Abstract
This chapter focuses on the fragmentation of international law related to climate change and the interactions between the relevant legal regimes. It examines various management strategies with a view to enhancing synergies and mitigating conflicts between climate-related international legal regimes. The chapter starts with an overview of the ongoing debate on the fragmentation of international law. It then identifies the features of international climate lawmaking and implementation that constrain the usefulness of well-known legal techniques for avoiding and resolving conflicts. The chapter moves on to show how institutional cooperation between poliĀtical bodies and bureaucracies may lead to enhanced coherence between the climate change regime and other legal regimes, while arguing that such a strategy will also encounter specific concerns related to their legitimacy. The chapter concludes by highlighting the need to apply various strategies for managing the fragmentation of international climate law, and identifies areas for further inquiry in this regard.
Harro van Asselt is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute. He is also a visiting research associate with the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford and a visiting researcher with the Institute for Environmental Studies at VU University Amsterdam. The author would like to acknowledge funding from the European Commission (Intra-European Fellowship, CLIMATEGOV; contract 253090).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Horst W.J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber, āDilemmas in a General Theory of Planningā, 4 Policy Sciences (1973), 155, at 160ā169.
- 2.
For an excellent discussion of different framings of the climate change problem, see Mike Hulme, Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
- 3.
Kelly Levin et al., āPlaying It Forward: Path Dependency, Progressive Incrementalism, and the āSuper Wickedā Problem of Global Climate Changeā, paper presented at the International Studies Association Convention, Geneva, 28 Februaryā3 March 2007, at 4ā9; Richard J. Lazarus, āSuper Wicked Problems and Climate Change: Restraining the Present to Liberate the Futureā, 94 Cornell Law Review (2009), 1153, at 1159ā1183.
- 4.
Levin et al., āPlaying It Forwardā, supra, note 3, at 8ā9.
- 5.
Ibid., at 9.
- 6.
Daniel H. Cole, āClimate Change and Collective Actionā, 61 Current Legal Problems (2008), 229, at 232.
- 7.
Levin et al., āPlaying It Forwardā, supra, note 3, at 9.
- 8.
Lazarus, āSuper Wicked Problems and Climate Changeā, supra, note 3, at 1174ā1176.
- 9.
I adopt the definition proposed by Margaret Young (which is in turn adapted from the consensus regime definition proposed by Stephen Krasner): āregimes are sets of norms, decision-making procedures and organisations coalescing around functional issue-areas and dominated by particular modes of behaviour, assumption and biases.ā Margaret A. Young, āIntroduction: The Productive Friction Between Regimesā, in Margaret A. Young (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 1, at 11. See also Stephen D. Krasner, āStructural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variablesā, in Stephen D. Krasner (ed.), International Regimes (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 1, at 2.
- 10.
Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 22 March 1985, in force 22 September 1988, 26 International Legal Materials (1987), 1529.
- 11.
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Montreal, 16 September 1987, in force 1 January 1989, 26 International Legal Materials (1987), 1550.
- 12.
Sebastian OberthĆ¼r, Claire Dupont and Yasuko Matsumoto, āManaging Policy Contradictions Between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols: The Case of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gasesā, in Sebastian OberthĆ¼r and Olav Schram Stokke (eds), Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2011), 115.
- 13.
Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992, in force 29 December 1993, 34 International Legal Materials (1992), 822.
- 14.
See, for instance, RĆ¼diger Wolfrum and Nele Matz, Conflicts in International Environmental Law (Berlin: Springer, 2003); Imke SagemĆ¼ller, āForest Sinks under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol: Opportunity or Risk for Biodiversity?ā, 31 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law (2006), 189; Harro van Asselt, āIntegrating Biodiversity in the Climate Regimeās Forest Rules: Options and Tradeoffs in Greening REDD Designā, 20 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2011), 139; Harro van Asselt, āManaging the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law: Forests at the Intersection of the Climate and Biodiversity Regimesā, 44 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (2012, forthcoming).
- 15.
