International Relations Theory

Regime Theory ◽

The Common ◽

Overall Effectiveness

Since the early 1990s, international rules and institutions related to international environmental law (IEL) have multiplied at an exponential rate. Yet there is little evidence that this escalation of law-making activity has had a proportional impact on the behaviour of states and other international actors. Environmental problems continue to grow more acute, and the challenge of establishing effective international responses to issues such as biodiversity and global climate change seem more difficult than ever. Environmental agreements appear to vary substantially in their rates of participation, compliance, and overall effectiveness. To gain new perspectives and insights into these and other questions, many in the IEL community have joined other international law scholars and practitioners in turning to international relations theory. This article reviews the major international relations theories and their relevance to, and impact upon, IEL. First, it examines realism and neo-realism, the rise of neo-liberal institutionalism and regime theory, neo-liberal institutionalism as a response to realism, liberalism and constructivism, legalisation and international relations theories, and the common IEL and international relations agenda (participation, form of commitment, compliance).

International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2997914 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 92 (3) ◽

pp. 367-397 ◽

Cited By ~ 97

Author(s):

Anne-Marie Slaughter ◽

Andrew S. Tulumello ◽

Stepan Wood

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

International Law ◽

International Relations Theory ◽

Regime Theory ◽

Joint Research ◽

Wide Range ◽

American Society ◽

Interdisciplinary Scholarship ◽

United Nations System ◽

Year 2000

Nine years ago, Kenneth Abbott published an article exhorting international lawyers to read and master regime theory, arguing that it had multiple uses for the study of international law. He went as far as to call for a “joint discipline” that would bridge the gap between international relations theory (IR) and international law (IL). Several years later, one of us followed suit with an article mapping the history of the two fields and setting forth an agenda for joint research. Since then, political scientists and international lawyers have been reading and drawing on one another’s work with increasing frequency and for a wide range of purposes. Explicitly interdisciplinary articles have won the Francis Deák Prize, awarded for the best work by a younger scholar in this Journal, for the past two years running; the publication of an interdisciplinary analysis of treaty law in the Harvard International Law Journal prompted a lively exchange on the need to pay attention to legal as well as political details; and the Hague Academy of International Law has scheduled a short course on international law and international relations for its millennial lectures in the year 2000. Further, the American Society of International Law and the Academic Council on the United Nations System sponsor joint summer workshops explicidy designed to bring young IR and IL scholars together to explore the overlap between their disciplines.

Formality and Informality

The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199552153.013.0006 ◽

2008 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Stephen J. Toope

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Common Core ◽

Environmental Law ◽

Soft Law ◽

Central Focus ◽

Law And Politics ◽

The Common ◽

Contested Terrain ◽

No Man's Land

This article explores contested terrain in the no-man's land between international law and politics – the work of ‘norms’ in social, including legal, change. International environmental law has served as the crucible for much of the theoretical debate, and a central focus of this debate has been on the effectiveness of various types of formal norms and informal norms. The common core of the concept of ‘norm’ is that the desideratum contained in the norm is intended to influence human behaviour. Since norms operate in many different ways, they relate to the concepts of formality and informality differentially as well. Norms can be formal rules of law, but they can also be informal social guides to proper conduct. More surprisingly, they can be informal and precise as well as informal and vague; formal and precise as well as formal and vague. This article concludes by tying together the theoretical insights traced out earlier in the light of ‘soft law’ discourse in international environmental law.

Compliance Theory

The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199552153.013.0039 ◽

2008 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Ronald B. Mitchell

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

Environmental Changes ◽

Environmental Law ◽

International Environmental Agreements ◽

Good Faith ◽

Behavioural Changes ◽

Induced Compliance ◽

The Difference

International lawyers and legal scholars often assess the effects of international environmental agreements (IEAs) in terms of the extent to which states comply with their commitments. International relations scholars tend to examine IEA effects through a broader set of questions. They are concerned with any behavioural or environmental changes that can be attributed to an IEA – whether these changes involve compliance or not and regardless of whether these changes were desired, unintended, or even perverse. International relations scholars also focus on the reasons why states change their behaviour and what aspects, if any, of an IEA explain those behavioural changes. To see the difference between these approaches, consider four categories of behaviour: treaty-induced compliance, coincidental compliance, good faith non-compliance, and intentional non-compliance. This article reviews the theoretical terrain and shows that nominally ‘competing’ perspectives have different insights to offer those seeking to improve the practice of international environmental law.

