Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Options for an International Regulation of Forests

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Forests in International Law

  • 675 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For details refer to Chap. 2.

  2. 2.

    See also the “key goals” established by Rayner et al. (2010), pp. 21 et seqq.

  3. 3.

    For detailed information on the principle of state sovereignty over natural resources in general see Schrijver (1997).

  4. 4.

    See above Sect. 2.2.9 and Skala-Kuhmann (1996), pp. 28 et seq.; Humphreys (2006), pp. 1 et seqq. On a differentiation with regard to the qualification as a global common between climate and forests, see Hönerbach (1996), pp. 83 et seqq.

  5. 5.

    Such as for example climate stabilization. For a classification of the single forest functions with regard to the concepts of public and private goods see, Humphreys (2006), pp. 4 et seqq.

  6. 6.

    As suggested by Brunnée and Nollkaemper (1996). On the principle of common concern in general see for example Biermann (1996) and Brunnée (2007).

  7. 7.

    Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, UNTS Vol. 33, p. 993.

  8. 8.

    Chinkin (1989), p. 851. See also for example Goldmann (2008), p. 1866.

  9. 9.

    For a concise overview and for further reference see Thürer (2009).

  10. 10.

    See for example Chinkin (1989). Note that the term “effectiveness” is a critical and debated one. For the most influential studies in this regard see Miles et al. (2001), Brown Weiss and Jacobson (1998), and Young (1999).

  11. 11.

    Skjærseth et al. (2006), p. 119. The concept of compliance is an extensively debated one in international law and the political sciences, that gave rise to a large amount of literature. The thesis at hand does not elaborate further on this concept but draws on the basic findings of the studies. See for example Brunnée (2005) and Mitchell (2007).

  12. 12.

    Cf. Thürer (2009), para. 36. Dupuy holds that “[…] from a general and classical point of view, the rule of law is usually considered ‘hard,’ i.e., compulsory, or it simply does not exist.” “[S]oft law is trouble maker because it is either not yet or not only law.” Dupuy (1990), p. 420.

  13. 13.

    Thürer (2009), para. 37.

  14. 14.

    Chinkin (1989), p. 866.

  15. 15.

    On the implications of consensus decision making see Bodansky (1999), p. 607.

  16. 16.

    On legitimacy, particularly in the international environmental law context see, Bodansky (1999). On the role of legitimacy for compliance see for example, Franck (1998); Brunnée and Toope (2010), pp. 88 et seqq.; Recognizing a compliance pull in soft law agreements, Brown Weiss (1997).

  17. 17.

    Maguire (2010), p. 54.

  18. 18.

    Maguire (2010), p. 54.

  19. 19.

    Thus, for example the concept of sustainable forest management as it is used in the context of the UNFF and FAO differs from the concept as it used within the framework of forest certification businesses on the one hand and from the concept as it is used by the ITTO on the other hand. Further details on the different understandings of the concept are elaborated on below.

  20. 20.

    FAO, Managing forests for climate change. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1960e/i1960e00.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013. A description also used by the United Nations General Assembly in establishing the Non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests, United Nations General Assembly, 62nd session, Agenda item 54, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 62/98 Non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests, 31 January 2008, UN Doc. A/RES/62/98.

  21. 21.

    A description used by the FAO. http://www.fao.org/forestry/sfm/en/. Accessed 18 October 2014.

  22. 22.

    United Nations Forum on Forests, Fourth session, Geneva, 3–14 May 2004, Item 4 (a) (v) of the provisional agenda, Implementation of the proposals for action of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests/Intergovernmental Forum on Forests and the plan of action of the United Nations Forum on Forests, Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. E/CN.18/2004/11; United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 124th Session, Rome, 23–28 June 2003, Report of the 16th Session of the Committee on Forestry, Rome, 10–14 March 2003, UN Doc. CL 124/8, para. 67.

  23. 23.

    See below.

  24. 24.

    Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. Annex III: Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all Types of Forests, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. III), 14 August 1992, para. 2 (b).

  25. 25.

    For a good overview over the regional initiatives involved in the development of the concept of sustainable development see Humphreys (2006), pp. 121 and 122.

  26. 26.

    See also the more detailed elaborations in Maguire (2010), pp. 56 et seq.

  27. 27.

    Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forest in Europe, Strasbourg Declaration, 18 December 1990. http://www.foresteurope.org/docs/MC/strasbourg_declaration.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2013.

  28. 28.

    Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forest in Europe, RESOLUTION H1, General Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Forests in Europe, 16–17 June 1993. http://www.foresteurope.org/docs/MC/MC_helsinki_resolutionH1.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013.

  29. 29.

    International Tropical Timber Agreement 1983, Geneva, 18 November 1983. UNTS, Vol. 1393, p. 67.

  30. 30.