See, for instance, Ludivine Tamiotti et al., Trade and Climate Change: A Report by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Trade Organization (Geneva: WTO Secretariat, 2009); Tracey Epps and Andrew Green, Reconciling Trade and Climate: How the WTO Can Help Address Climate Change (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2010); Fariborz Zelli and Harro van Asselt, āThe Overlap Between the UN Climate Regime and the World Trade Organization: Lessons for post-2012 Climate Governanceā, in Frank Biermann, Philipp Pattberg and Fariborz Zelli (eds), Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 79.
- 16.
See, for instance, Karen N. Scott, āThe Day After Tomorrow: Ocean CO2 Sequestration and the Future of Climate Changeā, 18 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review (2005), 57; Meinhard Doelle, āClimate Change and the Use of the Dispute Settlement Regime of the Law of the Sea Conventionā, 37 Ocean Development and International Law (2006), 319.
- 17.
Stephen Humphreys (ed.), Human Rights and Climate Change (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Edward Cameron, āHuman Rights and Climate Change: Moving from an Intrinsic to an Instrumental Approachā, 38 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law (2010), 673; Ole W. Pedersen, āThe Janus-Head of Human Rights and Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigationā, 80 Nordic Journal of International Law (2011), 403.
- 18.
See, for instance, Erika Rosenthal and Robert Watson 2011, āMultilateral Efforts to Reduce Black Carbon Emissions: A Lifeline for the Warming Arctic?ā, 20 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2011), 3.
- 19.
See notably Bruno Simma, āSelf-Contained Regimesā, 16 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (1985), 845.
- 20.
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, UN. Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006, para. 729; On the fragmentation of international law see, for instance, Martti Koskenniemi and PƤivi Leino, āFragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxietiesā, 15 Leiden Journal of International Law (2002), 553; Matthew Craven, āUnity, Diversity and the Fragmentation of International Lawā, 14 The Finnish Yearbook of International Law (2003), 3; Gerhard Hafner, āPros and Cons Ensuring From Fragmentation of International Lawā, 25 Michigan Journal of International Law (2004), 849; Joost Pauwelyn, āBridging Fragmentation and Unity: International Law as a Universe of Inter-Connected Islandsā, 25 Michigan Journal of International Law (2004), 903; Eyal Benvenisti and George W. Downs, āThe Empireās New Clothes: Political Economy and the Fragmentation of International Lawā, 60 Stanford Law Review (2007), 595; Alexandra Khrebtukova, āA Call to Freedom: Towards a Philosophy of International Law in an Era of Fragmentationā, 4 Journal of International Law and International Relations (2008), 51; Margaret A. Young (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
- 21.
ILC, Fragmentation of International Law, supra, note 20.
- 22.
Ibid.
- 23.
Ibid., para. 493.
- 24.
Exceptions include Harro van Asselt, Francesco Sindico and Michael A. Mehling, āGlobal Climate Change and the Fragmentation of International Lawā, 30 Law & Policy (2008), 423; Harro Van Asselt, āLegal and Political Approaches in Interplay Management: Dealing with the Fragmentation of Global Climate Governanceā, in Sebastian OberthĆ¼r and Olav Schram Stokke (eds), Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2011), 59; Margaret A. Young, āClimate Change Law and Regime Interactionā, 4 Carbon and Climate Law Review (2011), 147; Margaret A. Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish: The Interaction between Regimes in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Cinnamon PiƱon Carlane, āGood Climate Governance: Only a Fragmented System of International Law Away?ā, 30 Law &Policy (2008), 450; Karen N. Scott, āInternational Environmental Governance: Managing Fragmentation Through Institutional Connectionā, 12 Melbourne Journal of International Law (2011), 177.
- 25.
Edith Brown-Weiss, āInternational Environmental Law: Contemporary Issues and the Emergence of a New Orderā, 81 Georgetown Law Journal (1993), 675, at 697ā702. See also Bethany Lukitsch Hicks, āTreaty Congestion In International Environmental Law: The Need For Greater International Coordination, Commentā, 32 University of Richmond Law Review (1999), 1643; Donald K. Anton, āTreaty Congestionā in Contemporary International Environmental Lawā, in Shawkat Alam et al. (eds), Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law (London: Routledge, 2012, forthcoming).