Equity

The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199552153.013.0027 ◽

2008 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Shelton Dinah

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Environmental Law ◽

Multilateral Environmental Agreements ◽

Generational Equity ◽

Perceptions Of Fairness ◽

Sovereign Equality ◽

Potential Impact

If perceptions of fairness or equity affect the level of participation and positive action among heterogeneous states, then they are likely to factor in the long-term success of an environmental regime or agreement. This article assesses the potential impact of equity on international environmental law. First, it examines the various meanings attributed to the term ‘equity’ in international law in general, and in international environmental law in particular; the roles equity has played in multilateral environmental agreements; and how different equitable principles are, or may be, implemented in practice. The article then discusses intra-generational equity and inter-generational equity, sovereign equality and equity, distributive justice in international law, principles for determining equitable allocation, and different ways of implementing principles of equity (substantive rules of equity, procedural rules).

Part VIII Compliance, Implementation, and Effectiveness, Ch.52 Transparency Procedures

10.1093/law/9780198849155.003.0052 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sparks Tom ◽

Peters Anne

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Environmental Law ◽

Multilateral Environmental Agreements

This chapter explores how information obligations on states—to collect, report, or publish—are an important aspect of most modern multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). These have developed both alongside and as part of a wider ‘turn to transparency’ in international law, resulting in traditional forms of reporting, monitoring, and verification being incorporated into a more extensive set of transparency relationships. The chapter examines transparency as an increasingly important aspect of international environmental law, both as an end in itself and as a means of achieving other substantive goals. It frames transparency in international environmental law within the wider transparency turn. The chapter then looks at the techniques that are employed in customary and conventional environmental law to realize transparency, focusing on the compliance-centred, emancipatory, and advocative functions it performs.

Enforcement Mechanisms in International Law and International Environmental Law

elni Review ◽

10.46850/elni.2005.001 ◽

2005 ◽

pp. 1-12

Author(s):

Jutta Brunnée

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Environmental Law ◽

Multilateral Environmental Agreements ◽

Theoretical Assumptions ◽

Legal Sanctions ◽

Key Features ◽

Enforcement Mechanisms ◽

Common Misconceptions

This essay aims to launch the proceedings of international law on a high note, and to suggest that many common impressions of it are wrong in general, and particularly wrong in the context of international environmental law. Even more particularly, multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) illustrate the maturation and sophistication of international environmental law. If anything, the diversity and flexibility of compliance approaches under MEAs highlight the limited purchase of simple dichotomies such as “binding vs. non-binding” or “enforcement vs. ineffectiveness”. The essay begins by exploring the concept of “enforcement” in international law in general. It suggests that a concept of enforcement as imposition of legal sanctions, or penalties, is unduly narrow. The essay then canvasses some of the main theoretical assumptions about international law and compliance. An exploration of this theoretical context illuminates the reasons underlying common misconceptions about international law and its enforcement, and helps put in perspective the evolution of approaches to compliance in international environmental law. Finally, against the backdrop of these general considerations, the author examines key features of the approaches to compliance and enforcement in international environmental law and MEAs. The aim is to provide a ‘bigger picture’, a context for the detailed discussions of compliance mechanisms that make up the bulk of the conference proceedings.

The Dynamic Evolution of International Environmental Law

Victoria University of Wellington Law Review ◽

10.26686/vuwlr.v49i4.5343 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 49 (4) ◽

pp. 607

Author(s):

Karen N Scott

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

21St Century ◽

International Institutions ◽

Environmental Law ◽

Dynamic Evolution ◽

State Responsibility ◽

Multilateral Environmental Agreements ◽

International Legal System

This article will explore selected innovations within multilateral environmental agreements that have contributed to the dynamic evolution of international environmental law within the context of the traditional rules relating to treaties, international institutions and state responsibility. It will argue that whilst these innovations undoubtedly push and develop the boundaries of these areas of law, they do not represent a significant departure from the traditional principle of consent that underpins international law more generally. But should they? The period of modern international environmental law (from 1972 to date), which from a lawyer's perspective might be described as dynamic and innovative, has simultaneously witnessed significant and persistent environmental change and degradation across the biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere. The question for 21st century environmental lawyers is whether international environmental law is fit for the Anthropocene and whether there is sufficient scope for future dynamic evolution within the constraints and structures of the existing international legal system.

