nach oben

Erschienen in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

4. Compliance Mechanisms: A General Overview

verfasst von : Zerrin Savaşan

Erschienen in: Paris Climate Agreement: A Deal for Better Compliance?

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

In this part, two important points should be noted regarding the method of examination. Firstly, in line with the definition given in the second chapter, analysis of the CM will take into account the three integral components which complement and support each other: gathering information on the parties’ performance, institutionalised multilateral NCPs, and multilateral response measures.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Theoretical Perspectives and Explanatory Models of Compliance

Nächstes Kapitel Case Study I: Ozone Layer Depletion

See also Dagne (2007) for detailed information on the self-contained regime approach (together with the harmonized approach) as one of the approaches to settling disputes.

It should be noted that there are also a few agreements which establish state liability, such as the Basel Convention Liability Protocol, and the Convention on International Liability for damages caused by space objects, and in the Antarctic. See Crossen (2003); Fitzmaurice (2007); Matz (2006); Sands (1996); Stephens (2009) for the details of state liability.

Principle 26 of the 1992 Rio Declaration clearly sets out that states have to “resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by appropriate means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” Art. 33(1) of the UN Charter states that the settlement of disputes can be provided “by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”

See Sands (1996: 71–80) for details of dispute settlement. See also Romano (2007: 1,045–1,054) for detailed information on the problems inherited within these means, such as 1. disharmonic dispute settlement clauses, 2. fragmentation and cluster litigation, 3. competing and parallel legal regimes, 4. multiplication of actors and levels.

See Romano (2000: 46–65) for details of diplomatic means of DSPs.

See Romano (2000: 91–129) for details of judicial means of dispute settlement.

On consent to ICJ’s jurisdiction, see Brownlie (2003: 682–690).

For the Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory, see https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations.

Rechtbank Den Haag (24 June 2015) C/09/456689. Available at: https://elaw.org/nl.urgenda.15.

See Sands (2016) for the proposal on the prospects for an intervention by the ICJ or ITLOS in the form of an Advisory Opinion from those courts.

Chambers and Committees, see at https://www.icj-cij.org/en/chambers-and-committees.

By 2017, the ICJ had considered the following cases with environmental aspects: Contentious cases: Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France and New Zealand v. France) (1973); Judgment, Maritime Delimitation in the area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) (1988); Certain Phosphate lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia) (1989); Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (1993); Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada) (1995); Request for an Examination of the Situation in accordance with par. 63 of the Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) (1995); Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) (2006); Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Colombia) (2008); Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (2010); Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) (2010); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) (2011); Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) (2016). Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/contentious-cases. Advisory Proceedings: Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (1993); Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1995). Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/advisory-proceedings.

ICJ, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case, Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Report, 1997.

https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf. For the details see Anlar Güneş (2006: 91–116).

See the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), (Montego Bay, Jamaica, 10 December 1982). Available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf.

International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Statute (Annex VI: Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea), at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex6.htm.

ITLOS had considered the following cases involving environmental questions by 2017: Cases 3 & 4: Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan, Australia v. Japan) (provisional measures) (Order of 27 August 1999); Case No. 5: Camouco Case (Panama v. France) (prompt release) (Judgment of 7 February 2000); Case No. 6: Monte Confurco Case (Seychelles v. France) (prompt release) (Judgment of 18 December 2000); Case No. 7: Case concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile v. European Community) (provisional measures) (Order of 16 December 2009); Case No. 10: The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom) (provisional measures) (Order of 3 December 2001); Case No. 11: Volga Case (Russian Federation v. Australia) (prompt release) (Judgment of 23 December 2002); Case No. 12: Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore) (provisional measures) (Order of 8 October 2003); Case No. 13: Juno Trader Case (St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Bissau) (prompt release) (Judgment of 18 December 2004); Case No. 14: The ‘Hoshinmaru’ Case (Japan v. Russian Federation), (Judgment of 6 August 2007); Case No. 15: The ‘Tominmaru’ Case (Japan v. Russian Federation) (Judgment of 6 August 2007); Case No. 18: The M/V ‘Louisa’ Case (St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain), (Judgment of 28 May 2013); Case No. 19: The M/V “Virginia G” Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau) (Judgment of 14 April 2014); Case No. 20: The “Ara Libertad” Case (Argentina v. Ghana) (Order of 15 December 2002); Case No. 22: The “Arctic Sunrise” Case (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation) (Order of 22 November 2013); Case No. 23: Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire), (provisional measures) (Order of 25 April 2015). Advisory Proceedings: Case No. 17: Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area (Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2011); Case No. 21: Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) (Advisory Opinion of 2 April 2015). Available at: https://www.itlos.org/en/cases/list-of-cases/.