    International Tropical Timber Organization, Criteria for the Measurement of Sustainable Tropical Forest Management, ITTO Policy Development Series No. 3, 25 March 1992.

  31. 31.

    Eleventh Session of the International Tropical Timber Council and Associated Sessions of the Permanent Committees, Yokohama, 28 November–4 December 1991, Decision 6(XI) Sustainable Forest Management, Doc. No. ITTC(XI)/20.

  32. 32.

    Eleventh Session of the International Tropical Timber Council and Associated Sessions of the Permanent Committees, Yokohama, 28 November–4 December 1991, Decision 6(XI) Sustainable Forest Management, Doc. No. ITTC(XI)/20, Annex.

  33. 33.

    See also Rametsteiner and Simula (2003).

  34. 34.

    Rametsteiner and Simula (2003).

  35. 35.

    Rametsteiner and Simula (2003).

  36. 36.

    Cf. Humphreys (2006), p. 119.

  37. 37.

    Listed in Humphreys (2006), pp. 121 and 122; according to Rametsteiner and Simula (2003), 150 countries are involved in one or more international initiative.

  38. 38.

    Rametsteiner and Simula (2003).

  39. 39.

    United Nations Forum on Forests, Fourth session, Geneva, 3–14 May 2004, Item 4 (a) (v) of the provisional agenda, Implementation of the proposals for action of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests/Intergovernmental Forum on Forests and the plan of action of the United Nations Forum on Forests, Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. E/CN.18/2004/11, para. 45.

  40. 40.

    Cf. Rametsteiner and Simula (2003).

  41. 41.

    Skala-Kuhmann (1996), p. 11.

  42. 42.

    See particularly the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Hassan et al. (2009).

  43. 43.

    “The plain but comprehensive stated purpose of the precautionary principle is the adequate protection of the environment, both for its own sake and for the good of humankind. It entails taking preventive action in response to threats of environmental harm at an early stage, including in situations of scientific uncertainty. Applying the principle means giving the benefit of doubt to the environment: in dubio pro natura. Specifically, the precautionary principle calls for effective and proportional preventive and/or abatement action in cases where the best information available indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that serious and/or irreversible environmental harm may be caused, including in cases of scientific uncertainty. As indicated by the thresholds of ‘reasonable grounds for concern’ and ‘serious and/or irreversible’ harm, not every chance of any adverse impact is supposed to trigger action.” Trouwborst (2009), p. 27 (emphasis by the author).

  44. 44.

    See Skala-Kuhmann (1996), p. 11; Persson (2005), p. 350.

  45. 45.

    See Sect. 3.1.2.

  46. 46.

    See Sect. 4.1.3.3.

  47. 47.

    Cf. Skala-Kuhmann (1996), pp. 12–13.

  48. 48.

    See Sect. 2.2.8.

  49. 49.

    See Sect. 2.2.8.

  50. 50.

    Cf. Skala-Kuhmann (1996), p. 13.

  51. 51.

    An issue the parties could not agree on in the first place at Rio in 1992. See Sect. 3.1.2 and for further details Hönerbach (1996).

  52. 52.

    Cf. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, State of the World’s Forests 2012, Rome 2012, p. 17. Note in this regard the need to include the ILO Convention 169 within the group of international treaties relating indirectly to forests. 1989 Convention (No. 169) concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries, Geneva, 27 June 1989, UNTS Vol. 1650, p. 383 [ILO Convention 169].

  53. 53.

    Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya, 29 October 2010, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/1.

  54. 54.

    Cf. Skala-Kuhmann (1996), p. 14.

  55. 55.

    In general, studying the effectiveness of international regimes is a demanding task. For the most influential studies in this regard see Miles et al. (2001), Brown Weiss and Jacobson (1998) and Young (1999). The effectiveness of regimes—particularly in environmental matters—has set off an avalanche of literature in both, international law and international relations providing for several diverging approaches to effectiveness. For example Proceedings of the 91st Annual Meeting, Implementation, Compliance and Effectiveness, 91 American Society of International Law Proceedings (1997), 1–522; Mitchell (2007); Mitchell (2003), p. 433; Chambers (2008); Young (1999, 2002); Victor et al. (1998); Sand (1992); Miles et al. (2001); Levy et al. (1995); Helm and Sprinz (2000); Haas et al. (1994).

  56. 56.

    Persson (2005), p. 350.

  57. 57.

    Persson (2005), p. 350.

  58. 58.

    For similar approaches respectively lists see for example Bass and Thomson (1997), Skala-Kuhmann (1996), and Persson (2005), p. 350.

  59. 59.

