Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law: Forests at the Intersection of the Climate and Biodiversity Regimes
Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law: Forests at the Intersection of the Climate and Biodiversity Regimes
复制标题
管理国际环境法的不成体系：处于气候和生物多样性制度交叉点的森林
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
H. Asselt
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Asselt
关于国际法支离破碎的广泛辩论只粗略地注意到它在国际环境法领域的表现，尽管这一领域催生了大量的国际法律文书。在此背景下，本文评估了处理生物多样性丧失和气候变化这两个相互关联的全球环境威胁的两个法律制度之间重叠的管理战略。尽管气候和生物多样性条约从根本上来说并不是不协调的，但这两个制度之间可能存在冲突，特别是在《京都议定书》关于森林碳汇的决定之后，同时还可以通过解决毁林问题来发挥协同作用。该条审查了国际法提供的缓解冲突的技术，包括避免冲突和解决冲突的技术。随后对两个政权之间的体制合作进行了评估。该条表明，鉴于国际环境法的两个特点，即目标重叠和条约机构决定的作用，解决冲突的法律手段的作用是有限的。此外，它认为，由于成员不同和任务有限，机构合作尚未在气候制度中充分考虑到生物多样性问题。因此，旨在加强两个政权之间协同作用的自主行动在不久的将来似乎是最有成效的，尽管这并不涉及两个政权的长期关系。该条的结论是，有必要进一步探讨管理国际环境法支离破碎的不同战略。
The extensive debate on the fragmentation of international law has only paid cursory attention to its manifestation within the area of international environmental law, even though this field has spawned a great number of international legal instruments. Against that background, this Article assesses strategies to manage the overlap between two legal regimes dealing with the interconnected global environmental threats of biodiversity loss and climate change. Although the climate and biodiversity treaties are not fundamentally in discord, there is potential for conflict between the regimes, particularly following decisions on forest carbon sinks in the Kyoto Protocol, while at the same time there are synergies to be exploited by tackling deforestation. The Article reviews the techniques offered by international law for mitigating conflicts, including conflict avoidance and resolution techniques. This is followed by an appraisal of institutional cooperation between the regimes. The Article shows that the usefulness of legal techniques for resolving conflicts is limited given two characteristics of international environmental law, namely the overlap in objectives, and the role of treaty body decisions. Furthermore, it argues that institutional cooperation has not yet managed to adequately accommodate biodiversity considerations in the climate regime due to different memberships and restricted mandates. Therefore, autonomous action aimed at enhancing synergies between the two regimes seems the most fruitful in the immediate future, although this does not address the regimes’ long-term relationship. The Article concludes that further inquiry into different strategies for managing the fragmentation of international environmental law is warranted.