- 26.
See, for instance, Steinar Andresen, āGlobal Environmental Governance: UN Fragmentation and Co-ordinationā, in Olav Schram Stokke and Ćystein B. Thommessen (eds), Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development 2001/2002 (London: Earthscan, 2001), 19; Steven Bernstein and Maria Ivanova, āInstitutional Fragmentation and Normative Compromise in Global Environmental Governance: What Prospects for Re-embedding?ā, in Steven Bernstein and Louis W. Pauly (eds), Global Liberalism and Political Order: Towards a New Grand Compromise? (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), 161.
- 27.
Notable exceptions are Wolfrum and Matz, Conflicts in International Environmental Law, supra, note 14, at 119ā209; W. Bradnee Chambers, Interlinkages and the Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2008); Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish, supra, note 24.
- 28.
The term also has also led to discussions in the international relations literature. See Frank Biermann et al., āThe Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysisā, 9 Global Environmental Politics (2009), 14, at 16ā17.
- 29.
Koskenniemi and Leino, āFragmentation of International Law?ā, supra, note 20, at 576ā577.
- 30.
Mario Prost, āAll Shouting the Same Slogans: International Lawās Unities and the Politics of Fragmentationā, 17 Finnish Yearbook of International Law (2006), 131, at 158.
- 31.
Anne-Charlotte Martineau, āThe Rhetoric of Fragmentation: Fear and Faith in International Lawā, 22 Leiden Journal of International Law (2009), 1, at 27. For instance, ādiversityā was contrasted with ācacophonyā in a special issue of the Michigan Journal of International Law focusing on the advantages and drawbacks of the fragmentation of international law. See, for example, Bruno Simma, āFragmentation in a Positive Lightā, 25 Michigan Journal of International Law (2004), 845, at 845. Pluralism is generally seen as a benign development by legal pluralists. See, for instance, Andreas Fischer-Lescano and Gunther Teubner, āRegime-Collisions: the Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Lawā, 25 Michigan Journal of International Law (2004), 999. For a recent discussion of polycentricity in a positive light, see Elinor Ostrom, āPolycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global Environmental Changeā, 20 Global Environmental Change (2010), 550.
- 32.
ILC, Fragmentation of International Law, supra, note 20, para. 13.
- 33.
Georges Abi-Saab, āFragmentation or Unification: Some Concluding Remarksā, 31 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (1999), 919, at 925.
- 34.
For a discussion of the case, see Marcos A. Orellana, āThe Swordfish Dispute between the EU and Chile at the ITLOS and the WTOā, 71 Nordic Journal of International Law (2002), 55.
- 35.
Tomer Broude, āPrinciples of Normative Integration and the Allocation of International Authority: The WTO, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the Rio Declarationā, 6 Loyola University Chicago International Law Review (2008), 173, at 182ā183.
- 36.
ILC, Fragmentation of International Law, supra, note 20, para. 47.
- 37.
Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Judgment, 15 July 1999, Case No. IT-94-1-A, A.Ch.
- 38.
Martti Koskenniemi, āBreach of Treaty or Non-Compliance: Reflections on the Enforcement of the Montreal Protocolā, 3 Yearbook of International Environmental Law (1992), 123.
- 39.
See, for instance, Biermann et al., āThe Fragmentation of Global Governance Architecturesā, supra, note 28; Robert O. Keohane and David G. Victor, āThe Regime Complex for Climate Changeā, 9 Perspectives on Politics (2011), 7.
- 40.
Gerhard Hafner, āRisks Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Lawā, Official Records of the General Assembly, 55th session, Supplement No. 10 (A/55/10, 2000), Annex, 143 at 147.
- 41.
