Search

Thirty years have passed since the climate change issue first emerged on the global scientific and political agenda. It has now been twenty years since negotiations on climate change issues began. This paper argues that it is now time to take stock of the progress made on the issue of climate change against the background of increasing critique of the international legal system. It argues that there are five types of critique of the functioning of international law: environmentalist, democratic, neo-liberal, epistemic, and third world. This paper selects the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) critique as its starting point and identifies three elements of a TWAIL approach, referred to as a GAP analysis. Thus far, TWAIL has not specifically examined environmental issues, nor have environmental lawyers taken a TWAIL perspective on climate change. This paper will therefore ask whether the goals of developing countries are being met, whether there is an explicit or implicit bias in the arguments underlying the regime, and whether a perception of patterns of inequity is emerging. Using this analytical framework, this paper examines the history of the regime over five time periods and discusses its five inherent contradictions. More specifically, it examines the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, focusing in particular on the targets countries are willing to adopt in the post-2009 period, and concludes that developing country goals are not being met. Although the climate change regime began with good intentions and norms, these are scarcely being implemented in line with the spirit of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and patterns of inequity are, in fact, emerging. Furthermore, as the treaty negotiations are hostage to the domestic politics of the United States, the challenge to international lawyers and scholars is to find ways of proactively designing law so that it is capable of addressing global environmental problems both effectively and in a way that is not seen as prejudicing the interests of two thirds of the members of the United Nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global sea levels are rising and this trend has been linked to anthropogenically- induced climate change. This phenomenon has raised concerns over a range of threats to coastal States and coastal-dwelling populations. While this paper reviews these issues, its main focus is on the potential implications ofsea level rise on national claims to maritime jurisdiction. Such claims are generally measured from baselines along the coast. The paper examines, in particular, the predominant type of baseline used by coastal States, that is, "normal" baselines coinciding with iow water lines along the coast. The traditional implication of using the low-water line as the basis for measuring maritime claims is that as the low waterline along the coast changes or "ambulates," so too will the maritime limits measured from it. As sea levels rise, normal baselines are likely to retreat inland leading to potentially substantial losses in the areas of nationally-claimed maritime spaces. Options to preserve the maritime claims of coastal States threatened by sea level rise are explored, It is argued that there is a growing need for a departure from the traditional norm of ambulatory normal baselines and consequently shifting maritime jurisdictional limits in the interests ofproviding marine users with stability, clarity and certainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mapping the relevant principles and norms of international law, the paper discusses scientific evidence and identifies current legal foundations of climate change mitigation, adaptation and communication in international environmental law, human rights protection and international trade regulation in WTO law. It briefly discusses the evolution and architecture of relevant multilateral environmental agreements, in particular the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It discusses the potential role of human rights in identifying pertinent goals and values of mitigation and adaption and eventually turns to principles and rules of international trade regulation and investment protection which are likely to be of crucial importance should a new multilateral agreement fail to materialize. The economic and legal relevance of rules on tariffs, border tax adjustment and subsidies, services and intellectual property and investment law are discussed in relation to the production, supply and use of energy. Moreover, lessons from trade negotiations may be drawn for negotiations of future environmental instruments. The paper offers a survey of the main interacting areas of public international law and discusses the intricate interaction of all these compo- nents informing climate change mitigation, adaptation and communication in international law in light of an emerging doctrine of multilayered governance. It seeks to contribute to greater coherence of what today is highly fragmented and rarely discussed in an overall context. The paper argues that trade regulation will be of critical importance in assessing domestic policies and that potential trade remedies offer powerful incentives for all nations alike to participate in a multilateral framework defining appropriate goals and principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the impacts of climate change on the Arctic, including the thinning and decreasing extent of sea ice and projected dramatic increases in access to and development of regional resources, the adequacy of existing governance arrangements for the Arctic is increasingly being questioned. Through a two-part format, this article reviews how the Arctic Council is faring as the key regional governance institution for the Arctic since being established pursuant to a Declaration adopted by the eight Arctic States in September 1996. How the Council has edged forward the regional cooperation agenda through its six working groups and Ministerial meetings is first described. The recent governance innovation of establishing task forces to negotiate regional instruments on search and rescue and emergency preparedness and response is highlighted. The paper then turns to provide an overview of key challenges confronting the Arctic Council: fully implementing existing commitments and recommendations; completing the Arctic Council's restructuring; addressing future governance of ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction in the Arctic; and strengthening the 'Arctic voice' in international fora. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]