«EURASIAN INTEGRATION: LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL ASPECTS Novosibirsk, 3–5 of December 2014 SECOND SCHOOL OF INTERECOLAW Novosibirsk, 4–5 of December ...»
30. Ibid. Sustainable development is arguably an emergent collective objective of the international community. See, e. g., The Future We Want, UNGA Resolution A/RES/66/288, 11 Sep. 2012, Annex, available
at: http://www.uncsd2012.org. See also Voigt C. Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law:
Resolving Conflicts between Climate Measures and WTO Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 2009); Tladi D. Sustainable Development in International Law: An Analysis of Key Enviro-Economic Instruments (Pretoria University Law Press, 2007); Weeramantry C. G. Universalising International Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 2004).
31. Note that the planetary boundaries approach says nothing about the distribution of affluence and technologies among human societies. Thus, remaining within planetary boundaries is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for sustainable development: Steffen, Rockstrüm & Costanza, n. 23 above.
32. See, e. g., Bosselmann K. The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming Law and Governance (Ashgate, 2008); Voigt, n. 30 above; Lafferty & Hovden, n. 20 above.
33. Bosselmann K. Grounding the Rule of Law / Bugge H. C., Voigt C. (eds), Rule of Law for Nature: Basic Issues and New Developments in Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming in 2013).
34. Referring to the source (Grund) of the validity of positive law. According to Kelsen’s pure legal theory, the validity of positive law is conditional on the acceptance of a (not predefined) grundnorm.
Интерэкоправо в антропоцене: к вопросу о целенаправленной системе... 211
35. Kant I. Die Metaphysik der Sitten. Bd. VI. Akademieausgabe, 1907.
36. Compare with the views of Earth system science and governance scholars who argued that the planetary boundaries concept invites us to explore further the possible applicability of the concept ofjus cogens in the international environmental law context. Galaz V. et al. «Planetary Boundaries» — Exploring the Challenges for Global Environmental Governance // Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2012.
Vol. 4(1). P. 80–87; Walker B. et al. Looming Global-Scale Failures and Missing Institutions // Science. 2009.
Vol. 325(5946). P. 1345–1346; Biermann, n. 29 above.
37. Feteris E. T. Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions (Springer, 1999), at p. 144.
38. In his comprehensive analysis of legal reasoning in the context of international and domestic environmental law, Douglas Fisher concludes that ‘the point of commencement’ is the most important issue of any process of legal reasoning. Once this has been determined, the process of reasoning will assume the form that the point of commencement dictates: see Fisher D. E. Legal Reasoning in Environmental Law: A Study of Structure, Form and Language (Edward Elgar, 2013), at p. 456. Crucially, the absence of an environmental grundnorm creates a vacuum that is currently filled with utilitarian, state-centred and other traditional considerations that can be perceived as in themselves reflecting a certain grundnorm or ‘core adjudicatory norm’: Bosselmann, n. 32 above, at p. 67.
39. In fact, each proposed boundary position assumes that no other boundaries are transgressed:
Rockstrüm et al., n. 3 above. See also Galaz V.et al. Institutional and Political Leadership Dimensions of Cascading Ecological Crises // Public Administration. 2011. Vol. 89(2). P. 361–380.
40. See, e. g., Duit A., Galaz V. Governance and Complexity — Emerging Issues for Governance Theory // Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions. 2008.
Vol. 21(3). P. 311–335; Duit A., Galaz V., Eckerberg K., Ebbesson J. Governance, Complexity, and
Resilience // Global Environmental Change.. 2010. Vol. 20(3). P. 363–368; Galaz V. Double Complexity:
Information Technology and Reconfigurations in Adaptive Governance / Boyd E., Folke C. (eds) Adapting Institutions: Governance, Complexity and Social-Ecological Resilience. Cambridge University Press,
2011. P. 193–215.
41. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD), Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. SCBD, 2009.
42. Parish F. et al. Assessment of Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Main Report (Global Environment Centre and Wetlands International, 2008), available at: http://www.imcg.net/media/ download_ gallery/books/assessment_peatland.pdf; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Wetlands and Water (World Resources Institute, 2005), at p. 34, available at: http://www.unwater.org/ downloads/MA_wetlandsandWater_English.pdf.
