Between the devil and the deep blue sea: Enhancing flexibility in international climate change law

Netherlands Yearbook of International Law

Volumn 45, Issue , 2015, Pages 255-286

  Van Asselt, Harro ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Climate change; Compliance; Differentiation; Flexibility; Kyoto Protocol; Pluralism; Polycentric governance; UNFCCC

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929619181     PISSN: 01676768     EISSN: 15740951     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6265-060-2_10     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Akanle T et al. (2008) Summary of the fourteenth conference of parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and fourth meeting of parties to the Kyoto Protocol, 1-12 December 2008. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, vol 12
2. Alter K (2005) International courts are not agents! The perils of the principal-Agent approach to thinking about the independence of international courts. Am Soc Int Law Proc 99:138-141
3. Barrett S (2007) A multitrack treaty system. In: Stavins RN, Aldy JE (eds) Architecture for agreement: addressing global climate change in the post-Kyoto world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 237-259
4. Berk MM, den Elzen MGJ (2001) Options for differentiation of future commitments in climate policy: how to realise timely participation to meet stringent climate goals? Clim Policy 1:465-480
5. Berman PS (2012) Global legal pluralism: a jurisprudence of law beyond borders. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
6. Bernstein S et al (2010) A tale of two Copenhagens: carbon markets and climate governance. Millennium 39:161-173
7. Biermann F et al (2009) The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Glob Environ Politics 9:14-40
8. Bodansky D (1993) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: a commentary. Yale J Int Law 18:451-558
9. Bodansky D (2003) Climate commitments: assessing the options. In: Diringer E (ed) Beyond Kyoto: advancing the international effort against climate change. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington DC, pp 37-60
10. Bodansky D (2009) Legal form of a new climate agreement: avenues and options. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington DC
11. Bodansky D (2010) The Copenhagen climate change conference: a postmortem. Am J Int Law 104:230-240
12. Boyd E et al (2008) UNFCCC negotiations (pre-Kyoto to COP-9): what the process says about the politics of CDM-sinks. Int Environ Agreem Politics, Law Econ 8:95-112
13. Boyd W (2011) Climate change, fragmentation, and the challenges of global environmental law: elements of a post-Copenhagen assemblage. Univ Pa J Int Law 32:457-550
14. Briner G et al (2014) Built to last: designing a flexible and durable 2015 climate change agreement. OECD, Paris
15. Brunnée J (2002) COPing with consent: law-making under multilateral environmental agreements. Leiden J Int Law 15:1-52
16. Brunnée J (2003) The Kyoto Protocol: testing ground for compliance theories? ZaöRV 63:255-280
17. Brunnée J, Streck C (2013) The UNFCCC as a negotiating forum: towards common but more differentiated responsibilities. Clim Policy 13:589-607
18. Bulkeley H (2010) Cities and the governing of climate change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 35:229-253
19. Chayes A, Chayes AH (1995) The new sovereignty: compliance with international regulatory agreements. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
20. Chayes A et al (1995) Active compliance management in environmental treaties. In: Lang W (ed) Sustainable development and international law. Graham and Trotman Ltd, London, pp 75-89
21. Churchill RR, Ulfstein G (2000) Autonomous institutional arrangements in multilateral environmental agreements: a little-noticed phenomenon in international law. Am J Int Law 94:623-659
22. Coglianese C, d'Ambrosio J (2008) Policymaking under pressure: the perils of incremental responses to climate change. Conn Law Rev 40:1413-1429
23. Cole DH (2011) From global to polycentric climate governance. Clim Law 2:395-413
24. Dannenmaier E (2011) The role of non-state actors in climate compliance. In: Brunnée J et al (eds) (2012) Promoting compliance in an evolving climate regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 149-176
25. De Búrca G et al (2014) Global experimentalist governance. Br J Polit Sci 44:477-486
26. de Coninck H et al (2008) International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change. Energy Policy 36:335-356