    This aggregate of instruments has commonly been accorded the term “international forest regime” or “global forest regime” in International Relations studies, terms that have expanded also into international environmental law terminology. To avoid an interference with regime theory terminology—for further information in this regard see below—this thesis uses the term “instruments”. It is to be understood in a nontechnical way, referring simply to the single elements considered and analyzed within the framework of Chaps. 3 and 4. Following this approach, the term “multi-instrument-approach” is used to refer to the composite body of all components. The term “international forest regime” has been introduced by Schally (1993); further assessed in Tarasofsky (1996, 1999), and picked up on by Humphreys (1999, 2006); McDermott et al. (2007), splits up the “Legally Binding Forest-Related Global Instruments” and the “Non Legally Binding Global Forest Instruments” and term the first one the “forest-related regime”; Dimitrov (2005); Dimitrov et al. (2007) assume that particularly the lack of an international forest treaty prompt the classification as a “non-regime”. For a concise policy analysis based on an extensive literature review see Giessen (2013).

  60. 60.

    See Sect. 3.2.

  61. 61.

    Cf. Humphreys (2005), p. 9.

  62. 62.

    Humphreys (2005), p. 9.

  63. 63.

    See Sect. 3.1.1.

  64. 64.

    See for instance the annual issues of “State of the World’s Forests”. http://www.fao.org/forestry/sofo/en/. Accessed 4 November 2013.

  65. 65.

    See Sect. 3.3.

  66. 66.

    Agenda 21, para. 11.1; There is not a single agreed definition of what exactly constitutes a forest. Thus, the terms “forested land” or “wood land” are used to indicate the broad, conservationist, scope of the instrument. Note that states with a high interest in trade with forest products will aim for little protection of their local forest stands. Therefore, they will prefer forest regulations which provide for a high threshold to define an area as a forest. Areas not reaching the high threshold will be free from forest regulations. However, states with a high interest in forest functions and thus, an interest in the conservation of forests, will aim for forest regulations which provide for a small threshold as more areas will be under regulation.

  67. 67.

    See Sect. 5.1.2.

  68. 68.

    A term lend from Mackenzie (2012).

  69. 69.

    The line between legal and political interrelations or interdependencies is often hard to draw, see Wolfrum and Matz (2003), p. 12. Note furthermore that the list of interrelations provided for in the following is by no means exclusive but solely intends to provide an overview of possible treaty interrelations that entail significance for the question, if the aggregate of international treaties relating to forests is eligible to provide a comprehensive international forest framework.

  70. 70.

    Young (1994).

  71. 71.

    Chambers (2008).

  72. 72.

    Rosendal (2001).

  73. 73.

    Stokke (2001, 2012).

  74. 74.

    United Nations General Assembly, Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 58th session, Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682. With regard to the broad field of literature from the different disciplines on these issues, a proper detailed description of these various forms of interrelations shall not be presented within this framework. From a legal perspective the broad categories of interactions as provided for by Wolfrum and Matz (2003) provide a useful starting point for analysis. On the issue of taxonomy see Stokke (2001), pp. 4 et seq.

  75. 75.

    Note however that this is merely a very superficial statement. The harmonizing function of the same state membership of a treaty requires furthermore that the same national agencies are represented in the different treaty negotiations. Taking the example of a national environmental ministry and a department of commerce, a state’s national agencies by all intents and purposes naturally represent different opinions. Thus, even if one and the same state is a party to differing treaties, the homogeneity between the treaty negotiations will depend on the national agencies representing the state on the international stage.

  76. 76.

    See for example in the case of the conservation of global biodiversity the supportive relation between the “traditional” nature conservation agreements such as the Ramsar-Convention or the World Heritage Convention and the CBD. Cf. for example Matz-Lück (2008), para. 3.

  77. 77.

    Wolfrum and Matz (2003), p. 11.

  78. 78.

    On the concept of framework conventions in general see for an introduction Matz-Lück (2010).

  79. 79.

    See Wolfrum and Matz (2003), p. 11.

  80. 80.

    See for more detail Brunnée (2002) and Wiersema (2009).

  81. 81.

    This is done as well by Rayner et al. (2010), using a “consistency assessment” and a “compatibility assessment”, pp. 49 et seqq.

  82. 82.

    Note that these interrelations cannot always be attributed to one aspect of interrelation only, but rather overlap. Note furthermore, that this listing of interrelations is not exclusive. For a thematic analysis of treaty interrelations see McDermott et al. (2007).

  83. 83.

    See for example Bloch (2001), Cooney (2001), and Yeater and Vasquez (2001).

  84. 84.

    Cooney (2001).

  85. 85.

    Mulliken (2009), p. 67.

  86. 86.

    Which might simply be a matter of social acceptance.

  87. 87.

    Cf. Mulliken (2009), pp. 67 et seq.

  88. 88.

    A term lent from Bosselmann (2010), p. 2433.

  89. 89.

    See in detail on this principle in general Schrijver (1997).

