Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Landscape of Climate Law and Scholarship: Two Emerging Trends

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Climate Change and the Law

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 21))

Abstract

Exploring the landscape of climate law, this chapter identifies two emerging trends increasingly visible in climate law scholarship. The first relates to the multi-layered nature of climate law. Here, the chapter argues that our understanding of the complex web of legal norms that address climate change necessitates research that also takes into consideration interactions between various sources of legal authority in regulating climate change, including their hierarchies, synergies and tensions. In addition to benefitting those implementing climate law on the ground, such an approach makes it possible to analyse the global implications of climate law, including its effectiveness and the mutual supportiveness of its various layers. The second relates to deformalization of climate law; the expanding role of non-state actors, soft law instruments and informal collaboration in global efforts to address climate change. While climate law scholarship is increasingly paying attention to this phenomenon, this chapter argues that accounting for the role of non-state actors and voluntary regulatory initiatives involves some important doctrinal challenges, including how to avoid becoming overtly descriptive and retain a normative focus.

Kati Kulovesi is Adjunct Professor in Climate Law. She holds a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and Political Science. The author would like to thank Harro van Asselt, Tuomas Kuokkanen, Elisa Morgera, Michael Mehling and Tapio Määttä for their helpful comments on the manuscript. All mistakes and omissions remain my own responsibility.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
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.

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 9 May 1992, New York, in force 21 March 1994, 31 International Legal Materials (1992), 849.

  2. 2.

    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.

  3. 3.

    For a comprehensive overview, see Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge, The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

  4. 4.

    David Held and Angus Hervey, “Democracy, Climate Change and Global Governance: Democratic Agency and the Policy Menu Ahead”, in David Held, Angus Hervey and Marika Theors (eds), The Governance of Climate Change: Science, Economics, Politics & Ethics (Cornwall: Polity Press, 2011) 89, at 89.

  5. 5.

    Harriet Bulkeley and Peter Newell, Governing Climate Change (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), at 106.

  6. 6.

    For an overview of the multifaceted nature of climate change governance, see Liliana B. Andonova et al., “Transnational Climate Governance”, 9 Global Environmental Politics (2009), 52.

  7. 7.

    Ibid., at 54–56. See also Michele M. Betsill and Harriet Bulkeley, “Cities and the Multi-level Governance of Global Climate Change”, 12 Global Governance (2006), 141, at 144; Chukwumerije Okereke, Harriet Bulkeley and Heike Schröder, “Conceptualizing Climate Governance Beyond the International Regime”, 9 Global Environmental Politics (2009), 58.

  8. 8.

    Bulkeley and Newell, Governing Climate Change, supra, note 5; Karin Bäckstrand, “Accountability of Networked Climate Governance: The Rise of Transnational Climate Partnerships”, 8 Global Environmental Politics (2008), 74; Liliana B. Andonova, “Public-Private Partnerships for the Earth: Politics and Patterns of Hybrid Authority in the Multilateral System”, 10 Global Environmental Politics (2010), 25; Elisa Morgera and Kati Kulovesi, “Public-Private Partnerships for Wider and Equitable Access to Climate Technologies”, in Abbe Brown (ed.), Environmental Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change: Accessing, Obtaining and Protecting (forthcoming, Edward Elgar, 2012); Kristine Kern and Harriet Bulkeley, “Cities, Europeanization and Multi-Level Governance: Governing Climate Change through Transnational Municipal Networks”, 47 Journal of Common Market Studies (2009), 309; Betsil and Bulkeley, “Cities and the Multi-level Governance of Global Climate Change”, supra, note 7.

  9. 9.

    On research challenges related to transnational environmental law in general, see Elizabeth Fisher, “The Rise of Transnational Environmental Law and the Expertise of Environmental Lawyers”, 1 Transnational Environmental Law (2011), 1 Transnational Environmental Law (2012), 43 at 45–47.

  10. 10.

    For an overview, see Simon Roberts “After Government? On Representing Law without a State”, 68 Modern Law Review (2005), 1. See also Günther Teubner, “Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World Society”, in Günther Teubner (ed.), Global Law without a State (Aldershot: Dartsmouth, 1997), 3; Oren Perez, Ecological Sensitivity and Global Legal Pluralism. Rethinking the Trade and Environment Conflict (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2004); and Paul Schiff Berman, “Global Legal Pluralism”, 80 Southern California Law Review (2007), 1155.