See the details on PCA-CPA, at https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/.

See the list of the leading cases and judgements of the ECJ on environment, at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/leading_cases_2005_en.pdf.

See the factsheet on environment-related cases in the ECtHR’s case law, June 2016. Available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Environment_ENG.pdf.

For the details on the ECtHR and the right to the environment, see also Turgut (2007).

Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation. https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/20160915_OTP-Policy_Case-Selection_Eng.pdf.

For details of the Cambodian case debate, see Braithwaite (2016); Maza (2016).

Similarly, a symbolic trial held in The Hague, Netherlands in October 2016, ‘The Monsanto Tribunal,’ also arises as one of the recent developments concerning the evolution of views on environmental crimes. In the present system, it is not possible to bring criminal charges against a company like Monsanto for their crimes against human health and the environment. Therefore, this symbolic tribunal – not governed by the United Nations or by the International Criminal Court – aims to contribute to the debate on a possible amendment of the Rome Statute to include the crime of ecocide in international criminal law. For details, see: http://www.monsanto-tribunal.org/.

For the debate on withdrawals from the Court, see Akande (2016); Robinson (2016).

The establishment of an International Environmental Court (IEC) with mandatory jurisdiction can also be raised as an alternative solution to the above-mentioned problems (Pauwelyn 2005; Rest 2000); however, there are arguments against it, so it requires further discussion (Hey 2000).

The features list is compiled utilizing the following articles: Beyerlin et al. (2006); Eritja et al. (2004); Handl (1997); Jacur (2009); Klabbers (2007); Montini (2009); Pineschi (2009); Tanzi/Pitea (2009); Treves (2009a, b); Ulfstein/Werksman (2005); Wolfrum (1999).

See International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (ITPGRFA) (2001). Rome, 3 November 2001. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0510e.pdf.

For a discussion on the legal basis of its decision-making power, see Savaşan (2018).

See: Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN, Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949, ICJ Reports (1949).

Here, the ICJ for the first time questioned whether the functions and rights conferred to the United Nations by its constituent instrument (UN Charter) necessarily implied the attribution of international personality of the organization, and held that the UN could exercise powers which can be implied from the provisions of its Charter. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/4/advisory-opinions

See Fitzmaurice (2009: 462–463) for details on enabling clauses.

Under the MP, there are Article 5 countries representing developing countries; and Non-Article 5 countries representing developed countries. The MP stipulated that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ODSs, should be phased out by 2000 in Non-Article 5 countries and 2010 in Article 5 countries (Art. 2A, Art. 5, MP). Methyl bromide, on the other hand, was scheduled to be phased out by 2015 and HCFCs by 2040 in Article 5 Countries (Art. 2F–2G–2H, Art. 5, MP). Through the Kigali (Rwanda) Amendment (14 October 2016) to the Protocol adopted at the MOP 28, all countries committed to legally binding targets which mandate gradual reductions in HFC consumption and production as well, starting in 2019 for Non-Article 5 countries and 2024 or 2028 for Article 5 countries (as they are divided into two groups) (MOP 28, Decision XXVIII/1, 2016).

See infra Chaps. 5–6 and also Savaşan (2015: 180–181, 186–187); Savaşan (2017: 849–850). For an overview of the potential weaknesses of compliance mechanisms in general, see Savaşan (2017).

See Chaps. 5–6 infra and Savaşan (2015) for the challenges in gathering information and the ways of dealing with the findings.