  90. 90.

    As CITES only applies to a species as soon as it is subjected to cross border trade and as it does not regulate the conservation and use of a species within the “home state”, a re-statement of the principle of sovereignty over natural resources becomes superfluous. See Sect. 4.2.1.1.

  91. 91.

    ITTA 2006, preamble, para. (d); Art. 3 CBD; Art. 2 para. 3 Ramsar Convention; UNFCCC, preamble, para. 8; UNCCD, preamble, para. 15; Art. 6, para. 1 WHC.

  92. 92.

    Preamble para. 1 UNFCCC; Preamble para. 3 CBD.

  93. 93.

    See Mulliken (2009), pp. 61 et seq.

  94. 94.

    Lukitsch Hicks (1998).

  95. 95.

    Glowka (1994), p. 109. On the issue of “conflict clauses” like Art. 22 CBD see for example International Law Commission, 58th session, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi), Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006 [ILC Report on Fragmentation], pp. 135 et seqq.

  96. 96.

    See for example van Asselt (2012), Rosendal (2001), Sagemüller (2006), and Schwartz (2005); Cf. furthermore the discussions relating to the ecological impacts of LULUCF activities under the CDM or REDD.

  97. 97.

    van Asselt (2011).

  98. 98.

    See Rayner et al. (2010), p. 50.

  99. 99.

    See above Sect. 4.1.3.3 and McDermott et al. (2007), p. 94.

  100. 100.

    The UNFCCC currently has 195 Parties, the CBD 193 Parties.

  101. 101.

    As of November 2013.

  102. 102.

    See also McDermott et al. (2007).

  103. 103.

    Note however that sustainable forest management is in fact generally compatible with these treaties. This is however an issue of this chapter.

  104. 104.

    By use of the concept of “land degradation”, which includes the reduction or loss of forests, Art. 1, para. (f) UNCCD.

  105. 105.

    Such as for example illegal logging.

  106. 106.

    See also Tarasofsky (1999), p. 10.

  107. 107.

    Cf. McDermott et al. (2007), p. 82.

  108. 108.

    See for example van Asselt (2012), Mackenzie (2012), Maguire (2013), Rayner et al. (2010), Rosendal (2001), Smouts (2008), Tarasofsky (1999), Giessen (2013), Boyd (2010b), Dimitrov (2005), and Humphreys (2003, 2005).

  109. 109.

    United Nations General Assembly, Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 58th session, Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.

  110. 110.

    For an overview over the discussion see for example United Nations General Assembly, Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 58th session, Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, paras 5 et seq.; Koskenniemi and Leino (2002), Matz (2006), Wolfrum and Matz (2003), Benvenisti and Downs (2007), Hafner (2003), and Pauwelyn (2008a).

  111. 111.

    Address by H. E. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice, to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 27 October 1998. http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=3&p3=1&pt=3&y=1998. Accessed 24 April 2013. As well as Address by H. E. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice, to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 26 October 1999. http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=3&p3=1&pt=3&y=1999. Accessed 24 April 2013.

  112. 112.

    Address by H. E. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice, to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 27 October 1998. http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=3&p3=1&pt=3&y=1998. Accessed 24 April 2013.

  113. 113.

    Simma (1985) and Pauwelyn (2008b).

  114. 114.

    Brown Weiss (1992).

  115. 115.

    United Nations General Assembly, Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 58th session, Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.

  116. 116.

    United Nations General Assembly, Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 58th session, Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.

  117. 117.

    Compare for example Pauwelyn (2008b), paras 13 et seq.

  118. 118.

    Pauwelyn (2008b), para. 17.

  119. 119.

    Compare Matz-Lück (2011).

  120. 120.

    Matz-Lück (2011).

  121. 121.

    With regard to the meaning of the term “conflict”, the elaborations of the ILC report on fragmentation have to be taken particularly into account, see United Nations General Assembly, Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 58th session, Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, paras 21 et seq. Outright conflicts in terms of an incompatibility of two legal norms cannot be established in most cases. See also Vranes (2006).

  122. 122.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969. UNTS, Vol. 1155, p. 331.

  123. 123.

    See for example Borgen (2005), Matz (2006), Wolfrum and Matz (2003), and Pauwelyn (2008a).

  124. 124.

    Jenks (1953).

  125. 125.

    Wolfrum and Matz (2003).

  126. 126.

    See Pauwelyn (2008b), paras 20 et seq.

  127. 127.

    United Nations General Assembly, Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 58th session, Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682; for a concise overview see van Asselt (2012), pp. 1244 et seq.

  128. 128.

    Cf. the structure provided for by van Asselt, see van Asselt (2012), pp. 1244 et seq.

  129. 129.

    For extensive elaborations on the significance and meaning of Art. 31 (3) (c) VCLT see for example Linderfalk (2007).