Pierre-Marie Dupuy, āThe Danger of Fragmentation or Unification of the International Legal System and the International Court of Justiceā, 31 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (1999), 791; Benedict Kingsbury, āIs the Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals a Systemic Problem?ā, 31 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (1999), 679.
- 42.
ILC, Fragmentation of International Law, supra, note 20, paras. 10 and 439ā442.
- 43.
Benvenisti and Downs, āThe Empireās New Clothesā, supra, note 20, at 628.
- 44.
Craven, āUnity, Diversity and the Fragmentation of International Lawā, supra, note 20, at 5; ILC, Fragmentation of International Law, supra, note 20, para. 493.
- 45.
Khrebtukova, āA Call to Freedomā, supra, note 20, at 56.
- 46.
Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), at 600ā615. See also Martti Koskenniemi, āHegemonic Regimesā, in Margaret A. Young (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 305.
- 47.
For a comparison of the dispute settlement mechanisms of the WTO and multilateral environmental agreements, see Alexandra GonzĆ”lez-Calatayud and Gabrielle Marceau, āThe Relationship between the Dispute-Settlement Mechanisms of MEAs and those of the WTOā, 11 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2002), 275.
- 48.
Anja Lindroos and Michael Mehling, āDispelling the Chimera of āSelf-Contained Regimesā: International Law and the WTOā, 16 European Journal of International Law (2005), 857, at 859.
- 49.
Koskenniemi and Leino, āFragmentation of International Law?ā, supra, note 20, at 578.
- 50.
Benvenisti and Downs, āThe Empireās New Clothesā, supra, note 20, at 602.
- 51.
Hafner, āPros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Lawā, supra, note 20, at 859.
- 52.
MoisĆ©s NaĆm, āMinilateralism. The Magic Number to Get Real International Actionā, Foreign Policy (2009), 135.
- 53.
Jonathan Charney, āThe Impact on the International Legal System of the Growth of International Courts and Tribunalsā, 31 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (1999), 697, at 700.
- 54.
Biermann et al., āThe Fragmentation of Global Governance Architecturesā, supra, note 28, at 27.
- 55.
ILC, Fragmentation of International Law, supra, note 20, para. 492.
- 56.
See, for instance, Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law. How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Christina Voigt, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law. Resolving Conflicts between Climate Measures and WTO Law (Leiden: Brill, 2008).
- 57.
See notably Voigt, ibid., at 265ā292.
- 58.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 22 May 1969, in force 27 January 1980, 8 International Legal Materials (1989), 679.
- 59.
ILC, Fragmentation of International Law, supra, note 20, paras. 410ā480.
- 60.
Philippe Sands, āTreaty, Custom and the Cross-fertilization of International Lawā, 1 Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal (1998), 85; Campbell McLachlan, āThe Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Conventionā, 54 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2005), 279; Duncan French, āTreaty Interpretation and the Incorporation of Extraneous Legal Rulesā, 55 International Comparative Law Quarterly (2006), 281; Broude, āPrinciples of Normative Integration and the Allocation of International Authorityā, supra, note 35; Anja Lindroos and Michael Mehling, āFrom Autonomy to Integration? International Law, Free Trade and the Environmentā, 77 Nordic Journal of International Law (2008), 253; Panos Merkouris, āArticle 31(3)(c) of the VCLT and the Principle of Systemic Integrationā (PhD thesis on file at the Queen Mary University of London, College of Law), 2010, available at: https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/477/1/MERKOURISArticle%2031(3)(c)2010.pdf (last accessed on 14 February 2012); Riccardo Pavoni, āMutual Supportiveness as a Principle of Interpretation and Law-Making: A Watershed for the āWTO-and-Competing-Regimesā Debate?ā, 21 European Journal of International Law (2010), 649; MĆ©lanie Samson, āHigh Hopes, Scant Resources: A Word of Scepticism about the Anti-Fragmentation Function of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatiesā, 24 Leiden Journal of International Law (2011), 701.
- 61.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra, note 58, Art. 31.3(c).
- 62.