27. Depledge J (2000) Tracing the origins of the Kyoto Protocol: an article-by-Article textual history, FCCC/TP/2000/2
28. Dietz T et al (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907-1912
29. Doelle M (2013) Compliance and enforcement in the climate change regime. In: Hollo EJ et al (eds) Climate change and the law. Springer, Berlin, pp 165-188
30. Downs G et al (1996) Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? Int Organ 50:379-406
31. Dubash NK et al (2014) Political implications of data presentation. Science 345:36-37
32. Ebbesson J (2010) The rule of law in governance of complex socio-ecological changes. Glob Environ Change 20:414-422
33. Fischer-Lescano A, Teubner G (2004) Regime-collisions: the vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of global law. Mich J Int Law 25:999-1046
34. Francioni F (2012) Realism, utopia and the future of international environmental law. EUI working papers law 2012/11
35. French D, Rajamani L (2013) Climate change and international environmental law: musings on a journey to somewhere. J Environ Law 25:437-461
36. Galiana I, Green C (2009) Let the global technology race begin. Nature 462:570-571
37. Giorgetti C (1999) From Rio to Kyoto: a study of the involvement of non-governmental organizations in the negotiations on climate change. NYU Environ Law J 7:201-245
38. Gupta J (1998) Leadership in the climate regime: inspiring the commitment of developing countries in the post-Kyoto phase. RECIEL 7:178-188
39. Haas PM (2004) Addressing the global governance deficit. Glob Environ Politics 4:1-15
40. Hale T (2013) How the UNFCCC can drive climate ambition in advance of a treaty: record, review, reinforce, recruit. Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford
41. Helfer L (2005) Exiting treaties. Va Law Rev 9:1579-1648
42. Helfer LR (2013) Flexibility in international agreements. In: Dunoff JL, Pollack MA (eds) Interdisciplinary perspective on international law and international relations: the state of the art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 175-196
43. Hoffman MJ (2011) Climate governance at the crossroads: experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford University Press, New York
44. Honkonen T (2009) The principle of common but differentiated responsibility in post-2012 climate negotiations. RECIEL 18:257-267
45. Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
46. Jagers S, Stripple J (2003) Climate governance beyond the state. Glob Gov 9:385-399
47. Kaul I et al (1999) Global public goods: international cooperation in the 21st century. Oxford University Press, Oxford
48. Keohane RO, Victor DG (2011) The regime complex for climate change. Perspect Politics 9:7-23
49. Koremenos B et al (2001) The rational design of international institutions. Int Organ 55:761-799
50. Koskenniemi M (2007) The fate of public international law: between technique and politics. Mod Law Rev 70:1-30
51. Krisch N (2010) Beyond constitutionalism: the pluralist structure of postnational law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
52. Krisch N (2014) The decay of consent: international law in an age of global public goods. Am J Int Law 108:1-40
53. Kulovesi K (2013) Exploring the landscape of climate law and scholarship: two emerging trends. In: Hollo EJ et al (eds) Climate change and the law. Springer, Berlin, pp 31-62
54. Lazarus RJ (2009) Super wicked problems and climate change: restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Rev 94:1153-1233
55. Levin K et al (2012) Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sci 45:123-152
56. Lohan D (2006) Assessing the mechanisms for the input of scientific information into the UNFCCC. Colo J Int Environ Law Policy 17:249-308
57. Meinshausen M et al (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458:1158-1162
58. Meyer T (2010) Power, exit costs, and renegotiation in international law. Harv Int Law J 51:379-425
59. Michaelowa A et al (2005) Graduation and deepening: an ambitious post-2012 climate policy scenario. Int Environ Agreem Politics, Law Econ 5:25-46
60. Moncel R, van Asselt H (2012) All hands on deck! Mobilizing climate change action beyond the UNFCCC. RECIEL 21:163-176
61. Morgan J et al (2013) A pathway to a climate change agreement in 2015: options for setting and reviewing GHG emission reduction offers. World Resources Institute, Washington DC
62. Naím M (2009) Minilateralism: the magic number to get real international action. Foreign Policy, July/August, pp 5-8