  130. 130.

    See for example van Asselt (2012), p. 1250.

  131. 131.

    See for example van Asselt (2012), pp. 1250 et seq.

  132. 132.

    See Wolfrum and Matz (2003), p. 3; van Asselt (2012), p. 1255.

  133. 133.

    Matz (2006).

  134. 134.

    van Asselt (2012), p. 1256.

  135. 135.

    For an elaborated analysis of the difficulties to apply the traditional concept of “conflicts of norms” to international environmental law see Wolfrum and Matz (2003) or Matz (2006).

  136. 136.

    Cf. van Asselt (2012), p. 1253.

  137. 137.

    See van Asselt (2012), pp. 1253 and 1254; citing especially Brunnée (2002) and Wiersema (2009) in this regard.

  138. 138.

    See Sect. 5.2.2.2.

  139. 139.

    See the differentiation between “compartmentalization” and “fragmentation” made by Bosselmann (2010), pp. 2431 et seqq.

  140. 140.

    Cf. Bosselmann (2010), p. 2432; Boyd (2010a, b), pp. 513 et seqq.

  141. 141.

    Boyd (2010a, b), p. 515.

  142. 142.

    The broad concept of fragmentation has been described as “[…] a patchwork of international institutions that are different in their character (organizations, regimes, and implicit norms), their constituencies (public and private), their spatial scope (from bilateral to global), and their subject matter (from specific policy fields to universal concerns).” Biermann et al. (2009), p. 16.

  143. 143.

    Recognizing this interference of various regimes and the correlating deviation from the classical notion of regimes, spurred the study of so-called “regime complexes”. See especially Keohane and Victor (2010); see also Raustiala and Victor (2004) and Alter and Meunier (2009).

  144. 144.

    See the categorization of conflicts put forth by Wolfrum and Matz (2003), pp. 7 et seq.

  145. 145.

    Wolfrum (2011), para. 2.

  146. 146.

    See the categorization of conflicts put forth by Wolfrum and Matz (2003), p. 161.

  147. 147.

    Cf. van Asselt (2012), p. 1258.

  148. 148.

    See in general, Brunnée (2002) and Wiersema (2009).

  149. 149.

    Brunnée (2002), pp. 21 et seq.

  150. 150.

    Note that the following list of cooperations includes direct treaty cooperations only. Cooperation of institutions concerned with forest issues beyond the limits of international law are dealt with in this chapter below. Apart from these direct treaty cooperations, the international treaties relating to forests are additionally involved in further cooperation processes that aim at a general improvement of information sharing and knowledge management. However, as these initiatives lack a concrete forest connection, they will not be part of the present examination.

  151. 151.

    Established by COP 3 Decision III/12; See above Sect. 4.3.1.5.

  152. 152.

    Which includes the ITTO, the UNCCD and the UNFCCC.

  153. 153.

    The CBD website provides for a list of COP decisions entailing reference to forest biodiversity. See http://www.cbd.int/forest/decisions.shtml. Accessed 25 May 2013.

  154. 154.

    The term “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) is itself meaningful with regard to its legal nature. In fact a large number of non-legally binding agreements have been named MOU, however there are also treaties that have been accorded the name. Thus, the determination of the legal status of a MOU depends on the terms of the text. On the nature of memoranda of understanding see in general Aust (2000), pp. 17–18, 20–21 and 26 et seq.

  155. 155.

    Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Secretariat of the International Tropical Organization (ITTO) and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2010–2014), Annex 1 to ITTO/CBD Collaborative Initiative for Tropical Forest Biodiversity, Programme Document, final draft—19 May 2011, A Joint Initiative of CBD and ITTO to Enhance Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Tropical Forests. http://www.cbd.int/forest/doc/cbd-itto-initiative-programme-document.en.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2013.

  156. 156.

    ITTO/CBD Collaborative Initiative for Tropical Forest Biodiversity, Programme Document, final draft—19 May 2011, A Joint Initiative of CBD and ITTO to Enhance Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Tropical Forests, p. 3. http://www.cbd.int/forest/doc/cbd-itto-initiative-programme-document.en.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2013.

  157. 157.

    ITTO/CBD Collaborative Initiative for Tropical Forest Biodiversity, Programme Document, final draft—19 May 2011, A Joint Initiative of CBD and ITTO to Enhance Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Tropical Forests, p. 3. http://www.cbd.int/forest/doc/cbd-itto-initiative-programme-document.en.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2013.

  158. 158.

    See ITTO/CBD Collaborative Initiative for Tropical Forest Biodiversity, Programme Document, final draft—19 May 2011, A Joint Initiative of CBD and ITTO to Enhance Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Tropical Forests, pp. 12 et seq. http://www.cbd.int/forest/doc/cbd-itto-initiative-programme-document.en.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2013.