Merkouris, āArticle 31(3)(c) of the VCLT and the Principle of Systemic Integrationā, supra, note 60, at 8.
- 63.
McLachlan, āThe Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Conventionā, supra, note 60, at 280.
- 64.
Pavoni, āMutual Supportiveness as a Principle of Interpretation and Law-Makingā, supra, note 60, at 678.
- 65.
Lindroos and Mehling, āFrom Autonomy to Integration?ā, supra, note 60, at 268.
- 66.
McLachlan, āThe Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Conventionā, supra, note 60, at 295ā309. However, as Lindroos and Mehling observe, the case law is rather recent, and provides only a āweak basis for an actual principle of systemic integrationā. Lindroos and Mehling, āFrom Autonomy to Integration?ā, supra, note 60, at 268.
- 67.
United States ā Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R, 6 November 1998, para. 158.
- 68.
Concetta Maria Pontecorvo, āInterdependence between Global Environmental Regimes: The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and Forest Protectionā, 59 Zeitschrift fĆ¼r auslƤndisches ƶffentliches Recht und Vƶlkerrecht (1999), 709, at 741.
- 69.
Harro van Asselt, Francesco Sindico and Michael A. Mehling, āGlobal Climate Change and the Fragmentation of International Lawā, supra, note 24, at 435ā436; Navraj Singh Ghaleigh and David Rossati, āThe Spectre of Carbon Border-Adjustment Measuresā, 2 Climate Law (2011), 63, at 71ā72.
- 70.
Art. XX(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 15 April 1994, in force 1 January 1995, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, 33 International Legal Materials (1994), 1153.
- 71.
Ibid., Art. XX(g).
- 72.
McLachlan, āThe Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Conventionā, supra, note 60, at 280ā281.
- 73.
Sands, āTreaty, Custom and the Cross-fertilization of International Lawā, supra, note 60, at 103; ILC, Fragmentation of International Law, supra, note 20, para. 423.
- 74.
ILC, Fragmentation of International Law, supra, note 20, para. 473ā474; Voigt, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law, supra, note 56, at 282.
- 75.
Voigt, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law, supra, note 56, at 284ā286.
- 76.
ILC, Fragmentation of International Law, supra, note 20, paras. 433ā460.
- 77.
Lindroos and Mehling, āFrom Autonomy to Integration?ā, supra, note 60, at 270.
- 78.
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 29 January 2000, in force 11 September 2003, 39 International Legal Materials (2000), 1027.
- 79.
European Community ā Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, Reports of the Panel, WTO Doc. WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, 29 September 2006, at para. 7.71. (Biotech).
- 80.
For this reason, the Panelās approach has been criticized, for instance, by Margaret A. Young, āThe WTOās Use of Relevant Rules of International Law: An Analysis of the Biotech Caseā, 56 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2008), 907, at 914ā918.
- 81.
Isabelle van Damme, Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), at 375; Samson, āHigh Hopes, Scant Resourcesā, supra, note 60, at 711ā712.
- 82.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra, note 58, at Art. 31.1. See also Miguel A. Elizande Carranza, āMEAs with Trade Measures and the WTO: Aiming toward Sustainable Developmentā, 15 Buffalo Environmental Law Journal (2007), 43, at 86ā91.
- 83.
Voigt, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law, supra, note 56, at 275ā276.
- 84.
Broude, āPrinciples of Normative Integration and the Allocation of International Authorityā, supra, note 35, at 200.
- 85.
Ibid., at 186ā187.
- 86.
Ibid., at 187.
- 87.
Pavoni, āMutual Supportiveness as a Principle of Interpretation and Law-Makingā, supra, note 60.
- 88.
Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law, supra, note 56, at 328.
- 89.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 9 May 1992, in force 21 March 1994, 31 International Legal Materials (1992), 849.
- 90.
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto, 10 December 1997, in force 16 February 2005, 37 International Legal Materials (1998), 22.
- 91.
See, for instance, UNFCCC, supra, note 89, Art. 4.1(a); Ibid., Art. 5.1.
