Abstract
| Language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 103-132 |
| Number of pages | 29 |
| Journal | Journal of Environmental Law |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 29 Sep 2011 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 31 Mar 2012 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- constitutionalism
- dispute settlement
- global environmental regimes
- international environmental law
- managerialism
- non-compliance procedures
Cite this
}
Constitutionalising secondary rules in global environmental regimes : non-compliance procedures and the enforcement of multilateral environmental agreements. / Cardesa-Salzmann, Antonio.
In: Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 24, No. 1, 31.03.2012, p. 103-132.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Constitutionalising secondary rules in global environmental regimes
T2 - Journal of Environmental Law
AU - Cardesa-Salzmann, Antonio
N1 - This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Journal of Environmental Law following peer review. The version of record, Cardesa-Salzmann A. Constitutionalising secondary rules in global environmental regimes: non-compliance procedures and the enforcement of multilateral environmental agreements. Journal of Environmental Law. 2012 Mar 31;24(1):103-132, is available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqr022.
PY - 2012/3/31
Y1 - 2012/3/31
N2 - Due to its remarkable success, the model of the Montreal Protocol's non-compliance procedure (NCP) has been adopted in other environmental regimes, whose primary norms differ considerably. Hence, this article distinguishes different types of global environmental regimes and assesses the performance of NCPs therein as endogenous enforcement mechanisms. In fact, the reciprocal nature of the main conventional obligations in some more recent environmental regimes seems to hamper the effectiveness of compliance procedures. On this basis, the article puts forward some tentative considerations from a constitutional perspective. Drawing from the experience gained under environmental regimes in the region of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), it explores the feasibility of transplanting some aspects of the model of the Aarhus Convention NCP into the more complex global context. Further, it reflects upon the potential of enhancing synergies between NCPs and national and international judiciaries as a step towards the consolidation of international public law in this area.
AB - Due to its remarkable success, the model of the Montreal Protocol's non-compliance procedure (NCP) has been adopted in other environmental regimes, whose primary norms differ considerably. Hence, this article distinguishes different types of global environmental regimes and assesses the performance of NCPs therein as endogenous enforcement mechanisms. In fact, the reciprocal nature of the main conventional obligations in some more recent environmental regimes seems to hamper the effectiveness of compliance procedures. On this basis, the article puts forward some tentative considerations from a constitutional perspective. Drawing from the experience gained under environmental regimes in the region of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), it explores the feasibility of transplanting some aspects of the model of the Aarhus Convention NCP into the more complex global context. Further, it reflects upon the potential of enhancing synergies between NCPs and national and international judiciaries as a step towards the consolidation of international public law in this area.
KW - constitutionalism
KW - dispute settlement
KW - global environmental regimes
KW - international environmental law
KW - managerialism
KW - non-compliance procedures
UR - https://academic.oup.com/jel
U2 - 10.1093/jel/eqr022
DO - 10.1093/jel/eqr022
M3 - Article
VL - 24
SP - 103
EP - 132
JO - Journal of Environmental Law
JF - Journal of Environmental Law
SN - 0952-8873
IS - 1
ER -