  159. 159.

    Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Secretariat of the International Tropical Organization (ITTO) and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2010–2014), Annex 1 to ITTO/CBD Collaborative Initiative for Tropical Forest Biodiversity, Programme Document, final draft—19 May 2011, A Joint Initiative of CBD and ITTO to Enhance Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Tropical Forests. http://www.cbd.int/forest/doc/cbd-itto-initiative-programme-document.en.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2013.

  160. 160.

    See Sect. 4.1.1.

  161. 161.

    Cf. Mulliken (2009), p. 14; Lukitsch Hicks (1998), p. 1656; Tarasofsky (1999), pp. 85 et seq.

  162. 162.

    Lukitsch Hicks (1998), p. 1656.

  163. 163.

    Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, The Hague (Netherlands), 3–15 June 2007, Cooperation between CITES and ITTO regarding trade in tropical timber, Resolution Conf. 14.4.

  164. 164.

    Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, The Hague (Netherlands), 3–15 June 2007, Cooperation between CITES and ITTO regarding trade in tropical timber, Resolution Conf. 14.4.

  165. 165.

    Cf. Mulliken (2009), p. 67.

  166. 166.

    Cf. Mulliken (2009), pp. 61 et seq.

  167. 167.

    See for example the collaboration of the CBD and UNFCCC in REDD+ issues based on CBD COP decision X/33.

  168. 168.

    The case of the unknown outcomes of rule development has been termed “a blind spot in the fragmentation debate” by van Asselt (2012), p. 1253.

  169. 169.

    See particularly Wiersema (2009).

  170. 170.

    On the role of treaty bodies for treaty interrelations see van Asselt (2012), pp. 1252 et seq.

  171. 171.

    For an overview over the advantages and disadvantages provided for by an international treaty approach to forests see inter alia Tarasofsky (1996), p. 682; Brunnée (1996), pp. 49 et seqq.; Humphreys (2005), p. 2; Mackenzie (2012), p. 251.

  172. 172.

    Such an approach would also include a legal format for REDD. For the options with regard to forest amendments and protocols see Tarasofsky (1996), p. 673; Boyd (2010a); Levin et al. (2008); Mackenzie (2012); Srivastava (2011); van Asselt (2011).

  173. 173.

    See Sect. 5.3.2 above as well as in general Matz (2006); and regarding the issue of forests van Asselt (2012), pp. 1244 et seq.; Mackenzie (2012); Humphreys (2005), p. 6.

  174. 174.

    Cf. Mackenzie (2012), p. 252.

  175. 175.

    Alter and Meunier (2009), p. 21.

  176. 176.

    A description lent from Rayner et al. (2010).

  177. 177.

    Rayner et al. (2010), p. 16.

  178. 178.

    von Moltke (2001), p. 5.

  179. 179.

    Chambers (2008), p. 247.

  180. 180.

    Chambers (2008), p. 249.

  181. 181.

    Chambers (2008), pp. 80 et seqq.

  182. 182.

    Skala-Kuhmann (1996), p. 35.

  183. 183.

    Skala-Kuhmann (1996), p. 35.

  184. 184.

    Rayner et al. (2010), pp. 93 et seqq.

  185. 185.

    van Asselt (2012) referring to Oberthür (2009).

  186. 186.

    Skala-Kuhmann (1996), p. 27.

  187. 187.

    On the advantages and disadvantages arising from the merging of treaties see von Moltke (2001), p. 4.

  188. 188.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969. UNTS, Vol. 1155, p. 331.

  189. 189.

    As has been noted in the context of the study of “regime complexes”: “A hallmark of the regime complex is a shift in the locus of action—away from elemental regimes and toward legal inconsistencies that tend to arise at the joints between regimes, and away from formal negotiations and toward the more complicated processes of implementation and interpretation.” Raustiala and Victor (2004), p. 306.

  190. 190.

    Cf. Skala-Kuhmann (1996) and Humphreys (2005).

  191. 191.

    See particularly European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector, Brussels, 20.9.2013, COM(2013) 659 final.

  192. 192.

    See Sect. 3.1.4.

  193. 193.

    Emphasis added.

  194. 194.

    See for a current draft version Annex B to the Chair’s Summary of discussions at the First Meeting of the INC4 for a Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe, INC4 Draft Negotiating Text, 14 June 2013, Document 2/INC4add.1. http://www.forestnegotiations.org/INC/INC4/reports. Accessed 5 November 2013. Note that the single elements of the Agreement are “ad referendum”. As such, they are provisionally approved, but still require official approval.

  195. 195.

    Emphasis added.

  196. 196.

    Emphasis added.

  197. 197.

    Emphasis added.

  198. 198.

    Emphasis added.

  199. 199.