63. Oberthür S, Lefeber R (2010) Holding countries to account: the Kyoto Protocol's compliance system revisited after four years of experience. Clim Law 1:133-158
64. Osofsky H (2007) Climate change litigation as pluralist legal dialogue? Stanf Environ Law J 26:181-238
65. Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob Environ Change 20:550-557
66. Pauwelyn J (2013) The end of differential treatment for developing countries? Lessons from the trade and climate change regimes. RECIEL 22:29-41
67. Peel J et al (2012) Climate change law in an era of multi-level governance. Transnatl Environ Law 1:245-280
68. Rajamani L (2010) The making and unmaking of the Copenhagen Accord. Int Comp Law Q 59:824-843
69. Rajamani L (2011) The Cancun climate change agreements: reading the text, subtext and tea leaves. Int Comp Law Q 60:499-519
70. Rayner S (2010) How to eat an elephant: a bottom-up approach to climate policy. Clim Policy 10:615-621
71. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155-169
72. Rogelj J et al (2010) Copenhagen pledges are paltry. Nature 464:1126-1128
73. Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (2012) Experimentalist governance. In: Levi-Faur D (ed) The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 169-183
74. Sands P, Peel J (2012) Principles of international environmental law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
75. Scott J (2011) The multi-level governance of climate change. Carbon Clim Law Rev 4:25-33
76. Shaffer G (2012) International law and global public goods in a legal pluralist world. Eur J Int Law 23:669-693
77. Singh Ghaleigh N (2011) Barriers to climate technology transfer-the chimera of intellectual property rights. Carbon Clim Law Rev 4:220-235
78. Thompson A (2006) Management under anarchy: the international politics of climate change. Clim Change 78:7-29
79. Thompson A (2010) Rational design in motion: uncertainty and flexibility in the global climate regime. Eur J Int Relat 16:269-296
80. van Asselt H (2014) The fragmentation of global climate governance: consequences and management of regime interactions. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
81. van Asselt H (2015, forthcoming) The design and implementation of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems. In: Carlarne C et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of international climate change law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
82. van Asselt H, Gupta J (2009) Stretching too far: developing countries and the role of flexibility mechanisms beyond Kyoto. Stanf Environ Law J 28:311-378
83. van Asselt H, Zelli F (2014) Connect the dots: managing the fragmentation of global climate governance. Environ Econ Policy Stud 16:137-155
84. van Asselt H et al (2014) The changing architecture of international climate change law. In: van Calster G, Vandenberghe W (eds) Research handbook on climate change mitigation law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
85. Victor DG (2007) Fragmented carbon markets and reluctant nations: implications for the design of effective architectures. In: Stavins RN, Aldy JE (eds) Architecture for agreement: addressing global climate change in the post-Kyoto world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 133-160
86. Victor DG et al (2006) A Madisonian approach to climate policy. Science 309:1820-1821
87. Verweij M et al (2006) Clumsy solutions for a complex world: the case of climate change. Public Admin 84:817-843
88. Vihma A (2015, forthcoming) Climate of consensus: managing the decision making in the UN climate change negotiations. RECIEL 24
89. Vihma A, Kulovesi K (2013) Can attention to the process improve the efficiency of the UNFCCC negotiations? Carbon Clim Law Rev 6:242-251
90. Wiersema A (2009) The new international law-makers? Conferences of the parties to multilateral environmental agreements. Mich J Int Law 31:231-287
91. Yamin F, Depledge J (2004) The international climate change regime: a guide to rules, institutions and procedures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
92. Young MA (2011) Climate change law and regime interaction. Carbon Clim Law Rev 4:147-157
93. Young OR (2002) The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. MIT Press, Cambridge
94. Young OR (2010) Institutional dynamics: emergent patterns in international environmental governance. MIT Press, Cambridge
95. Zelli F (2011) The fragmentation of the global climate governance architecture. WIREs Clim Change 2:255-270