43. Snyder P. K., Foley J. A., Hitchman M. H., Delire C. J. Analyzing the Effects of Complete Tropical Forest Removal on the Regional Climate Using a Detailed Three-dimensional Energy Budget: An Application to Africa // Journal of Geophysical Research. 2004. Vol. 109, D21102; Lenton T. M. et al. Tipping Elements in the Earth’s Climate System // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008. Vol. 105(6).
44. See, e. g., Lafferty & Hovden, n. 20 above; Sanwal M. Trends in Global Environmental Governance: The Emergence of a Mutual Supportiveness Approach to Achieve Sustainable Development // Global Environmental Politics. 2004. Vol. 4(4). P. 16–22; Pavoni R. Mutual Supportiveness as a Principle of Interpretation and LawMaking: A Watershed for the «WTO-and-Competing-Regimes» Debate? // European Journal of International Law. 2010. Vol. 21(3). P. 649–679. See also Boyle A. Relationship between International Environmental Law and Other. Branches of International Law / Bodansky D., Brunnйe J., Hey E. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford University Press, 2007.
45. ‘Coherence’ means a state in which different institutional components are compatible and mutually reinforcing: KeohaneR. O., Victor D. G. The Regime Complex for Climate Change // Perspectives on Politics.
2011. Vol. 9(1). P. 7–23, at 16. See also Nilsson M. et al. Understanding Policy Coherence: Analytical Framework and Examples of Sector-Environment Policy Interactions in the EU // Environmental Policy and Governance. 2012. Vol. 22(6). P. 395–423.
212 Р. Э. Ким, К. Боссельман
46. The notion of ‘object and purpose’ of a treaty is a relatively more concrete aim that can be achieved by following a certain number of steps, or used as a direct measure of the legality of state behaviour. See, e. g., Klabbers J. Treaties, Object and Purpose / Wolfrum R. (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, 2008, available at: http://www.mpepil.com.
47. Keohane & Victor, n. 45 above.
48. Handl G. Transboundary Impacts // Bodansky, Brunnйe & Hey, n. 44 above. P. 531–349.
49. Convention between the United States and Other Powers Providing for the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals, Washington, DC (US), 7 Jul. 1911, in force 15 Dec. 1911, available at: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov.
50. Convention for Settlement of Difficulties Arising from Operation of Smelter at Trail, Ottawa (Canada), 15 Apr. 1935, in force 3 Aug. 1935, available at: http://untreaty.un.org.
51. See, e. g., Mitchell, International Environmental Agreements Database Project, n. 1 above.
52. For the relationship between law, governance, and globalization in the environmental context, see Kotzй L. J. Global Environmental Governance: Law and Regulation for the 21st Century. Edward Edgar, 2012.
53. See, e. g., Steiner, Kimball & Scanlon, n. 21 above.
54. Churchill R. R., Ulfstein G. Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law // American Journal of International Law.
2000. Vol. 94(4). P. 623–659.
55. Ostrom V. Polycentricity (Part 1) / McGinnis M. (ed) Polycentricity and Local Public Economies.
University of Michigan Press, 1999. See also Ostrom E. Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global Environmental Change // Global Environmental Change. 2010. Vol. 20(4). P. 550–557.
56. There is no single legislative will behind international environmental law. Each MEA’s Conference of the Parties is a de facto lawmaker. See, e. g., Brunnйe J. COPing with Consent: Law-Making under Multilateral Environmental Agreements // Leiden Journal ofInternational Law. 2002. Vol. 15(1). P. 1–52. See also Moncel R., van Asselt H. All Hands on Deck! Mobilizing Climate Change Action beyond theUNFCCC // Review of European Community and International Environmental Law. 2012. Vol. 21(3). P. 163–176.
57. Long A. Developing Linkages to Preserve Biodiversity // Yearbook of International Environmental Law. 2010. Vol. 21(1). P. 41–80; Kiss A. Shelton D. International Environmental Law. Trans national, 2004.