    For example Churchill and Ulfstein (2000); van Asselt (2012), pp. 1256 et seqq.; On the status of COP decisions in general see particularly Brunnée (2002).

  200. 200.

    See van Asselt (2012), p. 1268, citing Scott (2011), p. 35.

  201. 201.

    See Sect. 5.1.10.

  202. 202.

    With regard to the complexity to draft provisions on the compliance mechanism of the Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe see Jürging and Giessen (2013), p. 320.

  203. 203.

    INC-Forests Bulletin, Summary of the Resumed Third Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe (INC-Forests 3), Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Vol. 180, No. 5, 8 April 2013, pp. 7 et seq. http://www.iisd.ca/forestry/inc/inc3r/. Accessed 23 May 2013.

References

  • Alter KJ, Meunier S (2009) The politics of international regime complexity. Perspect Polit 7:13–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aust A (2000) Modern treaty law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 programme

    Google Scholar 

  • Benvenisti E, Downs GW (2007) The empire’s new clothes: political economy and the fragmentation of international law. Stanford Law Rev 60:595–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann F (1996) “Common Concern of Humankind”: the emergence of a new concept of international environmental law. Archiv des Völkerrechts 34:426–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann F et al (2009) The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Global Environ Polit 9:14–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch F (2001) The ‘Brazilian Clause’: a recent attempt to create linkages between the CBD and CITES. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 10:268–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky D (1999) The legitimacy of international governance: a coming challenge for international environmental law? Am J Int Law 93:596–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgen CJ (2005) Resolving treaty conflicts. George Wash Int Law Rev 37:573–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosselmann K (2010) Losing the forest for the trees: environmental reductionism in the law. Sustainability 2:2424–2448. http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Boyd W (2010a) Ways of seeing in environmental law: how deforestation became an object of climate governance. Ecol Law Q 37:843–916

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd W (2010b) Climate change, fragmentation, and the challenges of global environmental law: elements of a post-Copenhagen assemblage. Univ Pa J Int Law 32:457–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss E (1992) International environmental law: contemporary issues and the emergence of a new world order. Georgetown Law J 81:675–710

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss E (ed) (1997) International compliance with nonbinding accords, studies in transnational legal policy no. 29, American Society of International Law, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss E, Jacobson HK (eds) (1998) Engaging countries: strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. MIT Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 41–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée J (2002) COPing with consent: law-making under multilateral environmental agreements. Leiden J Int Law 15:1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée J (2005) Enforcement mechanisms in international law and international environmental law. Environ Law Netw Int Rev 3:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 550–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée J, Nollkaemper A (1996) Between the forests and the trees – an emerging international forest law. Environ Conserv 23:307–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée J, Toope SJ (2010) Legitimacy and legality in international law: an interactional account. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers WB (2008) Interlinkages and the effectiveness of multilateral environmental agreements. United Nations University Press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin CM (1989) The challenge of soft law: development and change in international law. Int Comp Law Q 38:850–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill RR, Ulfstein G (2000) Autonomous institutional arrangements in multilateral environmental agreements: a little-noticed phenomenon in international law. Am J Int Law 94:623–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooney R (2001) CITES and the CBD: tensions and synergies. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 10:259–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrov RS (2005) Hostage to norms: states, institutions and global forest politics. Global Environ Polit 5:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrov RS et al (2007) International nonregimes: a research agenda. Int Stud Rev 9:230–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy PM (1990) Soft law and the international law of the environment. Mich J Int Law 12:420–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck TM (1998) Legitimacy in the international system. Am J Int Law 82:705–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giessen L (2013) Reviewing the main characteristics of the international forest regime complex and partial explanations for its fragmentation. Int For Rev 15:60–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Glowka L (ed) (1994) A guide to the convention on biological diversity, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper, no. 30

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldmann M (2008) Inside relative normativity: from sources to standard instruments for the exercise of international public authority. German Law J 9:1865–1908

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas PM et al (1994) Institutions for the earth – sources of effective international environmental protection. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner G (2003) Pros and cons ensuing from fragmentation of international law. Mich J Int Law 25:849–863

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Helm C, Sprinz DF (2000) Measuring the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. J Confl Resolut 44:630–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hönerbach F (1996) Verhandlung einer Waldkonvention Ihr Ansatz und Scheitern, discussion paper FS-II 96-404, Wissenschaftszentrum, Berlin. http://bibliothek.wz-berlin.de/pdf/1996/ii96-404.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Humphreys D (1999) The evolving forests regime. Global Environ Change 9:251–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys D (2003) Life protective or carcinogenic challenge? Global forests governance under advanced capitalism. Global Environ Polit 3:40–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys D (2005) The elusive quest for a global forests convention. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 14:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys D (2006) Logjam: deforestation and the crisis of global governance. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenks CW (1953) The conflict of law-making treaties. Br Yearb Int Law 30:401–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Jürging J, Giessen L (2013) Ein “Rechtsverbindliches Abkommen über die Wälder in Europa”: Stand und Perspektiven aus rechts- und umweltpolitikwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Natur und Recht 35:17–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane RO, Victor DG (2010) The regime complex for climate change, discussion paper 10–33, Cambridge, Harvard project on international climate agreements