  11. 11.

    Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch and Richard B. Stewart, “The Emergence of Global Administrative Law”, 68 Law and Contemporary Politics (2005), 15; Nico Krisch and Benedict Kingsbury, “Introduction: Global Governance and Global Administrative Law in the International Legal Order”, 17 European Journal of International Law (2006), 1.

  12. 12.

    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; Frank Biermann et al., “The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis”, 9 Global Environmental Politics (2009), 14. See also Harro van Asselt, “Managing the Fragmentation of International Climate Law” in Chapter 13 of the present volume.

  13. 13.

    Jan Klabbers, Anne Peters and Geir Ulfstein, The Constitutionalization of International Law (Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2009); Jeffrey L. Dunoff, “The Politics of International Constitutions: The Curious Case of the World Trade Organization”, in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Joel P. Trachtman (eds), Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 178, at 179; Mattias Kumm, “The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship between Constitutionalism in and beyond State”, in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Joel P. Trachtman (eds), Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 258, at 260.

  14. 14.

    UN General Assembly Resolution, Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind, UN Doc. A/RES/43/53, 6 December 1988, para. 1.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., para. 2. Emphasis added.

  16. 16.

    Nicholas Stern, The Economics of Climate Change. The Stern Review (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2006), at 510.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    UNFCCC, supra note 1, Art. 2; Decision 1/CP.16, The outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/20010/7/Add.1, 15 March 2011.

  19. 19.

    See, for example, Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner, “Time to Ditch Kyoto?”, 449 Nature (2007), 973; and Rafael Leal-Arcas, “Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Approaches for Climate Change Negotiations: An Analysis”, 24 January 2012, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1950210 (last accessed on 1 March 2012).

  20. 20.

    For an overview of such claims, see Camilla Bausch and Michael Mehling, “Addressing the Challenge of Global Climate Mitigation. An Assessment of Exiting Venues and Institutions”, August 2011, available at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/08466.pdf (last accessed on 29 February 2012).

  21. 21.

    Leal-Arcas, “Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Approaches for Climate Change Mitigation”, supra, note 19, at 2.

  22. 22.

    Decision 1/CP.17, Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, UN. Doc. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, 15 March 2012, paras. 2 and 4.

  23. 23.

    For critical discussion, see Anne-Marie Klijn, Joyeeta Gupta and Anita Nijboer, “Privatizing Environmental Resources: The Need for Supervision of Clean Development Mechanism Contracts?”, 18 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2009), 172.

  24. 24.

    Kyoto Protocol, supra, note 2, Art. 12.7.

  25. 25.

    Decision 3/CMP.1, Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanisms defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, UN Doc. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1, 30 March 2006. The Marrakesh Accords were originally adopted by COP 7 in 2001, but their formal adoption under the Kyoto Protocol took place at COP/MOP 1 in 2005.

  26. 26.

    Decision 5/CMP.1, Modalities and procedures for afforestation and reforestation project activities under the clean development mechanism in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, UN Doc. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1, 30 March 2006.

  27. 27.

    Decision 4/CMP.1, Guidance relating to the clean development mechanism, Annex II, Simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities and Decision 6/CMP.1, Simplified modalities and procedures for afforestation and reforestation project activities under the clean development mechanism in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and measures to facilitate their implementation, UN Doc. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1, 30 March 2006.

  28. 28.

    Kyoto Protocol, supra, note 2, Art. 12.4.

  29. 29.

    Charlotte Streck and Jolene Lin, “Making Markets Work: A Review of the CDM Performance and the Need for Reform”, 19 European Journal of International Law (2008), 409, at 410.

  30. 30.

    Overall, several reform proposals for the CDM have been put forward by both states and private actors, many of which are currently being explored through the CDM Policy Dialogue, launched in 2011. More information is available at: http://cdmpolicydialogue.org/ (last accessed on 30 April 2012).

  31. 31.

    The CDM Rulebook, available at: http://www.cdmrulebook.org/ (last accessed on 26 March 2012).

  32. 32.

    See Sect. 3.4. below, and also: Kati Kulovesi, “The Private Sector and the Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: Experiences, Challenges and Prospects”, 16 Review of the European Community and International Environmental Law (2007), 146.

  33. 33.

    Streck and Lin, “Making Markets Work”, supra, note 29, at 410–411; see also Ludger Gieberts and Alexander Sarac, “An Appeals Process for the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism”, 4 Carbon and Climate Law Review (2010), 260, at 261.