58. Bodansky D. Is There an International Environmental Constitution? // Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2009. Vol. 16(2). P. 565–584. See also Birnie P., Boyle A., Redgwell C. International Law and the Environment. Oxford University Press, 2009; Sands & Peel, n. 7 above.
59. See, e. g., Steiner H. J., Alston P., Goodman R. International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals. Oxford University Press, 2008.
60. Paris (France), 10 Dec. 1948, available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr.
61. ‘Free trade has achieved peremptory status by reason of the social power, market prominence, and ideological productivity of the social forces who support the EU, Nafta and WTO’: Allen M. H. Globalization and Peremptory Norms in International Law: From Westphalian to Global Constitutionalism? // International Politics. 2004. Vol. 41. P. 341–353, at 346. See also van den Bossche P. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Materials. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
62. Van den Bossche, ibid. Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Marrakesh (Morocco), 15 Apr. 1994, in force 1 Jan. 1995, available at: http://www.wto.org.
63. See, e. g., Sands P. Turtles and Torturers: The Transformation of International Law // New York University Journal of International Law and Politics. 2001. Vol. 33. P. 527–559.
64. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UN Doc. A/Conf.48/14/ Rev.1 (1973), 16 Jun. 1972, available at: http://www.un-documents.net/unchedec.htm.
65. UNGA Resolution A/RES/37/7, 28 Oct. 1982, available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/ a37r007.htm.
66. Adopted by the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. I), 14 Jun. 1992, available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/ conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.
67. Bodansky, n. 58 above.
68. French D. Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Legal Status of the Secretariats by Bharat H. Desai // Journal of Environmental Law. 2011. Vol. 23(1). P. 155–157, at 155. See also Sands & Peel, n. 7 above, at p. 42.
Интерэкоправо в антропоцене: к вопросу о целенаправленной системе... 213
69. Sands & Peel, ibid.
70. Dupuy P.-M. Soft Law and the International Law of the Environment // Michigan Journal of International Law. 1991. Vol. 12(2). P. 420–435; Abbott K. W., Snidal D. Hard and Soft Law in International Governance // International Organization. 2000. Vol. 54(3). P. 421–456.
71. Shelton D. Normative Hierarchy in International Law // American Journal of International Law.
2006. Vol. 100(261). P. 291–323.
72. Bodansky, n. 58 above, at p. 567.
73. Ibid., at p. 584. [Bodansky D. Is There an International Environmental Constitution? // Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2009. Vol. 16(2). P. 565–584]
74. For a notable exception, see Taylor P. An Ecological Approach to International Law: Responding to the Challenges of Climate Change. Routledge, 1998.
75. See, e. g., Steiner, Kimball & Scanlon, n. 21 above; Mee L. D. The Role of UNEP and UNDP in Multilateral Environmental Agreements // International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 2005. Vol. 5(3). P. 227–263; Andresen S. The Effectiveness of UN Environmental Institutions // International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 2007. Vol. 7(4) P. 317–336.
76. See, e. g., Watson R. T. et al. Protecting Our Planet Securing Our Future: Linkages Among Global Environmental Issues and Human Needs (UNEP, US National Aeronautics and Space Administration, The World Bank, 1998); United Nations University, Inter-Linkages: Synergies and Coordination between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (United Nations University, 1999); UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Synergies and Cooperation: A Status Report on Activities Promoting Synergies and Cooperation between Multilateral Environmental Agreements, in Particular Biodiversity-related Conven tions, and Related Mechanisms (UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 2004).
77. New York, NY (US), 9 May 1992, in force 21 Mar. 1994, available at: http://unfccc.int.
78. UNFCCC, ibid., Art. 8(2)(e).
79. UNFCCC, ibid., Art. 7(2)(1).
80. See, e. g., Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretariat and the Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar), UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/3/ Inf.38, 15 Oct. 1996, available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/agreements/agmt-ramsar-1996-01-19-moc-web-en.pdf.
81. Hayward J. Elitism, Populism, and European Politics. Oxford University Press, 1996 (the notion applied in the context of European political unification).
82. Wolfrum & Matz, n. 7 above; van Asselt, n. 7 above; Doelle, n. 7. above; M. Fitzmaurice & O.