- 92.
Sebastian OberthĆ¼r, āLinkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols: Enhancing Synergies between Protecting the Ozone Layer and the Global Climateā, 1 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics (2001), 357.
- 93.
Kyoto Protocol, supra, note 90, Art. 2.1(a)(ii).
- 94.
Pontecorvo, āInterdependence between Global Environmental Regimesā, supra, note 65, at 739ā740.
- 95.
FrĆ©dĆ©ric Jacquemont and Alejandro CaparrĆ³s, āThe Convention on Biological Diversity and the Climate Change Convention 10 Years After Rio: Towards a Synergy of the Two Regimes?ā, 11 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2002), 139, at 178.
- 96.
UNFCCC, supra, note 89, Art. 3.5.
- 97.
Kyoto Protocol, supra, note 90, Art. 2.3
- 98.
Voigt, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law, supra, note 56, at 299.
- 99.
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, supra, note 78, preamble (stating that āthat this Protocol shall not be interpreted as implying a change in the rights and obligations of a Party under any existing international agreementsā). For a discussion of the history of this clause, see Sabrina Safrin, āTreaties in Collision: The Biosafety Protocol and the World Trade Organization Agreementsā, 96 American Journal of International Law (2002), 606, at 614ā618. .
- 100.
Olav Schram Stokke, āTrade Measures and Climate Compliance: Institutional Interplay Between WTO and the Marrakesh Accordsā, 4 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics (2004), 339, at 346.
- 101.
Voigt, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law, supra, note 56, at 298.
- 102.
Kyoto Protocol, supra, note 90, Art 2.2. See Sebastian OberthĆ¼r, āThe Climate Change Regime: Interactions with ICAO, IMO, and the EU Burden-Sharing Agreementā, in Sebastian OberthĆ¼r and Thomas Gehring (eds), Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance. Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2006), 53, at 59ā68.
- 103.
Convention on Biological Diversity, supra, note 13, Art. 22.1.
- 104.
Wolfrum and Matz, Conflicts in International Environmental Law, supra, note 14, at 124.
- 105.
Ibid., at 125; ILC, Fragmentation of International Law, supra, note 20, para. 280; Malgosia Fitzmaurice and Olefumi A. Elias, Contemporary Issues in the Law of Treaties (Utrecht: Eleven Publishing, 2005), at 244ā345.
- 106.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994, 21 International Legal Materials (1982), 1261, Art. 311.3.
- 107.
E.W. Vierdag, āThe Time of the āConclusionā of a Multilateral Treaty: Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Related Provisionsā, 59 British Yearbook of International Law (1988), 75.
- 108.
Jacob Werksman, āFormal Linkages and Multilateral Environmental Agreementsā, 1999, available at: http://archive.unu.edu/inter-linkages/1999/docs/jake.PDF (last accessed on 14 February 2012).
- 109.
Wolfrum and Matz, Conflicts in International Environmental Law, supra, note 14, at 128.
- 110.
Wilfred Jenks, āThe Conflict of Law-Making Treatiesā, 30 British Yearbook of International Law (1953), 401, at 452.
- 111.
Hicks, āTreaty Congestion in International Environmental Lawā, supra, note 25, at 1669ā1673.
- 112.
Jenks, āThe Conflict of Law-Making Treatiesā, supra, note 110, at 452.
- 113.
For an overview of the debate, see Erich Vranes, Trade and the Environment. Fundamental Issues in International and WTO Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), at 10ā38.
- 114.
Jenks, āThe Conflict of Law-Making Treatiesā, supra, note 102, at 426.
- 115.
Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law, supra, note 56, at 166ā175 and Vranes, Trade and the Environment, supra, note 113, at 19ā21.
- 116.
Vranes, Trade and the Environment, supra, note 113, at 38.
- 117.
Jenks, āThe Conflict of Law-Making Treatiesā, supra, note 110, at 426.
- 118.
Vranes, Trade and the Environment, supra, note 113, at 20.
- 119.