  34. 34.

    Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Joel P. Trachtman, “A Functional Approach to International Constitutiona­lization”, in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Joel P. Trachtman (eds), Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 3, at 17. Dunoff and Trachtman discuss this in the context of the UN Security Council actions imposing sanctions and firms suspected of involvement in terrorist activities.

  35. 35.

    Decision 2/CMP.5, Further guidance related to the clean development mechanism, UN Doc. FCCC/KP/CMP/2009/21/Add.1, 30 March 2010, para. 42.

  36. 36.

    Streck and Lin, “Making Markets Work”, supra, note 29, at 411.

  37. 37.

    Krisch and Kingsbury, “Introduction: Global Governance and Global Administrative Law in the International Legal Order”, supra, note 11, at 1.

  38. 38.

    Decision 3/CMP.1, supra, note 25, para. 40(a). The general requirement that a CDM project contributes to the host country’s sustainable development is stipulated in Kyoto Protocol, supra, note 2, Art. 12.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., para. 37(c).

  40. 40.

    Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, OJ 2003 L 275/32; Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme of greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading within the Community, OJ 2009 L 8/3; and Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system of the Community, OJ 2009 L 140/63.

  41. 41.

    Directive 2004/101/EC amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol’s project mechanisms, OJ 2004 L 338/18

  42. 42.

    Press Release: Commission welcomes vote to ban certain industrial gas credits, IP/11/56, 21 January

    2011.

  43. 43.

    For interesting discussion see Soren E. Lütken and Axel Michaelowa, Corporate Strategies and the Clean Development Mechanism: Developing Country Financing for Developed Country Commitments (Cheltenham, UK and Northampto, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 2008), at 110–146.

  44. 44.

    Klijn, Gupta and Nijboer, “Privatizing Environmental Resources”, supra, note 23, at 176.

  45. 45.

    Martin Wilder, Monique Willis and Mina Guli, “Carbon Contracts, Structuring Transactions: Practical Experiences”, in David Freestone and Charlotte Streck (eds), Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work (Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2005), 295, at 295–296.

  46. 46.

    Klijn, Gupta and Nijboer, “Privatizing Environmental Resources”, supra, note 23, at 177.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., at 181. Their suggested remedy is a supervisory body for climate change contract making.

  49. 49.

    The Gold Standard website, available at: http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/about-us/who-we-are (last accessed on 26 March 2012).

  50. 50.

    Ibid.

  51. 51.

    Ibid.

  52. 52.

    Francis Snyder, “Economic Globalisation and the Law in the 21st Century”, in Austin Sarat (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society (Malden MA et al.: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 3. Similarly, David Kennedy, “The Mystery of Global Governance”, in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Joel P. Trachtman (eds), Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 37, at 39; and Krisch and Kinsgsbury, “Introduction: Global Governance and Global Administrative Law in the International Legal Order”, supra note 11, at 1.

  53. 53.

    Snyder, “Economic Globalisation and the Law in the 21st Century”, supra, note 52, at 3.

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    Kennedy, “The Mystery of Global Governance”, supra, note 52, at 39.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., at 55.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., at 39.

  58. 58.

    Martti Koskenniemi, “The Fate of Public International Law: Constitutional Utopia or Fragmentation”, Chorely Lecture, 7 June 2006, London School of Economics and Political Science, at 13.

  59. 59.

    For an overview, see Kennedy, “The Mystery of Global Governance”, supra, note 52, at 43–53.

  60. 60.

    See references, supra, notes 10–13.

  61. 61.

    Kennedy, “The Mystery of Global Governance” supra, note 52, at 38.

  62. 62.

    Snyder, “Economic Globalisation and the Law in the 21st Century”, supra, note 52, at 5. As Betsill and Bulkely, “Cities and the Multi-level Governance of Global Climate Change”, supra, note 7, at 149, explain: “The focus on multi-level governance emerged originally from studies of European integration, where the argument was made that the role of national governments within the EU was diminishing and that a new, multilevel system of governance was taking shape.” The basic idea is that “decision-making competencies are increasingly shared between actors operating at different levels of governance” and the aim is to draw “attention to the importance of considering how political authority and processes of policymaking cross traditional divides between state and nonstate actors, domestic and international spheres.” Ibid.

  63. 63.