Free-riding implies deliberate attempts to escape the costs of meeting the requirements of the related MEA. It emerges in two ways: a state may prefer not to participate to that MEA to avoid incurring costs while benefiting from other parties’ efforts (non-participation), or may prefer not to meet its requirements (non-compliance) (Hovi et al. 2007; Kolari 2002).

It should be noted, however, that on-site visits (on-site monitoring or on-site inspections) under MEAs have not been very prevalent, as they are still heavily debated, due in particular to the principle of state sovereignty (Faure/Lefevere 1999), or some other reasons depending on the features of the related MEA, e.g. under the MARPOL, countries do not want inspections in their ports since they make those ports less attractive to oil tankers than neighbouring ports (Mitchell (1994). Yet, it is possible to see examples of them under some MEAs, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Montreal and Oslo Protocols. See also Bothe (2006) for the view that as long as transparency increases and the role of NGOs in submitting information increases, site visits become less important.

For a discussion on the legal basis of the non-compliance procedures, see Savaşan (2018).

See Chap. 6 infra on the Kyoto Protocol.

See infra Chaps. 5–6 on case studies for details.

Agenda 21 (1992). Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.

Akande, D. (2016). South African Withdrawal from the International Criminal Court – Does the ICC Statute Lead to Violations of Other International Obligations? 22 October 2016. Available at: www.ejiltalk.org/south-african-withdrawal-from-the-international-criminal-court/.

Anlar Güneş, Ş. (2006). Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Davasi. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 55, 2: 91–116.

Basel Convention Terms of Reference (2003). Available at: http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/ImplementationComplianceCommittee/Mandate/tabid/2296/Default.aspx#para21.

Beyerlin, U., Stoll, P.T., Wolfrum, R. (2006). Conclusions from MEA Compliance. Beyerlin, U., Stoll, P.T., Wolfrum, R. (Eds.), Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Academic Analysis and Views from Practice (359–369). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.

Birnie, P.W., Boyle A.E. and Redgwell, C. (2009). International Law and the Environment (3^rd edn.). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. and Hey, E. (2007). International Environmental Law, Mapping the Field. Bodansky, B., Brunnée, J. and Hey, E. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (1–28). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bonn Convention (1979). Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Available at: http://www.cms.int/en/convention-text.

Bothe, M. (2006). Ensuring Compliance with MEAs – Systems of Inspection and External Monitoring. Beyerlin, U., Stoll, P.T. and Wolfrum, R. (Eds.), Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements, A Dialogue between Practitioners and Academia (247–258). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.

Braithwaite, P. (2016). Environmental Crimes Could Warrant International Criminal Court Prosecutions, 1 October 2016. Available at: http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/10/environmental-crimes-could-warrant-international-criminal-court-prosecutions/.

Brownlie, I. (2003). Principles of Public International Law (6th edn.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Cameron, J. (2005). Dispute settlement and conflicting trade and environmental regimes. Sampson, G. and Whalley, J.(Eds.), The WTO, Trade and the Environment (455–468). Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publications.

Chambers, B.W. (2008). Interlinkages and the Effectiveness of MEAs. Tokyo, New York: UN University Press.

Charney, J.I. (1996). The Implications of Expanding International Dispute Settlement Systems: The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. The American Journal of International Law, 90, 1, 69–75.

Charnovitz, S. (2005). The WTO and the Environment. Sampson, G. and Whalley, J. (Eds.), The WTO, Trade and the Environment (413–431). Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publications.

Churchill, R.R. and Ulfstein, G. (2000). Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little Noticed Phenomenon in International Law. The American Journal of International Law, 94, 4, 623–659.

COP 7 (2001). Report of the COP on its Seventh Session. Part Two: Action taken by the COP at its Seventh Session. Volume III. Marrakesh, 29 October–10 November 2001. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop7/13a03.pdf.

Crossen, T.E. (2003). Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the Compliance Continuum. The Berkeley Electronic Press Legal Series, 36. Available at: https://www.ippc.int/sites/default/files/documents/1182330508307_Compliance_and_theory_MEAs.pdf.