Wolfrum and Matz, Conflicts in International Environmental Law, supra, note 14, at 7ā13.
- 120.
Ibid., at 11.
- 121.
In dealing with regime interactions, Dunoff highlights the lack of a āredemptive narrativeā. With this, he refers to the lack of overarching guidance that could help lawyers in deciding how to integrate regimes. See, Jeffrey Dunoff, āA New Approach to Regime Interactionā, in Margaret A. Young (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 136, at 155.
- 122.
Vranes, Trade and the Environment, supra, note 113, at 19.
- 123.
Khrebtukova, āA Call to Freedomā, supra, note 20, at 63.
- 124.
For instance, Voigt argues that sustainable development is enshrined in both the climate change and trade regimes. Voigt, Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law, supra, note 56, at 89ā144. Koskenniemi refers to sustainable development as one of the āregime hybridsā¦ through which the experts representing the respective regimes may wage their struggle for influenceā. See Koskenniemi, āHegemonic Regimesā, supra, note 46, at 319ā320.
- 125.
Dunoff, āA New Approach to Regime Interactionā, supra, note 121. Koskenniemi is critical whether such a narrative in fact can be construed, citing the example of the legal scholarship on constitutionalization and global administrative law. Koskenniemi, āHegemonic Regimesā, supra, note 46, at 320ā321.
- 126.
Van Asselt, āManaging the Fragmentation of International Environmental Lawā, supra, note 14.
- 127.
Van Asselt, āIntegrating Biodiversity in the Climate Regimeās Forest Rules: Options and Tradeoffs in Greening REDD Designā, supra, note 14, at 141ā143.
- 128.
Jenks, āThe Conflict of Law-Making Treatiesā, supra, note 110, at 426.
- 129.
See, generally, Robin R. Churchill and Geir Ulfstein, āAutonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Lawā, 94 American Journal of International Law (2000), 623; Jutta BrunnĆ©e, āCOPing with Consent: Law Making under Multilateral Environmental Agreementsā, 15 Leiden Journal of International Law (2002), 1; Annecoos Wiersema, āThe New International Law-makers? Conferences of the Parties to Multilateral Environmental Agreementsā, 31 Michigan Journal of International Law (2009), 231.
- 130.
Wiersema, āThe New International Law-makers?ā, supra, note 129, at 245. See also Fitzmaurice and Elias, Contemporary Issues in the Law of Treaties, supra, note 105, at 262 (referring to the Kyoto Protocol provisions on flexible mechanisms as āenabling clausesā for subsequent decisions by the treaty bodies); and BrunnĆ©e, āCOPing with Consentā, supra, note 129, at 24 (referring to āenabling provisionsā).
- 131.
Wiersema, āThe New International Law-makers?ā, supra, note 129, at 247.
- 132.
On the role and influence of bureaucracies in global environmental governance, see the contributions in Frank Biermann and Bernd SiebenhĆ¼ner (eds), Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2009).
- 133.
There are some notable exceptions, such as Sikina Jinnah, āOverlap Management in the World Trade Organization: Secretariat Influence on Trade-Environment Politicsā, 10 Global Environmental Politics (2010), 64; Sikina Jinnah, āMarketing Linkages: Secretariat Governance of the Climate-Biodiversity Interfaceā, 11 Global Environmental Politics (2011), 23.
- 134.
Churchill and Ulfstein, āAutonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreementsā, supra, note 129, at 649.
- 135.
Chambers, Interlinkages and the Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, supra, note 27, at 66.
- 136.
UNFCCC, supra, note 89, Art. 8.2(e); Kyoto Protocol, supra, note 90, Art. 14.2.
- 137.
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, supra, note 10, Art. 7.1(e).
- 138.
Convention on Biological Diversity, supra, note 13, Art. 24.1(d).
- 139.
Jinnah, āOverlap Management in the World Trade Organizationā, supra, note 133, at 68.
- 140.
Tamiotti et al., Trade and Climate Change, supra, note 15.
- 141.