    Gregory Shaffer and Daniel Bodansky, “Transnational Unilateralism and International Law”, 1 Transnational Environmental Law (2012), 1 Transnational Environmental Law (2012), 31 at 32. For discussion on the concept of transnational environmental law, see also Fisher, “The Rise of Transnational Environmental Law”, supra, note 9

  64. 64.

    Shaffer and Bodansky, “Transnational Unilateralism and International Law”, supra, note 63. I am also grateful for Harro van Asselt for inspiring my thinking in this regard.

  65. 65.

    Harro van Asselt, Francesco Sindico and Michael Mehling, “Global Climate Change and Fragmentation of International Law”, 30 Law and Policy (2008), 423; Margaret A. Young, “Climate Change Law and Regime Interaction”, 5 Carbon and Climate Law Review (2011), 147; Kati Kulovesi, The WTO Dispute Settlement System: Challenges of the Environment, Legitimacy and Fragmentation (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2011), at 217–257; Annalisa Saravesi, “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries under the UNFCCC: Caveats and Opportunities for Biodiversity”, Yearbook of International Environmental Law (2011, forthcoming); Elisa Morgera, “Far Away, So Close: A Legal Analysis of the Increasing Interactions between the Convention on Biological Diversity and Climate Change Law”, 2 Climate Law (2011), 85. See also the respective contributions by Harro van Asselt, Annalisa Saravesi and Elisa Morgera and myself in Part IV of the present volume.

  66. 66.

    For discussion on top down and bottom up approaches, see Daniel Bodansky, “A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future U.N. Climate Change Regime”, March 2001, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1773865 (last accessed on 26 March 2012); and Jacob Werksman and Kirk Henderson, “The Aftermath of Copenhagen: Does International Law Have a Role to Play in a Global Response to Climate Change”, 25 Maryland Journal of International Law (2010), 142.

  67. 67.

    Joanne Scott, “The Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change”, in Paul Craig and Grainne de Bruca (eds), The Evolution of EU Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2011), 805, also available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/environment/docs/hong-kong/The%20Multi-Level%20Governance%20of%20Climate%20Change%20(Joanne%20Scott).pdf (last accessed on 26 March 2012).

  68. 68.

    Joanne Scott, “The Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change”, 5 Carbon and Climate Law Review (2011), 25, at 26–27.

  69. 69.

    Scott, “The Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change”, supra, note 67, at 43.

  70. 70.

    Cinnamon Piñon Carlarne, Climate Change Law and Policy: EU and US Approaches (Oxford et. al.: Oxford University Press, 2010), at 67 et seq.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., at 77–85.

  72. 72.

    I am grateful for Elisa Morgera for drawing my attention to this point. For detailed discussion see, Gracia Marin-Duran and Elisa Morgera, Environmental Integration in the EU’s External Relations: Beyond Multilateral Dimensions (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2012).

  73. 73.

    Scott, “The Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change”, supra, notes 67 and 68; Kati Kulovesi, Elisa Morgera and Miquel Muñoz, “Environmental Integration and Multi-faceted International Dimensions of EU Law: Unpacking the EU’s 2009 Climate and Energy Package”, 48 Common Market Law Review (2011), 829; Sebastian Oberthür and Claire Roche Kelly, “EU Leadership in International Climate Policy: Achievements and Challenges”, 43 The International Spectator (2008), 35; Kati Kulovesi, “Climate Change in the EU External Relations: Please Follow My Example (or I Might Force You to)”, in Elisa Morgera (ed), The External Environmental Policy of the European Union: EU and International Law Dimensions (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming, October 2012); Kati Kulovesi, “Make Your Own Special Song even if Nobody Else Sings Along: International Aviation Emissions and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme”, 2 Climate Law (2011), 535; Joanne Scott and Lavanya Rajamani, “EU Climate Change Unilateralism: International Aviation in the European Emissions Trading Scheme”, 23 European Journal of International Law (2012), 469 and Biswajit Dhar and Kasturi Das, “The European Union’s Proposed Carbon Equalization System: Can it be WTO Compatible?”, 25 November 2009, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1513231 (last accessed on 26 March 2012).

  74. 74.

    For detailed analysis, see Kulovesi, Morgera and Muñoz, “Environmental Integration and Multi-faceted International Dimension of EU Law”, supra, note 73.

  75. 75.

    Ibid.

  76. 76.

    Kulovesi, “Make Your Own Special Song”, supra, note 73, at 547–550.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., 558. See also Scott and Rajamani, “EU Climate Change Unilateralism”, supra, note 73, at 481 et seq.