Crossen, T.E. (2004). The Kyoto Protocol Compliance Regime: Origins, Outcomes and the Amendment Dilemma. Official Journal of the Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand Inc., I, XII, 1–6.

Dagne, T.W. (2007). Compulsory Dispute Settlement and Problems of Multiple Fora under International Environmental Law. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1460942.

Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations.

Ehrmann, M. (2002). Procedures of Compliance Control in International Environmental Treaties. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 13, 2, 377–444.

Enderlin, T. (2003). Alpine Convention, A Different Compliance Mechanism, What is a Compliance Mechanism? Environmental Policy and Law, 33, 3–4, 155–162.

Eritja, M.C., Pons, X.F., Sancho, L.H. (2004). Compliance Mechanisms in the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. Revue Generale de Droit, 34, 51–105.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (1950). Available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=.

Faure, M.G. and Lefevere, J. (1999). Compliance with International Environmental Agreements. Vig, N.J. and Axelrod, R.S. (Eds.), The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy (138–156). Washington: CQ Press.

Fitzmaurice, M. (2007). International Responsibility and Liability. Bodansky, B., Brunnée, J. and Hey, E. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (1,010–1,035). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fitzmaurice, M. (2009). NCPs and the Law of Treaties. Treves, T., Tanzi, A., Pineschi, L., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (Eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (453–482). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

Fodella, A. (2009). Structural and Institutional Aspects of NCMs. Treves, T., Tanzi, A., Pineschi, L., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (Eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (355–372). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

González-Calatayud, A. and Marceau, G. (2002). The Relationship between the Dispute-Settlement Mechanisms of MEAs and those of the WTO. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9388.00326/pdf.

Guruswamy, L.D. and Hendricks, B.R. (1997). International Environmental Law in a Nutshell. USA: West Group.

Handl, G. (1994). Controlling Implementation of and Compliance with International Environmental Commitments: The Rocky Road from Rio. Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, 5, 305.

Handl, G. (1997). Compliance Control Mechanisms and International Environmental Obligations. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 5, 29–51.

Hempel, L.C. (1996). Environmental Governance: The Global Challenge. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Hey, E. (2000). Reflections on an International Environmental Court. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

Hovi, J., Froyn, C.B. and Bang, G. (2007). Enforcing the Kyoto Protocol: Can Punitive Consequences Restore Compliance? Review of International Studies, 33, 435–449.

Hunter, D., Salzman, J. and Zaelke, D. (2002). International Environmental Law and Policy. New York: Foundation Press.

International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute (1998). Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf.

International Criminal Court (ICC) (2016). Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/20160915_OTP-Policy_Case-Selection_Eng.pdf.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) (1945). ICJ Statute. Available at: http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/sicj/icj_statute_e.pdf.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) (1949). Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN, Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949, Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/4/advisory-opinions.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) (1997). Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case, Judgment of 25 September 1997. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/92/judgments.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) (2010). Pulp Mills on The River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgement of 20 April 2010. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/135/judgments.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) (2015). Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica). Judgement of 16 December 2015. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/152/judgments.

International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE) (2009). Principles of Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Handbook. Available at: http://www.themisnetwork.eu/uploads/documents/Tools/inece_principles_handbook_eng.pdf.

International Law Commission (ILC) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001). Available at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf.

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (ITPGRFA) (2001). Rome, 3 November 2001. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0510e.pdf.

The International Tribunal For The Law Of The Sea (ITLOS) Statute (1982). Available at: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/basic_texts/statute_en.pdf.

Jacobson, H.K. and Weiss, E.B. (1998). Assessing the Record and Designing Strategies to Engage Countries. Weiss, E.B. and Jacobson, H.K. (Eds.), Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accords (511–554). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Jacur, F.R. (2009). Triggering Non-Compliance Procedures. Treves, T., Tanzi, A., Pineschi, L., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (Eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (373–388). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

Klabbers, J. (2007). Compliance Procedures. Bodansky, B., Brunnée, J. and Hey, E. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (995–1009). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kolari, T. (2002). Promoting Compliance with International Environmental Agreements – An Interdisciplinary Approach with Special Focus on Sanctions. (Pro Gradu Thesis, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Law, University of Joensuu, 2002). Available at: http://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/C08-0029-Kolari-Promoting.pdf.

Koskenniemi, M. (1992). Breach of Treaty or Non-Compliance? Reflection on the Enforcement of the Montreal Protocol. Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 3, 1, 123–162.

Koskenniemi, M. (2006). Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission. Available at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf.

Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997). Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf.

Lang, W. (1995). From Environmental Protection to Sustainable Development: Challenges for International Law. Lang, W. (Ed.), Sustainable Development and International Law. London: Springer.

Maljean-Dubois, S. and Richard, V. (2004). Mechanisms for Monitoring and Implementation of International Environmental Protection Agreements. Available at: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/42/64/17/PDF/id_0409bis_maljeandubois_richard_eng.pdf.

Marauhn, T. (1996). Towards a Procedural Law of Compliance Control in International Environmental Relations, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 696–731. Available at: http://www.zaoerv.de/56_1996/56_1996_3_a_696_731.pdf.

Matz, N. (2006). Financial and Other Incentives for Complying with MEA Obligations. Beyerlin, U., Stoll, P.T., Wolfrum, R. (Eds.), Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Academic Analysis and Views from Practice (301–318). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.

Maza, C. (2016). ICC move fuels debate on Cambodian case, 19 September 2016. Available at: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/icc-move-fuels-debate-cambodian-case.

Mitchell, R.B. (1994). Regime Design Matters: Intentional Oil Pollution and Treaty Compliance. International Organization, 48, 3, 425–458.

Montini, M. (2009). Procedural Guarantees in NCMs. Treves, T., Tanzi, A., Pineschi, L., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (Eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (389–406). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987). Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201522/volume-1522-i-26369-english.pdf.

MOP 1 (2005). Report of the COP serving as the MOP to the Kyoto Protocol on its First Session. Part Two: Action taken by the COP serving as the MOP at its First Session. Montreal, 28 November–10 December 2005. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3. Available at: http://unfccc.int/meetings/montreal_nov_2005/session/6260/php/view/reports.php.

MOP 3 (1991). Report of the COP serving as the MOP to the Montreal Protocol on its Third Session. Nairobi, 19–21 June 1991. UNEP/OzL.Pro.3/11. Available at: https://www.informea.org/en/event/third-meeting-parties-montreal-protocol-substances-deplete-ozone-layer.

MOP 4 (1992). Report of the COP serving as the MOP to the Montreal Protocol on its Fourth Session. Copenhagen, 23–25 November 1992. UNEP/OzL.Pro.4/15. Available at: https://www.informea.org/en/event/fourth-meeting-parties-montreal-protocol-substances-deplete-ozone-layer.

MOP 28 (2016). Report of the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Kigali, 10–15 October 2016. UNEP/OzL.Pro.28/12. Available at: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-28/final-report/English/MOP-28-12E.pdf.

Pauwelyn, J. (2005). Judicial Mechanisms: Is there a Need for a World Environment Court?. Chambers, W. B. and Green, J.F. (Ed.), Reforming International Environmental Governance: From Institutional Limits to Innovative Reforms (150–177). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Petersmann, E. (1999). Constitutionalism and International Adjudication: How to Constitutionalize the U.N. Dispute Settlement System? New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 31, 4, 753–790.

Pineschi, L. (2009). Non-Compliance Procedures and the Law of State Responsibility. Treves, T., Tanzi, A., Pineschi, L., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (Eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (483–498). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/20160915_OTP-Policy_Case-Selection_Eng.pdf.

Potzold, C. (2009). Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Contributions to Global Environmental Governance. Are Non-Compliance Mechanisms a Viable Alternative to the More Traditional Form of International Dispute Settlement for the Resolution of Global Environmental Problems? Society for Environmental Law and Economics, UBC Conference Paper March 2009.

Procedures and Mechanisms relating to Compliance under the Kyoto Protocol (NCP) (2005). Decision 27/MOP 1. Available at: https://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/compliance/application/pdf/dec.27_cmp.1.pdf.

Procedures and Mechanisms relating to Compliance under the Montreal Protocol (NCP) (2006). Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (419–421). Nairobi: UNEP.

Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (1999). Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2000/wat/mp.wat.2000.1.e.pdf.

Rayfuse, R. (2005). The Future of Compulsory Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea Convention. VUWLR, 36, 683–712. Available at: http://victoria.ac.nz/law/research/publications/vuwlr/prev-issues/pdf/vol-36-2005/issue-4/sea-rayfuse.pdf.

Rechtbank Den Haag (24 June 2015) C/09/456689. Available at: https://elaw.org/nl.urgenda.15.

Rest, A. (2000). The Role of an International Court for the Environment. Working Paper for the Conference Giornata Ambiente 2000 (34–58). Available at: http://www.biotechnology.uni-koeln.de/inco2-dev/common/contribs/06_resta.pdf.

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992). Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/RIO_E.PDF.

Robinson, D. (2016). Feeling a Way Forward for International Justice-ICC, Africa and the World, 22 November 2016. Available at: www.ejiltalk.org/feeling-a-way-forward-for-international-justice-icc-africa-and-the-world/.

Romano, C.P.R. (2000). The Peaceful Settlement of International Environmental Disputes. London: Kluwer Law International.

Romano, C.P.R. (2007). International Dispute Settlement. Bodansky, B., Brunnée, J. and Hey, E. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (1,036–1,056). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sachariew, K. (1991). Promoting Compliance with International Environmental Standards: Reflections on Monitoring and Reporting Mechanisms. Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 2, 1, 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/yiel/2.1.31.

Sand, P.H. (1990). Lessons Learned in Global Environmental Governance. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 18, 2, 213–277. Available at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol18/iss2/2.

Sands, P. (1996). Compliance with International Environmental Obligations: Existing International Legal Arrangements. Cameron, J., Werksman, J. and Roderick, P. (Eds.), Improving Compliance with International Environmental Law (48–82). London: Earthscan.

Sands, P. (2006). Non-Compliance and Dispute Settlement. Beyerlin, U., Stoll, P.T., Wolfrum, R. (Eds.), Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Academic Analysis and Views from Practice (353–358). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.

Sands, P. (2016). Climate Change and the Rule of Law: Adjudicating the Future in International Law. Journal of Environmental Law, 28, 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqw005. https://academic.oup.com/jel/article-abstract/28/1/19/1748465/Climate-Change-and-the-Rule-of-Law-Adjudicating.

Savaşan, Z. (2018). Legitimacy Questions of Non-Compliance Procedures, Examples from the Kyoto and Montreal Protocol, The Environment in International Courts and Tribunals: Questions of Legitimacy, Christina Voigt (Ed.), Cambridge University Press (in process).

Savaşan, Z. (2017). Coping with Global Warming: Compliance Issue Compliance Mechanisms Under MEAs. Zhang, XinRong, Dincer, Ibrahim (Eds.), Energy Solutions to Combat Global Warming, Lecture Notes in Energy, 33. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Savaşan, Z. (2015). Gathering Information under Compliance Mechanisms: Potential New Ways for Current Challenges. De Bree, M. and Ruessink, H. (Eds.), Innovating Environmental Compliance Assurance (171–194), The Netherlands: INECE.

Schiffman, H. (1998). The Dispute Settlement Mechanism of UNCLOS: A Potentially Important Apparatus for Marine Wildlife Management. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 293–306.

Schwabach, A. (2005). International Environmental Disputes: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Serdy, A. (2005). The Paradoxical Success of UNCLOS Part XV: A Half hearted Reply to Rosemary Rayfuse. VUWLR, 36, 713–722. Available at: http://victoria.ac.nz/law/research/publications/vuwlr/prev-issues/pdf/vol-36-2005/issue-4/sea-serdy.pdf.

Stephens, T. (2009). International Courts and Environmental Protection. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Széll, P. (1995). The Development of Multilateral Mechanisms for Monitoring Compliance. Lang, W.(Ed.), Sustainable Development and International Law (97–114). London: Springer.

Tanzi, A. and Pitea, C. (2009). Non-Compliance Mechanisms: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward. Treves, T., Tanzi, A., Pineschi, L., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (Eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (569–580). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE) (2012). Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 26.10.2012/C 326/49. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT.

Treves, T. (2009a). Introduction. Treves, T., Tanzi, A., Pineschi, L., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (Eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (1–10). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

Treves, T. (2009b). The Settlement of Disputes and Non-Compliance Procedures. Treves, T., Tanzi, A., Pineschi, L., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (Eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (499–520). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

Turgut, N. (2007). The European Court of Human Rights and the Right to the Environment. Ankara Law Review, 4, 1–24.

Ulfstein, G. and Werksman, J. (2005). The Kyoto Compliance System: Towards Hard Enforcement. Stokke, O. S., Hovi J. and Ulfstein, G. (Eds.), Implementing the Climate Regime, International Compliance (39–64). USA: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982). Available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf.

United Nations (UN) (1945). UN Charter. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/.

United Nations (UN) (2001). UN Juridical Yearbook. Available at: http://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../unjuridicalyearbook/pdfs/english/volumes/1993.pdf&lang=EF.

United Nations (UN) (2006). Arbitral Tribunal, Trail Smelter Case (United States, Canada), UN Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 1941. Available at: http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_III/1905-1982.pdf.

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (2005a). Environment and Trade, A Handbook. Available at: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/envirotrade_handbook_2005.pdf.

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (2005b). Comparative Analysis of Compliance Mechanisms under Selected Multilateral Environmental Agreements. UNEP: Nairobi. Available at: https://elaw.org/system/files/UNEP.comp_.mea_.compliance.pdf?_ga=2.50584041.1797524369.1551612177-1091855356.1551612177.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1992). Available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.

Urbinati, S. (2009). Procedures and Mechanisms relating to Compliance under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Treves, T., Tanzi, A., Pineschi, L., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (Eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (63–84). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (1969). Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201155/volume-1155-i-18232-english.pdf.

Wang, X. and Wiser, G. (2002). The Implementation and Compliance Regimes under the Climate Change Convention and Its Kyoto Protocol. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 11, 2, 181–198.

Weiss, E.B. (1998). The Five International Treaties: A Living Listory. Weiss, E.B. and Jacobson, H.K. (Eds.), Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accords (89–172), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Werksman, J.D. (1996). Designing a Compliance System for the UNFCCC, Cameron, Cameron, J., Werksman, J. and Roderick, P. (Eds.), Improving Compliance with International Environmental Law (85–112). London: Earthscan.

Werksman, J.D. (1999). Procedural and Institutional Aspects of the Emerging Climate Change Regime: Improvised Procedures and Impoverished Rules? Available at: http://www.cserge.ucl.ac.uk/Werksman.pdf.

Wolfrum, R. (1999). Recueil des cours: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Vol. 272 (1998). The Hague, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Wolfrum, R. and Matz, N. (2003). Conflicts in International Environmental Law. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

World Trade Organization (WTO) (2001). Compliance and Dispute Settlement Provisions in the WTO and in Multilateral Environmental Agreements. World Trade Organization. Committee on Trade and Environment. WT/CTE/W/191, 6 June 2001 (1–2,811). Available at: http://www.unep.ch/etb/areas/pdf/wtoUNEPnoteDispSetPro.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO) (2004). Trade and Environment at the WTO. Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/trade_env_e.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO) (2008). Public Forum ’08, Trading into the Future. Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/public_forum08_e.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO) (2011). Understanding the WTO (5th edn.). Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/understanding_e.pdf.

World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement, Annex 2, Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU). Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/28-dsu.pdf.

Titel: Compliance Mechanisms: A General Overview
verfasst von: Zerrin Savaşan
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Paris Climate Agreement: A Deal for Better Compliance?
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14312-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-14313-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14313-8_4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"