Part IV Normative Development, Ch.23 Customary International Law and the Environment

10.1093/law/9780198849155.003.0023 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Dupuy Pierre-Marie ◽

Le Moli Ginevra ◽

Viñuales Jorge E

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Environmental Law ◽

Case Law ◽

Customary International Law ◽

Normative Development ◽

Environmental Norms ◽

Environmental Interests

This chapter highlights how, despite the large number of environmental agreements at all levels, the role of customary international law remains key in practice. First, many treaties in force remain largely unimplemented. Secondly, treaties only bind those states parties to them, and that introduces sometimes important variations in the scope of environmental agreements. Thirdly, there is at present no treaty formulating binding overarching principles interweaving sectorial environmental agreements. As a result, it is often necessary to revert to customary norms when difficulties of interpretation or implementation arise. Fourthly, custom is important to mediate between a range of environmental and non-environmental interests governed by different treaties. Finally, custom plays an important role in disputes concerning a disputed area or where there is no applicable treaty. The chapter then analyses the process of custom formation with reference to environmental norms in order to show both the ‘banality’ and the peculiarities of this process. It also looks at the content of customary international environmental law as recognized in the case law.

Legitimacy

The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199552153.013.0030 ◽

2008 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Daniel Bodansky

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Political Theory ◽

Environmental Law ◽

World Trade Organisation ◽

Precise Meaning ◽

Environmental Institutions ◽

The World ◽

Commercial Whaling

Compared to ‘illegitimacy’, ‘legitimacy’ has a more precise meaning in political theory and sociology, focusing on the justification and acceptance of political authority – the authority of the International Whaling Commission to ban commercial whaling, for example, or of the World Trade Organisation to review measures adopted pursuant to environmental agreements. A legitimate institution is one that has a right to govern – for example, based on tradition, expertise, legality, or public accountability – rather than one relying on the mere exercise of power. In recent years, legitimacy has begun to emerge as an issue not only in international law generally but also in international environmental law more specifically. This article deals with the issue of legitimacy. It first looks at the concept of legitimacy and then presents a typology of legitimacy theories, why legitimacy is a growing issue in international environmental law, and alternative bases of legitimacy, focusing on democracy, participation and transparency, and expertise and effectiveness. The article concludes by considering how to develop trust in international environmental institutions.

International Environmental Law

10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.229 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Chenaz B. Seelarbokus

Keyword(s):

Environmental Law ◽

International Environmental Agreements ◽

First Century ◽

International Treaties ◽

Environmental Cooperation ◽

The Subject ◽

International Laws ◽

The Common

Over the course of the twenty-first century, international environmental cooperation has been spurred through various new international environmental institutions and programs, and a dramatic strengthening of international environmental law-making. With the burst of environmental treaty-making the corpus of international environmental law (IEL) has expanded to include significant international environmental agreements (IEAs) in the sphere of climate change, ozone layer depletion, biodiversity, and so on; as well as the recognition of important principles such as good neighborliness and the common heritage. IEAs function similarly to international treaties—indeed, the only difference between an IEA and other international treaties lies in the subject matter. IEAs function as the instrument for laying down the principles of international laws binding upon states was established by the 1815 Congress of Vienna. Over the years, IEAs have not simply increased in number, but have also undergone an evolution in their structural design. In the early 1930s, IEAs tended to be simple in terms of their requirements, vague in terms of their objectives, and utilitarian in their ethos for protecting the environment. With time, however, as environmental sciences evolved to incorporate new principles and concepts, the structure of IEAs has followed in tandem to incorporate the new understandings and the new concerns.