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M, Leino P (2002) Fragmentation of international law: postmodern anxieties. Leiden J Int Law 15:553–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 10:538–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy MA et al (1995) The study of international regimes. Eur J Int Relat 1:267–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lukitsch Hicks B (1998) Treaty congestion in international environmental law: the need for greater international coordination. Univ Richmond Law Rev 32:1643–1674

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie CP (2012) Future prospects for international forest law. Int For Rev 14:249–257

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/41688/. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Maguire R (2013) Global forest governance: legal concepts and policy trends. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matz N (2006) Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge: völkervertragsrechtliche und institutionelle Ansätze. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Matz-Lück N (2008) Biological diversity, international protection. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. www.mpepil.com. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Matz-Lück N (2010) Framework agreements. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. www.mpepil.com. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Matz-Lück N (2011) Structural questions of fragmentation. Am Soc Int Law Proc 105:125–127

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Secretariat

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles EL et al (2001) Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RB (2003) International environmental agreements: a survey of their features, formation and effects. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:429–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 893–921

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür S (2009) Interplay management: enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. Int Environ Agreements 9:371–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2008a) Conflict of norms in public international law: how WTO law relates to other rules of international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2008b) Fragmentation of international law. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. www.mpepil.com. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Persson R (2005) Where is the United Nations forum on forests going? Int For Rev 7:348–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Rametsteiner E, Simula M (2003) Forest certification – an instrument to promote sustainable forest management? J Environ Manag 67:87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raustiala K, Victor DG (2004) The regime complex for plant genetic resources. Int Organ 58:277–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosendal KG (2001) Overlapping international regimes: the case of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) between climate change and biodiversity. Int Environ Agreements 1:447–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 31:189–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Sand PH (ed) (1992) The effectiveness of international environmental agreements: a survey of existing legal instruments. Grotius Publications Limited, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schally HM (1993) Forests: toward an international legal regime? Yearb Int Environ Law 4:30–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver N (1997) Sovereignty over natural resources: balancing rights and duties. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz J (2005) Whose woods these are i think i know: how Kyoto may change who controls biodiversity, N.Y.U. Environ Law J 14:421–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott KN (2011) International environmental governance: managing fragmentation through institutional connection. Melbourne J Int Law 12:1–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1985) Self-contained regimes. Neth Yearb Int Law 16:111–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib/97-0370.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Skjærseth JB et al (2006) Soft law, hard law, and effective implementation of international environmental norms. Global Environ Polit 6:104–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smouts MC (2008) The issue of an international forest regime. Int For Rev 10:429–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava N (2011) Changing dynamics of forest regulation: coming full circle? Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 20:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokke OS (2001) The interplay of international regimes: putting effectiveness theory to work, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, FNI report 14/2001. http://www.fni.no/doc%26pdf/FNI-R1401.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Stokke OS (2012) Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: explaining regional niche selection. Int Environ Agreements 13:65–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 56:668–684

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarasofsky R (1999) Assessing the international forest regime, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper, no. 37

    Google Scholar 

  • Thürer D (2009) Soft law. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. www.mpepil.com. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Trouwborst A (2009) The precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach in international law: differences, similarities and linkages. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 18:26–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 20:139–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 44:1205–1279

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor D et al (eds) (1998) The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments – theory and practice. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • von Moltke K (2001) On clustering international environmental agreements, IISD. http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?id=392. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Vranes E (2006) The definition of ‘Norm Conflict’ in international law and legal theory. Eur J Int Law 17:395–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersema A (2009) The new international law-makers – conferences of the parties to multilateral environmental agreements. Mich J Int Law 31:231–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum R (2011) International law of cooperation. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. www.mpepil.com. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  • Wolfrum R, Matz N (2003) Conflicts in international environmental law. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yeater M, Vasquez J (2001) Demystifying the relationship between CITES and the WTO. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 10:271–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young OR (1994) International governance: protecting the environment in a stateless society. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Young OR (ed) (1999) The effectiveness of international environmental regimes – causal connections and behavioral mechanisms. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Young OR (2002) Evaluating the success of international environmental regimes – where are we now? Global Environ Chang 12:73–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Anja Eikermann

Authors
  1. Anja Eikermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eikermann, A. (2015). The Options for an International Regulation of Forests. In: Forests in International Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14950-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation