The Options for an International Regulation of Forests

  • Anja Eikermann


Despite the fact that there is currently no international legally-binding forest convention, the previous chapter addressed a selection of international agreements indirectly referring to forests. It is argued that there is already international law that has a bearing on the international regulation of forests. All of the international treaties analysed above are directly applicable to forests. However, the applicability is subject to conditions. Forests are not the regulatory subject of these treaties. A positive or negative effect of these treaties on forests is, in effect, a side effect.


Sustainable Forest Management International Treaty Forest Function United Nations General Tropical Timber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alter KJ, Meunier S (2009) The politics of international regime complexity. Perspect Polit 7:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aust A (2000) Modern treaty law and practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bass S, Thomson K (1997) Forest security: challenges to be met by a global forest convention, 10 forestry and land use series, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Forestry and land use programmeGoogle Scholar
  4. Benvenisti E, Downs GW (2007) The empire’s new clothes: political economy and the fragmentation of international law. Stanford Law Rev 60:595–632Google Scholar
  5. Biermann F (1996) “Common Concern of Humankind”: the emergence of a new concept of international environmental law. Archiv des Völkerrechts 34:426–481Google Scholar
  6. Biermann F et al (2009) The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Global Environ Polit 9:14–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloch F (2001) The ‘Brazilian Clause’: a recent attempt to create linkages between the CBD and CITES. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 10:268–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodansky D (1999) The legitimacy of international governance: a coming challenge for international environmental law? Am J Int Law 93:596–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgen CJ (2005) Resolving treaty conflicts. George Wash Int Law Rev 37:573–648Google Scholar
  10. Bosselmann K (2010) Losing the forest for the trees: environmental reductionism in the law. Sustainability 2:2424–2448. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  11. Boyd W (2010a) Ways of seeing in environmental law: how deforestation became an object of climate governance. Ecol Law Q 37:843–916Google Scholar
  12. Boyd W (2010b) Climate change, fragmentation, and the challenges of global environmental law: elements of a post-Copenhagen assemblage. Univ Pa J Int Law 32:457–550Google Scholar
  13. Brown Weiss E (1992) International environmental law: contemporary issues and the emergence of a new world order. Georgetown Law J 81:675–710Google Scholar
  14. Brown Weiss E (ed) (1997) International compliance with nonbinding accords, studies in transnational legal policy no. 29, American Society of International Law, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown Weiss E, Jacobson HK (eds) (1998) Engaging countries: strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Brunnée J (1996) A conceptual framework for an international forest convention: customary law and emerging principles. In: Canadian Council on International Law, Global Forests & International Environmental Law, Kluwer Law International, London, pp 41–78Google Scholar
  17. Brunnée J (2002) COPing with consent: law-making under multilateral environmental agreements. Leiden J Int Law 15:1–52Google Scholar
  18. Brunnée J (2005) Enforcement mechanisms in international law and international environmental law. Environ Law Netw Int Rev 3:1–4Google Scholar
  19. Brunnée J (2007) Common areas, common heritage, and common concern. In: Bodansky D et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 550–573Google Scholar
  20. Brunnée J, Nollkaemper A (1996) Between the forests and the trees – an emerging international forest law. Environ Conserv 23:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brunnée J, Toope SJ (2010) Legitimacy and legality in international law: an interactional account. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chambers WB (2008) Interlinkages and the effectiveness of multilateral environmental agreements. United Nations University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  23. Chinkin CM (1989) The challenge of soft law: development and change in international law. Int Comp Law Q 38:850–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Churchill RR, Ulfstein G (2000) Autonomous institutional arrangements in multilateral environmental agreements: a little-noticed phenomenon in international law. Am J Int Law 94:623–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cooney R (2001) CITES and the CBD: tensions and synergies. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 10:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dimitrov RS (2005) Hostage to norms: states, institutions and global forest politics. Global Environ Polit 5:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dimitrov RS et al (2007) International nonregimes: a research agenda. Int Stud Rev 9:230–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dupuy PM (1990) Soft law and the international law of the environment. Mich J Int Law 12:420–435Google Scholar
  29. Franck TM (1998) Legitimacy in the international system. Am J Int Law 82:705–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Giessen L (2013) Reviewing the main characteristics of the international forest regime complex and partial explanations for its fragmentation. Int For Rev 15:60–70Google Scholar
  31. Glowka L (ed) (1994) A guide to the convention on biological diversity, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper, no. 30Google Scholar
  32. Goldmann M (2008) Inside relative normativity: from sources to standard instruments for the exercise of international public authority. German Law J 9:1865–1908Google Scholar
  33. Haas PM et al (1994) Institutions for the earth – sources of effective international environmental protection. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Hafner G (2003) Pros and cons ensuing from fragmentation of international law. Mich J Int Law 25:849–863Google Scholar
  35. Hassan R et al (eds) (2009) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: findings of the condition and trends working group (the millennium ecosystem assessment series), vol 1. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Helm C, Sprinz DF (2000) Measuring the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. J Confl Resolut 44:630–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hönerbach F (1996) Verhandlung einer Waldkonvention Ihr Ansatz und Scheitern, discussion paper FS-II 96-404, Wissenschaftszentrum, Berlin. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  38. Humphreys D (1999) The evolving forests regime. Global Environ Change 9:251–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Humphreys D (2003) Life protective or carcinogenic challenge? Global forests governance under advanced capitalism. Global Environ Polit 3:40–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Humphreys D (2005) The elusive quest for a global forests convention. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 14:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Humphreys D (2006) Logjam: deforestation and the crisis of global governance. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Jenks CW (1953) The conflict of law-making treaties. Br Yearb Int Law 30:401–453Google Scholar
  43. Jürging J, Giessen L (2013) Ein “Rechtsverbindliches Abkommen über die Wälder in Europa”: Stand und Perspektiven aus rechts- und umweltpolitikwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Natur und Recht 35:17–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keohane RO, Victor DG (2010) The regime complex for climate change, discussion paper 10–33, Cambridge, Harvard project on international climate agreementsGoogle Scholar
  45. Koskenniemi M, Leino P (2002) Fragmentation of international law: postmodern anxieties. Leiden J Int Law 15:553–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levin K et al (2008) The climate regime as global forest governance: can reduced emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) initiatives pass a ‘dual effectiveness’ test? Int For Rev 10:538–549Google Scholar
  47. Levy MA et al (1995) The study of international regimes. Eur J Int Relat 1:267–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Linderfalk U (2007) On the interpretation of treaties: the modern international law as expressed in the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lukitsch Hicks B (1998) Treaty congestion in international environmental law: the need for greater international coordination. Univ Richmond Law Rev 32:1643–1674Google Scholar
  50. Mackenzie CP (2012) Future prospects for international forest law. Int For Rev 14:249–257Google Scholar
  51. Maguire R (2010) The international regulation of sustainable forest management: doctrinal concepts, governing institutions and implementation. Thesis submitted for: IF49: Doctor of Philosophy, 8 November 2010. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  52. Maguire R (2013) Global forest governance: legal concepts and policy trends. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Matz N (2006) Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge: völkervertragsrechtliche und institutionelle Ansätze. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  54. Matz-Lück N (2008) Biological diversity, international protection. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  55. Matz-Lück N (2010) Framework agreements. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  56. Matz-Lück N (2011) Structural questions of fragmentation. Am Soc Int Law Proc 105:125–127Google Scholar
  57. McDermott CL et al (2007) International forest policy – the instruments, agreements and processes that shape it. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Forum on Forests SecretariatGoogle Scholar
  58. Miles EL et al (2001) Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  59. Mitchell RB (2003) International environmental agreements: a survey of their features, formation and effects. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:429–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mitchell RB (2007) Compliance theory: compliance, effectiveness, and behaviour change in international environmental law. In: Bodansky D et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 893–921Google Scholar
  61. Mulliken T (2009) The role of CITES in controlling the international trade in forest products: implications for sustainable forest management, food and agriculture organization, non-wood forest products working document no. 7Google Scholar
  62. Oberthür S (2009) Interplay management: enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. Int Environ Agreements 9:371–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pauwelyn J (2008a) Conflict of norms in public international law: how WTO law relates to other rules of international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  64. Pauwelyn J (2008b) Fragmentation of international law. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  65. Persson R (2005) Where is the United Nations forum on forests going? Int For Rev 7:348–357Google Scholar