  78. 78.

    Daniel Bodansky, “A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future U.N. Climate Change Regime”, Arizona State University, March 2001, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1773865 (last accessed on 14 March 2012), at 6.

  79. 79.

    The numbers in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol were, however, negotiated “bottom up” based on political bargaining rather than “top down” based on climate science.

  80. 80.

    Werksman and Henderson, “The Aftermath of Copenhagen”, supra, note 66, at 3.

  81. 81.

    Bodansy, “A Tale of Twor Architectures,” supra, note 78.

  82. 82.

    Decision 2/CP.15, The Copenhagen Accord, FCCC/CP/2009/7/Add.1, 30 March 2010, para. 4.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., para. 5

  84. 84.

    Compilation of economy-wide emission reduction targets to be implemented by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention, Revised Note by the Secretariat, UN Doc. FCCC/SB/2011/INF, 7 June 2011; Compilation of information on nationally appropriate mitigation actions to be implemented by Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention, Note by the Secretariat, UN Doc. FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1, 18 March 2010;

  85. 85.

    Bodansky, “A Tale of Two Architectures”, supra, note 78, at 3.

  86. 86.

    Lavanya Rajamani, Jutta Brunnée and Meinhard Doelle, “Introduction: The Role of Compliance in an Evolving Climate Regime”, in Jutta Brunnée, Meinhard Doelle and Lavanya Rajamani (eds), Promoting Compliance in an Evolving Climate Regime (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 1, at 9.

  87. 87.

    See Antto Vihma, “Analyzing Soft Law and Hard Law in Climate Change” in Chapter 7 of the present volume.

  88. 88.

    Werksman and Henderson, “The Aftermath of Copenhagen”, supra, note 66, at 39.

  89. 89.

    Decision 11/CMP. 1, Modalities, rules and guidelines for emissions trading, UN Doc. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.2, 30 March 2006.

  90. 90.

    For overview, see Andreas Tuerk et al., “Working Paper: Green Investment Schemes: First Experiences and Lessons Learned”, April 2010, available at: http://www.joanneum.at/climate/Publications/Solutions/JoanneumResearch_GISWorkingPaper_April2010.pdf (last accessed on 20 March 2012).

  91. 91.

    Environmental Investment Center, “Green Investment Scheme”, available at: http://www.kik.ee/en/kik-eng/sources-of-financing/green-investment-scheme.html (last accessed 14 February 2012).

  92. 92.

    Estonian Government Communication Unit Press Release, “Estonia Will Promote the Use of Electric Cars under a Green Investment Scheme”, 3 March 2011, available at: http://www.kik.ee/en/kik-eng/sources-of-financing/green-investment-scheme.html (last accessed 14 February 2012).

  93. 93.

    Ibid.

  94. 94.

    Ibid.

  95. 95.

    Ibid.

  96. 96.

    Decision 10/CMP.2, Proposal from Belarus to amend Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol, UN Doc. FCCC/KP/CMP/2006/10/Add.1, 2 March 2007, para. 3. According to the decision, this was still “subject to approval by the relevant authorities of the Republic of Belarus.”

  97. 97.

    For comprehensive overview, see Yulia Yamineva and Kati Kulovesi, “The New Legal and Institutional Framework for Climate Finance under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: A Breakthrough or an Empty Promise?” in Chapter 9 of this volume.

  98. 98.

    Directive 2009/29/EC supra, note 40, Arts. 10, 10a and 10c. For discussion, see Kulovesi, Morgera and Muñoz, “Environmental Integration and the Multifaceted International Dimensions of EU Law”, supra, note 73, at 855–858.

  99. 99.

    Ibid.

  100. 100.

    Ibid.

  101. 101.

    Betsill and Bulkeley, “Cities and the Multi-level Governance of Global Climate Change”, supra, note 8, at 141–142.

  102. 102.

    Carlarne, Climate Change Law and Policy, supra, note 70, at 63.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., at 61.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., at 88.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., at 64.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., at 64–65.

  107. 107.

    Ibid., at 89.

  108. 108.

    For more information see the ICLEI website, available at: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=about (last accessed on 21 March 2012).

  109. 109.

    Betsill and Bulkeley, “Cities and the Multi-level Governance of Global Climate Change”, supra, note 7, at 145.

  110. 110.