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Paris, Particularly in Africa, 17 June 1994, in force 26 December 1996, 33 International Legal Materials (1994), 1328.
- 142.
Report of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice on the Second Part of Its Fourteenth Session, Bonn, 24ā27 July 2001. U.N. Doc. FCCC/SBSTA/2001/2, 18 September 2011, para. 42(d).
- 143.
Chambers, Interlinkages and the Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, supra, note 27, at 69.
- 144.
Options for Enhanced Cooperation Among the Three Rio Conventions, U.N. Doc. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/INF/9 Annex, 15 December 2004.
- 145.
UNFCCC, supra, note 89, Art. 7.2(l); Kyoto Protocol, supra, note 90, Art. 13.4(i).
- 146.
Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer, supra, note 10, Art. 2.2(d).
- 147.
Convention on Biological Diversity 2004, supra, note 13, Art. 23.4(h).
- 148.
Art. V.1 of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 15 April 1994, in force 1 January 1995, 33 International Legal Materials (1994), 1144.
- 149.
Decision 13/CP.8, Cooperation with Other Conventions, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2002/7/Add.1, 28 March 2003, preamble.
- 150.
Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge, The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), at 523ā524.
- 151.
Decision XIX/6, Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol with Regard to Annex C, Group I, Substances (Hydrochlorofluorocarbons), U.N. Doc. UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7, 21 September 2007.
- 152.
OberthĆ¼r, Dupont and Matsumoto, āManaging Policy Contradictions Between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocolsā, supra, note 12, at 128ā129.
- 153.
Olav Schram Stokke, āThe Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work?ā Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI) Report 10/2001, 2001, available at: http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/FNI-R1401.pdf (last accessed on 2 March 2012), at 12.
- 154.
Scott, āInternational Environmental Governanceā, supra, note 24, at 202ā208.
- 155.
Chambers, Interlinkages and the Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, supra, note 27, at 66.
- 156.
Ibid., at 70ā71.
- 157.
Per-Olof Busch, āThe Climate Secretariat: Making a Living in a Straitjacketā, in Frank Biermann and Bernd SiebenhĆ¼ner (eds), Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2009), 225, at 225.
- 158.
Jinnah, āMarketing Linkages: Secretariat Governance of the Climate-Biodiversity Interfaceā, supra, note 133.
- 159.
Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Joint Liaison Group. U.N. Doc. FCCC/SBSTA/2004/INF.9, 15 June 2004, para. 4(l).
- 160.
Report of the Meeting of the Joint Liaison Group of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (New York, 14 May 2009), para. 11.
- 161.
Chambers, Interlinkages and the Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, supra, note 27, at 69.
- 162.
Scott, āInternational Environmental Governanceā, supra, note 24, at 212.
- 163.
Wolfrum and Matz, Conflicts in International Environmental Law, supra, note 14, at 163.
- 164.
Views on the Paper on Options for Enhanced Cooperation Among the Three Rio Conventions, Submissions from Parties, U.N. Doc. FCCC/SBSTA/2006/MISC.4, 23 March 2006, at 16.
- 165.
Ibid., at 5.
- 166.
Mireille Cossy and Gabrielle Marceau, āInstitutional Challenges to Enhance Policy Co-ordination ā How WTO Rules Could be Utilised to Meet Climate Objectives?ā, in Thomas Cottier, Olga Nartova and Sadeq Z. Bigdeli (eds), International Trade Regulation and the Mitigation of Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 371, at 376.
- 167.
Scott, āInternational Environmental Governanceā, supra, note 24, at 211ā215; Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish, supra, note 24, at 281ā287
- 168.
Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia, supra, note 46, at 600ā615.
- 169.
Scott, āInternational Environmental Governanceā, supra, note 24, at 213.
- 170.
Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish, supra, note 24, at 277.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
Ā© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Asselt, H. (2013). Managing the Fragmentation of International Climate Law. In: Hollo, E., Kulovesi, K., Mehling, M. (eds) Climate Change and the Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5440-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5440-9_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5439-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5440-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)