  66. Rametsteiner E, Simula M (2003) Forest certification – an instrument to promote sustainable forest management? J Environ Manag 67:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Raustiala K, Victor DG (2004) The regime complex for plant genetic resources. Int Organ 58:277–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rayner J et al (eds) (2010) Embracing complexity: meeting the challenges of international forest governance. A global assessment report, prepared by the global forest expert panel on the international forest regime, IUFRO world series volume 28, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  69. Rosendal KG (2001) Overlapping international regimes: the case of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) between climate change and biodiversity. Int Environ Agreements 1:447–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sagemüller I (2006) Forest sinks under the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol: opportunity or risk for biodiversity. Columbia J Environ Law 31:189–242Google Scholar
  71. Sand PH (ed) (1992) The effectiveness of international environmental agreements: a survey of existing legal instruments. Grotius Publications Limited, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  72. Schally HM (1993) Forests: toward an international legal regime? Yearb Int Environ Law 4:30–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schrijver N (1997) Sovereignty over natural resources: balancing rights and duties. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schwartz J (2005) Whose woods these are i think i know: how Kyoto may change who controls biodiversity, N.Y.U. Environ Law J 14:421–480Google Scholar
  75. Scott KN (2011) International environmental governance: managing fragmentation through institutional connection. Melbourne J Int Law 12:1–40Google Scholar
  76. Simma B (1985) Self-contained regimes. Neth Yearb Int Law 16:111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Skala-Kuhmann A (1996) Legal instruments to enhance the conservation and sustainable management of forest resources at the international level, a study commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  78. Skjærseth JB et al (2006) Soft law, hard law, and effective implementation of international environmental norms. Global Environ Polit 6:104–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Smouts MC (2008) The issue of an international forest regime. Int For Rev 10:429–432Google Scholar
  80. Srivastava N (2011) Changing dynamics of forest regulation: coming full circle? Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 20:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stokke OS (2001) The interplay of international regimes: putting effectiveness theory to work, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, FNI report 14/2001. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  82. Stokke OS (2012) Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: explaining regional niche selection. Int Environ Agreements 13:65–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tarasofsky R (1996) The global regime for the conservation and sustainable use of forests: an assessment of progress to date. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 56:668–684Google Scholar
  84. Tarasofsky R (1999) Assessing the international forest regime, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper, no. 37Google Scholar
  85. Thürer D (2009) Soft law. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  86. Trouwborst A (2009) The precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach in international law: differences, similarities and linkages. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 18:26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. van Asselt H (2011) Integrating biodiversity in the climate regime’s forest rules: options and tradeoffs in greening REDD design. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 20:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. van Asselt H (2012) Managing the fragmentation of international environmental law: forests at the intersection of the climate and biodiversity regimes. J Int Law Polit 44:1205–1279Google Scholar
  89. Victor D et al (eds) (1998) The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments – theory and practice. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  90. von Moltke K (2001) On clustering international environmental agreements, IISD. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  91. Vranes E (2006) The definition of ‘Norm Conflict’ in international law and legal theory. Eur J Int Law 17:395–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wiersema A (2009) The new international law-makers – conferences of the parties to multilateral environmental agreements. Mich J Int Law 31:231–287Google Scholar
  93. Wolfrum R (2011) International law of cooperation. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  94. Wolfrum R, Matz N (2003) Conflicts in international environmental law. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Yeater M, Vasquez J (2001) Demystifying the relationship between CITES and the WTO. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 10:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Young OR (1994) International governance: protecting the environment in a stateless society. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  97. Young OR (ed) (1999) The effectiveness of international environmental regimes – causal connections and behavioral mechanisms. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  98. Young OR (2002) Evaluating the success of international environmental regimes – where are we now? Global Environ Chang 12:73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anja Eikermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawGeorg-August-University GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations