin the climate regime, as well as the elaborate institutional and governance architecture that has been created at successive international conferences to develop commitments and promote transparency and compliance. The final two chapters address the polycentric nature of international climate change law, as well as the intersections of international climate change law with other areas of international regulation. This book is an essential introduction to international climate change law for students, scholars and negotiators.-- Provided by Publisher.
Book
UNFCCC as a negotiation forum: towards common but more differentiated responsibilities
The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRC) captures the idea that it is the common responsibility of states to protect and restore the environment but that the levels and forms of states’ individual responsibilities may be differentiated according to their own national circumstances. This principle has shaped the evolution of the climate regime and has played an important role in promoting compromise and agreement. It is argued that some twenty years after the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the principle of CBDRC remains as relevant as ever. The practice of Parties under the regime and, most recently, the concerted efforts to shape and flesh out the meaning of the principle, underscore the central role that it plays. At the same time, the binary understanding of CBDRC in the Kyoto Protocol is being replaced with a more nuanced, multifaceted understanding. The evolving interpretation of CBDRC is considered, and its continued relevance as the nucleus of a global burden-sharing regime for addressing climate change is demonstrated. Policy relevance The development of a common understanding of the principle of CBDRC is essential for the burden sharing and responsibilities under a future climate agreement. The CBDRC principle captures the idea that it is the common responsibility of states to protect and restore the environment, but that the levels and forms of states’ individual responsibilities may be differentiated according to their own national circumstances. This article informs the international climate change negotiations by considering the development of the principle of CBDRC under the UNFCCC over time. It is concluded that, although there has been a significant shift in how the principle is understood, it remains crucial to the integrity and stability of the climate regime.
Journal Article
The Legality of Downgrading Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement
In this analysis piece, we consider a legal question that generated much debate in the lead-up to the US decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement: can a Party downgrade its nationally determined contribution (NDC) to climate mitigation without running afoul of its treaty commitments? Drawing on the treaty interpretation methods set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, we examine the Paris Agreement’s normative framework and analyse the provision on adjustment of NDCs. We show that, while NDCs as such are not legally binding, they are subject to binding procedural requirements and to normative expectations of progression and highest possible ambition. Read together, these binding and non-binding terms make plain that a Party would contravene the spirit of the Paris Agreement if it downgraded an existing NDC. The US federal government is already scaling back its domestic climate action, such that it is unlikely to meet its NDC. Its Paris withdrawal, however, can only be formally declared in 2019 and will not take effect until 2020. We consider how, during this interim period, the legal implications of the ‘withdrawal’ approach differ from those of the ‘stay-and-downgrade’ approach.
Journal Article
SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST NON-STATE ACTORS: ARE POWERFUL STATES WILLING BUT UNABLE TO CHANGE INTERNATIONAL LAW?
Can a few primarily Western States expand the right to self-defence against non-State actors, incorporating the unwilling or unable standard? Even on a traditional reading of customary law formation, the answer is no because proponents have failed to attract consistent and widespread support. What is more, using our interactional international law approach, we show that efforts to date have not been successful because they have failed to address fundamental rule of law concerns. The current state of world politics has perhaps caught proponents of the unwilling or unable standard in a difficult bind. We suggest how proponents might carefully develop the law on self-defence against non-State actors.
Journal Article
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW?
Patrick Macklem’s The Sovereignty of Human Rights is underpinned by a commitment to explaining the role of human rights law from the ‘inside’ of international law, distinguishing this strictly legal realm from global politics. We explore questions surrounding the ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of international law by juxtaposing Macklem’s positivist, validity-focused, account and our own ‘interactional’ approach, which embraces the embeddedness of law in social norms and social practices while emphasizing distinctive traits of legality and legal interaction. We argue that a validity-based conception of legality results in a necessarily thin account of the ‘justice’ that human rights can do. Next, we consider Macklem’s focus on collective rights as being central to the role that he argues human rights play in mitigating the distribution and exercise of sovereign power and in legitimating international law’s normative architecture. We assess whether or not international human rights law really plays the legitimating role for international law that Macklem claims it does, given that these rights are subject to a range of limitations built into positive law, such as reservations to treaties, derogation provisions, or substantive limits. Finally, we ask whether human rights serve the distinctive normative function within international law that Macklem accords to them, concluding that several branches and processes of international law shape and restrict sovereignty alongside human rights law.
Journal Article
COPing with Consent: Law-Making Under Multilateral Environmental Agreements
The growing sense of urgency regarding various global environmental problems has prompted calls for global legislative processes that could produce binding outcomes. However, as law-making gravitates into international forums, questions are raised regarding the legitimacy of international environmental governance. Much law-making today occurs under multilateral environmental agreements (‘MEAs’), such as the Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. The article examines the role of Conferences of the Parties (‘COPs’) in MEA-based law-making. It juxtaposes the standard conception of international law-making and an alternative account, which sees law-making not simply as crystallized in formal consent procedures but as continuous interactional processes. The interactional account can help build the foundations for legitimate international environmental governance, and can provide important guidance to law-makers, even as they, even as they continue to operate within a formal, consent-based framework.
Journal Article
Of Sense And Sensibility: Reflections On International Liability Regimes As Tools For Environmental Protection
There are several reasons, pertaining to both the development of a generallyapplicable framework and the elaboration of issue-specific approaches, why it is timely to reflect on whether liability regimes are an appropriate tool for international environmental protection. At the level of general norms, the International Law Commission (ILC) appears to have arrived at a crossroads, as it must decide whether and how to approach further work on liability for transboundary environmental harm. At the same time, discussions about issuespecific liability regimes have proliferated. Indeed, it seems that few multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) can be negotiated today without running across the liability issue in one way or another. The issue often divides Southern delegations, which tend to push for the inclusion of liability regimes, and Northerndelegations, which tend to resist. But the disagreement is not just a matter of policy and politics. There is also a lively debate in the literature about the pros and cons of international liability regimes. All the more reason, therefore, to assess whether engaging in the laborious task of developing a liability regime is a good investment of scarce negotiating resources. The goals that animate the quest for environmental liability are important ones: to make polluters pay for the environmental costs of their activities, to compensate innocent victims, to protect the environment, and, in certain contexts, to protect developing countries against environmental risks. The key question is whether, given these sensibilities, the approach makes sense.
Journal Article