    Ibid., at 146–147.

  111. 111.

    Shaffer and Bodansky, “Transnational Unilaterlaism and International Law”, supra, note 63, at 4. They highlight in particular the role of the EU and the US in creating transnational environmental law, mentioning, in particular, the EU’s REACH regulation for chemicals and its scheme for genetically modified organisms and the US-prescribed methods for catching tuna and shrimp.

  112. 112.

    For comprehensive discussion, see Kulovesi, Morgera and Muñoz, “Environmental Integration and Multi-faceted International Dimension of EU Law”, supra, note 73; and Kulovesi, “Climate Change in the EU External Relations”, supra, note 73.

  113. 113.

    According to Article 191(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, one of the objectives of the EU’s environmental policy is to contribute to: preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment; protecting human health, prudent and rational utilization of natural resources; and promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change. Emphasis added.

  114. 114.

    Charles F. Parker and Christer Karlsson, “Climate Change and the European Union’s Leadership Moment: An Inconvenient Truth?”, 48 Journal of Common Market Studies (2010), 923, at 928.

  115. 115.

    Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, OJ 2009 L 140/16, Art. 17.

  116. 116.

    For discussion, see Kulovesi, Morgera and Muñoz, “Environmental Integration and Multi-faceted International Dimensions of EU Law”, supra, note 73, at 877–887; Jolene Lin, “The Environmental Regulation of Biofuels: Limits of the Meta-Standard Approach”, Carbon and Climate Law Review (2011), 34; Scott, “The Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change”, supra, note 68, at 29–30.

  117. 117.

    Lin, “The Environmental Regulation of Biofuels”, supra, note 116, at 38–40.

  118. 118.

    For comprehensive discussion, see Kulovesi, “Make Your Own Special Song”, supra, note 73.

  119. 119.

    H.R. 2594 European Union Emissions Trading Prohibition Act of 2011.

  120. 120.

    “US Congress to Oppose EU Law on Aircraft Emissions”, Carbon Market Europe, 3 February 2012.

  121. 121.

    BBC News, “China ‘bans’ airlines from joining EU carbon scheme”, 6 February 2012, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16901106 (last accessed on 2 March 2012); “India Confirms Boycott of EU Aviation Emissions Rule,” Bridges Weekly, 29 March 2012, available at: http://ictsd.org/i/trade-and-sustainable-development-agenda/129985/ (last accessed on 30 April 2012).

  122. 122.

    Directive 2009/29/EC, supra, note 40.

  123. 123.

    Scott and Rajamani, “EU Climate Change Unilateralism”, supra, note 73, at 481 et seq.

  124. 124.

    For discussion, see Kulovesi, Morgera and Muñoz, “Environmental Integration and Multi-faceted International Dimensions of EU Law”, supra, note 73, at 858–862.

  125. 125.

    Christopher Tung, “The Influence of Chinese Climate Law & Policy on Africa”, 5 Climate and Carbon Law Review (2011), 334, at 344.

  126. 126.

    Shaffer and Bodansky, “Transnational Unilateralism and International Law”, supra, note 63, at 11.

  127. 127.

    Okereke, Bulkeley and Schröder, “Conceptualizing Climate Governance Beyond the International Regime”, supra, note 7, at 58.

  128. 128.

    Bäckstrand, “Accountability of Networked Climate Governance”, supra, note 8, at 76.

  129. 129.

    For an overview, see Kulovesi, “The Private Sector and the Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol”, supra, note 32, 146 et seq.

  130. 130.

    Morgera and Kulovesi, “Public-Private Partnerships for Wider and Equitable Access to Climate Technologies”, supra, note 8.

  131. 131.

    UNFCCC, “List of DOEs”, 2012, available at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/DOE/list/index.html (last accessed 1 March 2012).

  132. 132.

    CDM Executive Board, Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Verification Manual, available at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Manuals/accr_man01.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2012), para. 29.

  133. 133.

    Ibid., para. 196.

  134. 134.

    Lin, “The Environmental Regulation of Biofuels”, supra, note 116, at 42.

  135. 135.

    See ibid. for critical assessment.

  136. 136.

    Jacob Werksman, “The Clean Development Mechanism: Unwrapping the Kyoto Surprise”, 7 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (1998), 147, at 153.

  137. 137.

    Ibid.

  138. 138.

    Ibid.

  139. 139.

    Tomilola Eni-ibukun, “Climate Justice: The Clean Development Mechanism as a Case Study” in Chapter 10 of the present volume.

  140. 140.

    UNFCCC Press Release, “UNFCCC secretariat aims to help communities and businesses become climate-resilient with help of new online tool”, 26 January 2012, available at: https://unfccc.int/files/press/press_releases_advisories/application/pdf/pr20122601_apsidbase.pdf (last accessed on 1 March 2012).

  141. 141.

    Ibid.

  142. 142.

    Ibid.

  143. 143.

    See, for example, Andonova et al., “Transnational Climate Governance”, supra, note 6, at 62; Bulkeley and Newell, Governing Climate Change, supra, note 5, at 95.

  144. 144.

    CCX Fact Sheet, December 2011, available at: https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/ccx/CCX_Fact_Sheet.pdf (last accessed on1 March 2012).

  145. 145.

    Ibid.

  146. 146.

    Ibid.

  147. 147.

    Bulkeley and Newell, Governing Climate Change, supra, note 5, at 88.

  148. 148.

    An advert published in the global edition of The Financial Times, 30 November 2007.

  149. 149.

    Bulkeley and Newell, Governing Climate Change, supra, note 5, at 87.

  150. 150.

    For more information, see the Carbon Disclosure Project website, available at: https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Programmes/Pages/climate-change-programs.aspx (last accessed on 21 March 2012).

  151. 151.

    Andonova et al., “Transnational Climate Governance”, supra, note 6, at 55.

  152. 152.

    Ibid., at 68–69.

  153. 153.

    Teubner, “Global Bukowina”, supra, note 10, at 2.

  154. 154.

    Ibid.

  155. 155.

    As Koskenniemi has explained, vocabulary on legal pluralism has emerged from three different sources: the study of local laws and de facto practices in modern society; native law’s coexistence with imported metropolitan laws in the context of colonialism; and globalisation. Here, the focus is on legal pluralism associated with globalisation. See Martti Koskenniemi, “Global Legal Pluralism: Multiple Regimes and Multiple Modes of Thought”, Harvard, 5 March 2005, at 14.

  156. 156.

    See Teubner, “Global Bukowina”, supra, note 10, for comprehensive discussion.

  157. 157.

    Issachar Rosen-Zvi, “Climate Change Governance: Mapping the Terrain”, 5 Carbon and Climate Law Review (2011), 234, at 236.

  158. 158.

    Perez, Ecological Sensitivity and Global Legal Pluralism, supra, note 11, at 7.

  159. 159.

    Ibid., at 8.

  160. 160.

    Berman, “Global Legal Pluralism”, supra, note 10, at 1159.

  161. 161.

    Rosen-Zvi, “Climate Change Governance: Mapping the Terrain”, supra, note 157, at 234.

  162. 162.

    Koskenniemi, “Global Legal Pluralism”, supra, note 155, at 16.

  163. 163.

    For a critical overview of neoliberalism, see David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2005).

  164. 164.

    Craig N. Murphy, “Privatizing Environmental Governance”, 9 Global Environmental Politics (2009), 134, at 134, drawing the link to the age of Thatcher, Reagan and global neoliberalism. See also Simon Roberts, “After Government? On Representing Law without a State”, 68 Modern Law Review (2005), 1, at 24, arguing that “it is very difficult to specify in a convincing way a secure grounding for ‘law’ if we try to shake it free from particular forms historically associated with the state.”

  165. 165.

    Bäckstrand, “Accountability of Networked Climate Governance”, supra, note 8, at 77.

  166. 166.

    Ibid.

  167. 167.

    Ibid.

  168. 168.

    Koskenniemi, “Global Legal Pluralism”, supra, note 155, at 14–15.

  169. 169.

    Fisher, “The Rise of Transnational Environmental Law”, supra, note 9, at 49.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Eastern Finland, 111, 8010, Joensuu, Finland

    Kati Kulovesi

Authors
  1. Kati Kulovesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kati Kulovesi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, Yliopistokatu 3, Helsinki, 00014, Finland

    Erkki J. Hollo

  2. 62 Zalongkou Street, Strovolos, 2027, Cyprus

    Kati Kulovesi

  3. Ecological Institute, Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300 1630, Washington D.C., 20009, District of Columbia, USA

    Michael Mehling

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kulovesi, K. (2013). Exploring the Landscape of Climate Law and Scholarship: Two Emerging Trends. 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_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation