References

Michael G. Faure; Roy A. Partain

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 September 2019

Michael G. Faure and

Roy A. Partain

Show author details

Michael G. Faure: Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Roy A. Partain: Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: Environmental Law and Economics
Theory and Practice
, pp. 323 - 360

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108554916 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aalders, M., ‘Self-Regulation and Compliance with Environmental Law from a Global Perspective’, in Niessen, N. & Bedner, A. (eds.), Towards Integrated Environmental Law in Indonesia, Leiden, CNWS, 2003, pp. 21–36.Google Scholar

Aalders, M. & Wilthagen, T., ‘Moving beyond Command and Control: Reflexivity in the Regulation of Occupational Safety and Health and the Environment’, Law & Policy, 1997, Vol. 19(4), pp. 415–443.Google Scholar

Abbot, C., Enforcing Pollution Control Regulation: Strengthening Sanctions and Improving Deterrence, Oxford, Hart, 2009.Google Scholar

Abelson, P., Cost Benefit Analysis and Environmental Problems, Farnborough, Saxon House, 1979.Google Scholar

Abraham, K., ‘Environmental Liability and the Limits of Insurance’, Columbia Law Review, 1988, Vol. 88(5), pp. 942–988.Google Scholar

Abraham, K. S., ‘The Relation between Civil Liability and Environmental Regulation: An Analytical Overview’, Washburn Law Journal, 2002, Vol. 41, pp. 379–398.Google Scholar

Ackerman, B. & Stewart, R. B., ‘Reforming Environmental Law: The Democratic Case for Market Incentives’, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 1988, Vol. 13, pp. 171–199.Google Scholar

Ackerman, B. A., Rose-Ackerman, S., Sawyer, J., & Henderson, D., The Uncertain Search for Environmental Quality, New York, Free Press, 1974.Google Scholar

Ackerman, F. & Heinzerling, L., Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing, New Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Adams, M., ‘New Activities and the Efficient Liability Rules’, in Faure, M. & Van den Bergh, R. (eds.), Essays in Law and Economics: Corporations, Accident Prevention and Compensation for Losses, Antwerp, Maklu, 1989, pp. 103–106.Google Scholar

Adams, M. & Shavell, S., ‘Zür Strafbarkeit des Versuchs’, Goldammer’ Archiv für Strafrecht, 1990, pp. 337–86.Google Scholar

Adler, J.H., ‘Rent-Seeking behind the Green Curtain’, Regulation, 1996, Vol. 19(4), pp. 26–34.Google Scholar

Ahebwa, W., Van der Duim, R., & Sandbrook, C. H., ‘Private-Community Partnerships: Investigating a New Approach to Conservation and Development in Uganda’, Conservation & Society, 2012, Vol. 10(4), pp. 305–317.Google Scholar

Akerlof, G., ‘The Market for “Lemons”: Quality, Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1970, Vol. 84(3), pp. 488–500.Google Scholar

Alberini, A. & Austin, D., ‘Liability Policy and Toxic Pollution Releases’, in Heyes, A. (ed.), The Law and Economics of the Environment, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2001, pp. 92–115.Google Scholar

Alberini, A. & Frost, S., ‘Forcing Firms to Think about the Future: Economic Incentives and the Fate of Hazardous Waste’, Environmental & Resource Economics, 2007, Vol. 36(4), pp. 451–474.CrossRef Google Scholar

Albrecht, J., ‘The Use of Consumption Taxes to Re-launch Green Tax Reforms’, International Review of Law and Economics, 2006, Vol. 26, pp. 88–103.Google Scholar

Aldrich, E., Koerner, C., & Solan, D., ‘Analysis of Liability Regimes for Carbon Capture and Sequestration: A Review for Policymakers’, Energy Policy Institute (2011).Google Scholar

Allen, D. W. & Lueck, D., ‘Risk Preferences and the Economics of Contracts’, The American Economic Review, 1995, Vol. 85(2), pp. 447–451.Google Scholar

Allen, D. W. & Lueck, D., ‘The Nature of the Farm’, The Journal of Law and Economics, 1998, Vol. 41(2), pp. 343–386.CrossRef Google Scholar

Alpizar, F., Requate, T., & Schram, A., ‘Collective versus Random Fining: An Experimental Study on Controlling Ambient Pollution’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 2004, Vol. 29(2), pp. 231–252.Google Scholar

Ambec, S., Cohen, M., Elgie, S., & Lanoie, P., ‘The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Comparativeness’, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2013, Vol. 7(1), pp. 2–22.Google Scholar

Arcuri, A., ‘Controlling Environmental Risk in Europe: The Complementary Role of an EC Environmental Liability Regime’, Tijdschrift voor Milieuaansprakelijkheid, 2001, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

Arlen, J., ‘The Potentially Perverse Effects of Corporate Criminal Liability’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1994, Vol. 23, pp. 833–867.Google Scholar

Arlen, J. & Kraakman, R, ‘Controlling Corporate Misconduct: An Analysis of Corporate Liability Regimes’, New York University Law Review, 1997, Vol. 72, pp. 687–779.Google Scholar

Arrow, K. J., ‘A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare’, Journal of Political Economy, 1950, Vol. 58(4), pp. 328–346.CrossRef Google Scholar

Arrow, K. J., ‘The Origins of the Impossibility Theorem’, in Maskin, E. & Sen, A. (eds.), The Arrow Impossibility Theorem (Arrow, Kenneth J. Lecture Series), New York, Columbia University Press, 2014, pp. 143–148.Google Scholar

Arrow, K. J. et al., ‘Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity and the Environment’, Ecological Economics, 1995, pp. 91–95 (reprint from Science, Vol. 268, pp. 520–521).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., ‘Is the Criminal Law a Lost Cause?’, Law Quarterly Review, 2000, Vol. 116, pp. 225–256.Google Scholar

Ault, R. W. & Ekelund, R. B., ‘Rent-Seeking in a Static Model of Zoning’, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association Journal, 1988, Vol. 16, pp. 69–76.Google Scholar

Ayres, R. U., ‘Economic Growth: Politically Necessary but Not Friendly’, Ecological Economics, 1995, Vol. 15(2), pp. 97–99. See http://engscisoc.pbworks.com/f/Ayres.pdf Google Scholar

Ayres, I. & Braithwaite, J., Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Babbage, Ch., Passages from the Life of a Philosopher, London, Longman and Co., 1864.Google Scholar

Babbitt, C. J., Cory, D. C., & Kruchek, B. L., ‘Discretion and Criminalisation of Environmental Law’, Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, 2004, Vol. 15, pp. 1–64.Google Scholar

Ball, S. & Bell, S., Environmental Law, London, Blackstone Press Ltd., 1991.Google Scholar

Baldwin, R., ‘Regulation Lite: The Rise of Emissions Trading’, Regulation & Governance, 2008, Vol. 2(2), pp. 193–215, available at: www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119423171/issue, also as Law Society Economy Working Papers, 3/2008, available at: www.lse.ac.uk/collection/law/wps/wps.htm.Google Scholar

Barbier, E. B., Burgess, J. C., Swanson, T. M., & Pearce, D. W., Elephants, Economics and Ivory, London, Earthscan, 1990.Google Scholar

Barboza, J., The Environment, Risk and Liability in International Law, Nijmegen, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010.Google Scholar

Barde, J.-P., ‘Environmental Policy and Policy Instruments’, in Folmer, H., Gabel, H. L. & Opschoor, H. (eds.), Principles of Environmental and Resource Economics: A Guide for Students and Decision-Makers, Aldershot, Edward Elgar Publishing, 1995, pp. 218–220.Google Scholar

Barral, V., ‘The Principle of Sustainable Development’, in Krämer, L. & Orlando, E. (eds.), Principles of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2018, pp. 103–114.Google Scholar

Barrett, J. J., ‘Sentencing Environmental Crimes under the United States Sentencing Guidelines: A Sentencing Lottery’, Environmental Law, 1992, Vol. 22, pp. 1421–1449.Google Scholar

Barrett, S., ‘An Economic Theory of International Environmental Law’, in Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J., & Hey, E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 231–261.Google Scholar

Baumol, W. J. & Oates, W. E., ‘The Use of Standards and Prices for Protection of the Environment’, Swedish Journal of Economics, 1971, Vol. 73, pp. 42–54.Google Scholar

Baumol, W. J. & Oates, W. E., Economics, Environmental Policy and the Quality of Life, Prentice Hall, Angelwood Cliffs, 1979.Google Scholar

Bauw, E., Buitencontractuele aansprakelijkheid voor bodemverontreiniging, Deventer, Kluwer, 1993.Google Scholar

Bawcutt, P. A., Captive Insurance Companies, Establishment, Operation and Management, Oxford, Woodhead-Faulkner, 1991.Google Scholar

Baxi, U., ‘Introduction’ in Sathe, S. P., Judicial Activism in India, 2002, p. xvi.Google Scholar

Becker, G. S., ‘Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory’, Journal of Political Economy, 1962, Vol. 70, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Becker, G. S., ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’, Journal of Political Economy, 1968, Vol. 76, pp. 169–217.Google Scholar

Becker, G. S., The Economic Approach to Human Behavior, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1976.Google Scholar

Becker, R. & Henderson, J. V., ‘Effects of Air Quality Regulations on Polluting Industries’, Journal of Political Economy, 2000, Vol. 108, pp. 379–421.Google Scholar

Beckerman, W., ‘Economic Growth and the Environment: Whose Growth? Whose Environment?’, World Development, 1992, Vol. 22, pp. 481–496.Google Scholar

Bell, S. & McGillivray, D., Environmental Law, 6th ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Bell, R. & Russell, C., ‘Environmental Policy for Developing Countries’, Issues in Science and Technology, 2002, Vol. 18, pp. 63–70.Google Scholar

Ben-Shahar, O. & Logue, K. D., ‘Outsourcing Regulation: How Insurance Reduces Moral Hazard’, Michigan Law Review, 2012, Vol. 111, pp. 197–248.Google Scholar

Bergkamp, L., De vervuiler betaalt dubbel, Antwerp, Intersentia, 1999.Google Scholar

Bergkamp, L., ‘The Commission’s White Paper on Environmental Liability: A Weak Case for an EC Strict Liability Regime’, European Environmental Law Review, 2000a, p. 5.Google Scholar

Bergkamp, L., ‘The Proper Scope of Joint and Several Liability’, Tijdschrift voor Milieuaansprakelijkheid, 2000b, pp. 153–156.Google Scholar

Bergkamp, L., Liability and Environment: Private and Public Law Aspects of Civil Liability for Environmental Harm in an International Context, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2001.Google Scholar

Bergkamp, L. & Van Bergeijk, A., ‘Scope of the ELD Regime’, in Bergkamp, L. & Goldsmith, B. J. (eds.), The EU Environmental Liability Directive: A Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 51–79.Google Scholar

Bergkamp, L., Herbatchek, M., & Jayanti, S., ‘Financial Security and Insurance’, in Bergkamp, L. & Goldsmith, B. J. (eds.), The EU Environmental Liability Directive: A Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 118–138.Google Scholar

Betlem, G., ‘It’s No Use Crying over Spilt Chemicals’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 1995, Vol. 2, pp. 289–305.CrossRef Google Scholar

Biener, Ch., Eling, M., & Wirfs, J. H., ‘Insurability of Cyber Risk: An Empirical Analysis’, The Geneva Papers on Risk & Insurance, 2015, Vol. 40, pp. 131–158.Google Scholar

Bier, L., Aansprakelijkheid voor bedrijfsongevallen en beroepsziekten, Deventer, Kluwer, 1988.Google Scholar

Bigano, A., Proost, S., & Van Rompuy, J., ‘Alternative Environmental Regulation Schemes for the Belgian Power Generation Sector’, Environmental & Resource Economics, 2000, Vol. 16, pp. 121–160.Google Scholar

Billiet, C. M. & Rousseau, S., ‘De hoogte van strafrechtelijke boetes: een rechtseconomische analyse van milieurechtspraak (1990–2000) van het Hof van Beroep te Gent’, Tijdschrift voor Milieurecht, 2003, Vol. 2, pp. 120–134.Google Scholar

Billiet, C. & Rousseau, S., ‘De zachte rechtshandhaving in het bestuurlijke handhavingspoor: de inspectiebeslissing en het voortraject van bestuurlijke sancties. Een rechtseconomische analyse’, Tijdschrift voor Milieurecht, 2005, pp. 2–33.Google Scholar

Binder, S. & Neumayer, E., ‘Environmental Pressure Group Strength and Air Pollution: an Empirical Analysis’, Ecological Economics, 2005, Vol. 55, pp. 527–538.Google Scholar

Birnie, P., Boyle, A., & Redgwell, C., International Law & the Environment, 3rd ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar

Blackman, A., ‘Columbia’s Discharge Fee Programme: Incentives for Polluters or Regulators?’, Journal of Environmental Management, 2009, Vol. 90, pp. 101–119.Google Scholar

Bluffstone, R. & Larson, B. A. (eds.), Controlling Pollution in Transition Economies: Theories and Methods, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1997.Google Scholar

Bluffstone, R. A. & Panayotou, Th., ‘Environmental Liability and Privatisation in Central and Eastern Europe: Towards an Optimal Policy’, Environmental & Resource Economics, 2000, Vol. 17(4), pp. 335–352.Google Scholar

Bocken, H., ‘Van fout naar risico’, Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht, 1984, pp. 329–415.Google Scholar

Bocken, H., ‘Alternatives to Liability and Liability Insurance for the Compensation of Pollution Damages’, Tijdschrift voor Milieuaansprakelijkheid, 1987, pp. 83–87.Google Scholar

Bocken, H., ‘Alternatives to Liability and Liability Insurance for the Compensation of Pollution Damages’, Tijdschrift voor Milieuaansprakelijkheid, 1988, pp. 3–10.Google Scholar

Bocken, H., ‘Systèmes Alternatives pour L’indemnisation des Dommages Du à la Pollution’, Revue Générale des Assurances et des Responsabilités, 1990, pp. 11698–11714.Google Scholar

Bocken, H., ‘Deficiencies of the System of Liability and Liability Insurance as a Mechanism for the Indemnification of Environmental Damage Suffered by Individual Victims’, in Bocken, H. & Ryckbost, D. (eds.), Insurance of Environmental Damage, Brussels, Story Scientia, 1991, pp. 133–145.Google Scholar

Bocken, H., Lambrecht, W., Boes, M. et al., ‘The Flemish Draft Decree on Environmental Policy: An Outline’, in Bocken, H. & Ryckbost, D. (eds.), Codification of Environmental Law, Proceedings of the International Conference, The Hague, Kluwer Law, 1996, pp. 31–32.Google Scholar

Boer, B., ‘Environmental Principles and the Right to a Quality Environment’, in Krämer, L. & Orlando, E. (eds.), Principles of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2018, pp. 52–75.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bohm, P., ‘An Approach to the Problem of Estimating Demand for Public Goods’, Swedish Journal of Economics, 1971, Vol. 73, pp. 55–66.Google Scholar

Bohrenstein, S., ‘The Economics of Costly Risk Sorting in Competitive Insurance Markets’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1989, Vol. 9(1), pp. 25–39.CrossRef Google Scholar

Böhringer, C., Koschel, H., & Moslener, U., ‘Efficiency Losses from Overlapping Economic Instruments in European Carbon Emissions Regulation’, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 2008, Vol. 33(3), pp. 299–317.Google Scholar

Bolt, A. T. & Spier, J. (eds.), De uitdijende reikwijdte van de aansprakelijkheid uit onrechtmatige daad, NJV Preadvies, Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink, 1996.Google Scholar

Bond, V., ‘The Cancer Risk Attributable to Radiation Exposure: Some Practical Problems’, Health Physics, 1981, Vol. 40, pp. 108–111.Google Scholar PubMed

Bongaerts, J. C. & Kraemer, R. A., ‘Water Pollution Charges in Three Countries: Control through Incentives’, European Environmental Review, 1987, Vol. 1(4), pp. 12–19.Google Scholar

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context, IUCN, September 1996, available at: http://portals.iucn.org, last accessed 29 November 2014.Google Scholar

Bowles, R., Law and the Economy, Oxford, Martin Robertson, 1982.Google Scholar

Bowles, R., Faure, M., & Garoupa, N., ‘Economic Analysis of the Removal of Illegal Gains’, International Review of Law and Economics, 2000, Vol. 20, pp. 537–549.Google Scholar

Bowles, R., Faure, M., & Garoupa, N., ‘Forfeiture of Illegal Gain: An Economic Perspective’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2005, Vol. 25, pp. 275–295.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bowles, R., Faure, M., & Garoupa, N., ‘The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions: An Economic View and Policy Implications’, Journal of Law and Society, 2008, Vol. 35(3), pp. 389–416.Google Scholar

Boyd, J. & Kunreuther, H., ‘Retroactive Liability or the Public Purse?’, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 1997, Vol. 11(1), pp. 79–90.CrossRef Google Scholar

Boyle, A. & Anderson, M. R., Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Bradford, T., ‘Cost Benefit Analysis and Demand Curse for Public Goods’, Kyklos, 1970, Vol. 23, pp. 775–791.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bradshaw, K., ‘Settling for Natural Resource Damages’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 2016, Vol. 40, pp. 211–251.Google Scholar

Braithwaite, J., Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Braithwaite, J., ‘Rewards and Regulation’, Journal of Law and Society, 2002, Vol. 29, pp. 12–26.Google Scholar

Brans, E., ‘Fundamentals of Liability for Environmental Harm under the ELD’, in Bergkamp, L. & Goldsmith, B. J. (eds.), The EU Environmental Liability Directive: A Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 31–50.Google Scholar

Brennan, G. & Buchanan, J. M., The Power to Tax: Analytic Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Breton, A., Brozio, G., Dalmazzone, S. & Garrone, G. (eds.), Governing the Environment: Salient Institutional Issues, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2009.Google Scholar

Bretsen, S. N. & Hill, P. J., ‘Water Markets as a Tragedy of the Anticommons’, William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review, 2009, Vol. 33(3), pp. 723–783.Google Scholar

Brooks, M. A. & Heijdra, B. J., ‘Rent-Seeking and Pollution Taxation: An Extension’, Southern Economic Journal, 1987, Vol. 54(2), pp. 335–342.Google Scholar

Brown, J. P., ‘Toward an Economic Theory of Liability’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1973, Vol. 2(2), pp. 323–349.Google Scholar

Brown, J. P. & Holahan, W. L., ‘Taxes and Legal Rules for the Control of Externalities When There Are Strategic Responses’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1980, Vol. 9, pp. 165–178.Google Scholar

Brown, G. M. Jr. & Johnson, R. W., ‘Pollution Control by Effluent Charges: It Works in the Federal Republic of Germany, Why Not in the US?’, Natural Resources Journal, 1984, Vol. 24, pp. 929–966.Google Scholar

Brüggemeier, G., ‘Liability for Water Pollution under German Law: Fault or Strict Liability’, in Van Dunné, J. (ed.), Transboundary Pollution and Liability: The Case of the River Rhine, Lelystad, Vermande, 1991, pp. 85–91.Google Scholar

Buchanan, J. M. & Tullock, G., The Calculus of Consent, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1962.Google Scholar

Buchanan, J. & Tullock, G., ‘Polluters’ Profits and Political Response: Direct Controls versus Taxes’, American Economic Review, 1975, Vol. 65, pp. 139–147.Google Scholar

Buchanan, J., Tollison, R. & Tullock, G. (eds.), Toward a Theory of the Rent Seeking Society, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1962.Google Scholar

Buchanan, J. M. & Yoon, Y. J., ‘Symmetric Tragedies: Commons and Anticommons’, The Journal of Law and Economics, 2000, Vol. 43(1), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

Burrows, P., ‘Combining Regulation and Liability for the Control of External Costs’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1999, Vol. 19, pp. 227–242.Google Scholar

Burtraw, D. & Palmer, K., ‘SO2 Cap-and-Trade Programme in the United States: A “Living Legend” of Market Effectiveness’, in Harrington, W., Morgenstern, R. D., & Sterner, Th. (eds.), Choosing Environmental Policy: Comparing Instruments and Outcomes in the United States and Europe, Washington, DC, Resources for the Future, 2004, pp. 41–66.Google Scholar

Buzbee, W. W., ‘Regulatory Strategy Diversity in United States Environmental Law’, in Paddock, L. C., Glicksman, R., & Bryner, N. (eds.), Decision-Making in Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2016, pp. 164–175.Google Scholar

Calabresi, G., The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1970.Google Scholar

Calabresi, G., ‘Optimal Deterrence and Accidents’, Yale Law Journal, 1975a, Vol. 84, pp. 656–671.Google Scholar

Calabresi, G., ‘Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts: An Essay for Harry Kalven, Jr.’, University of Chicago Law Review, 1975b, Vol. 43(1), pp. 69–108.CrossRef Google Scholar

Calabresi, G. & Melamed, D., ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral’, Harvard Law Review, 1972, Vol. 85(6), pp. 1089–1128.Google Scholar

Cane, P., ‘Tort Law as Regulation’, Common Law World Review, 2002, Vol. 31, pp. 305–331.Google Scholar

Carson, R. L., Silent Spring, Boston, Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin, 1962.Google Scholar

Casella, A. & Frey, B., ‘Federalism and Clubs: Towards an Economic Theory of Overlapping Political Jurisdiction’, European Economic Review, 1992, Vol. 36(2–3), pp. 639–646.Google Scholar

Cha, J. M., ‘A Critical Examination of the Environmental Jurisprudence of the Courts of India’, Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal, 2005, Vol. 10, pp. 197–228.Google Scholar

Chelius, J. R., ‘Liability for Industrial Accidents: A Comparison of Negligence and Strict Liability Systems’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1976, Vol. 5, pp. 293–309.Google Scholar

Coase, R. H., ‘The Problem of Social Cost’, Journal of Law and Economics, 1960, Vol. 3, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar

Cocker, A. & Richards, C., Valuing the Environment, Economic Approaches to Environmental Evaluation, London, Bellhaven Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Coelho, Ph. R. P., ‘Polluters’ Profits and Political Response: Direct Control versus Taxes: Comment’, American Economic Review, 1976, Vol. 66, pp. 976–978.Google Scholar

Coffee, J. S., ‘Corporate Crime and Punishment: A Non-Chicago View of the Economics of Criminal Sanctions’, American Criminal Law Review, 1980, Vol. 17, pp. 419–476.Google Scholar

Coghlin, T. G., ‘Protection and Indemnity Clubs’, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 1984, Vol. 11, pp. 403–416.Google Scholar

Coglianese, C. & Nash, J., ‘The Law of the Test: Performance-Based Regulation and Diesel Emissions Control’, Yale Journal on Regulation, 2017, Vol. 34, pp. 33–90.Google Scholar

Cohen, M., ‘Commentary’, in Ehrling, E. & Van den Bergh, R. (eds.), Law and Economics of the Environment, Oslo, Juridisk, 1996, pp. 167–171.Google Scholar

Cohen, M. A., ‘Empirical Research on the Deterrent Effect of Environmental Monitoring and Enforcement’, Environmental Law Reporter, 2000, Vol. 30, pp. 10.245–10.252.Google Scholar

Cohen, M. A., ‘Criminal Law as an Instrument of Environmental Policy: Theory and Empirics’, in Heyes, A. (ed.), Law and Economics of the Environment, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar, 2001, pp. 198–216.Google Scholar

Cole, D. H., ‘The “Stern Review” and Its Critics: Implications for the Theory and Practice of Benefit-Cost Analysis’, Natural Resources Journal, 2008, Vol. 48, pp. 53–90.Google Scholar

Cole, D. H., ‘Property Creation by Regulation: Rights to Clean Air and Rights to Pollute’, in Cole, D. H. & Ostrom, E. (eds.), Property in Land and Other Resources, Cambridge, MA, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2011, pp. 125–155.Google Scholar

Cole, D. H. & Grossman, P. Z., ‘When is Command-and-Control Efficient? Institutions, Technology, and the Comparative Efficiency of Alternative Regulatory Regimes for Environmental Protection’, in Helfand, G. E. & Berck, P. (eds.), The Theory and Practice of Command and Control in Environmental Policy, Oxon, Routledge, 2018, pp. 115–166.Google Scholar

Cole, M. A., Rayner, A. J., & Bates, J. M., ‘The Environmental Kuznets Curve: An Empirical Analysis’, Environment and Development Economics, 1997, Vol. 2(4), pp. 401–416.Google Scholar

Conniff, R., ‘The Political History of Cap and Trade: How an Unlikely Mix of Environmentalists and Free-Market Conservatives Hammered out the Strategy Known as Cap-and-Trade’, Smithsonian, 2009, available at: http://smitsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html.Google Scholar

Cooter, R. D., ‘Economic Analysis of Punitive Damages’, Southern California Law Review, 1982, Vol. 56, pp. 97–101.Google Scholar

Cooter, R., ‘Prices and Sanctions’, Columbia Law Review, 1984, Vol. 84, pp. 1343–1523.Google Scholar

Cooter, R. E., ‘Expressive Law and Economics’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1998, Vol. 27, pp. 585–608.Google Scholar

Cooter, R. & Ulen, T., Law and Economics, 3rd ed., Illinois, Glenview, 2000.Google Scholar

Cooter, R. D. & Ulen, T., Law and Economics, 4th ed., Boston, MA, Addison Wesley, 2004.Google Scholar

Cooter, R. & Ulen, T., Law and Economics, 5th ed., Boston, Addison Wesley, 2008.Google Scholar

Cooter, R. & Ulen, Th., Law and Economics, International Edition, 6th ed., Boston, Pearson, 2012.Google Scholar

Cortenraad, W. H. F. M., The Corporate Paradox, Economic Realities of the Corporate Form of Organisation, Boston, Kluwer Academic, 1999.Google Scholar

Cousy, H. A., ‘Recent Developments in Environmental Insurance’, in Abraham, F., et al. (eds.), Recent Economic and Legal Developments in European Environmental Policy, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 1995, pp. 235–237.Google Scholar

Cummings, J. D., ‘Economies of Scale in Independent Insurance Agencies’, Journal of Risk and Insurance, 1977, Vol. 44(4), pp. 539–553.Google Scholar

Dales, J., Pollution, Property and Prices: An Essay in Policy, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1968.Google Scholar

Dam, K. W., The Law-Growth Nexus: The Rule of Law and Economic Development, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution Press, 2006a.Google Scholar

Dam, S., ‘Green Laws for Better Health: The Past That Was and the Future That May Be – Reflections from the Indian Experience’, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 2004, Vol. 16(4), pp. 593–615.Google Scholar

Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Wang, H., & Wheeler, D., ‘Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2002, Vol. 16, pp. 147–168.Google Scholar

Davis, R. K., ‘Recreation Planning as an Economic Problem’, National Resources Journal, 1963, Vol. 3, pp. 239–249.Google Scholar

Davis, C. M., Maritime Law Deskbook, Burlington, WA, Compass Publishing, 2010.Google Scholar

Deacon, R. T., ‘Deforestation and the Rule of Law in a Cross-Section of Countries’, Land Economics, 1994, Vol. 70(4), pp. 414–430.Google Scholar

De Alessi, M., ‘Private Conservation and Black Rhinos in Zimbabwe: The Savé Valley and Bubiana Conservancies’ 1999, available at: www.cei.org, last accessed 26 March 2015.Google Scholar

De Boer, J., ‘Risicoaansprakelijkheid voor gevaarlijke stoffen en milieuverontreiniging’, Nederlands Juristenblad, 1993, p. 225.Google Scholar

De Bruyn, S. M., ‘Explaining the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Structural Change and International Agreements in Reducing Sulphur Emissions’, Environment and Development Economics, 1997, Vol. 2(4), pp. 485–503.Google Scholar

De Geest, G. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, 2nd ed., Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2012.Google Scholar

De Grauwe, P., ‘Political Economy of the Choice of Environmental Policy Instruments in the EC’, in Abraham, F., Deketelaere, K., & Stuyck, J. (eds.), Recent Economic Legal Developments in European Environmental Policy, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 1995, pp. 111–168.Google Scholar

Demsetz, H., ‘Toward a Theory of Property Rights’, American Economic Review, 1967, Vol. 57(2), pp. 347–359.Google Scholar

Depoorter, B., ‘Horizontal Political Externalities: The Supply and Demand of Disaster Management’, Duke Law Journal, 2006, Vol. 56, pp. 101–125.Google Scholar

De Putter, P. & Verschuuren, J., ‘Een milieuschadefonds in Nederland?’, Milieu en Recht, 1995, Vol. 5, pp. 96–99.Google Scholar

De Sadeleer, N., Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

De Sadeleer, N., ‘The Precautionary Principle and Climate Change’, in Farber, D. A. & Peeters, M. (eds.), Climate Change Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2016, pp. 20–31.Google Scholar

De Sepius, J., ‘The European Emission Trading Scheme Put to the Test of State Aid Rules’, NCCR Trading regulation working paper 2007/34, available at: http://papers.ssrn/com/so3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1088716.Google Scholar

Dewees, D. N., ‘Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy’, Economic Inquiry, 1983, Vol. 21, pp. 53–71.Google Scholar

Dewees, D., The Comparative Efficacy of Tort Law and Regulation for Environmental Protection, Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 1992a, pp. 446–467.Google Scholar

Dewees, D., ‘Tort Law and the Deterrence of Environmental Pollution’, in Tietenberg, T. H. (ed.), Innovation in Environmental Policy: Economic and Legal Aspects of Recent Developments in Environmental Enforcement and Liability, Aldershot, Edward Elgar, 1992b, pp. 139–164.Google Scholar

Dewees, D., Duff, D., & Trebilcock, M., Exploring the Domain of Accident Law: Taking the Facts Seriously, New York, Oxford, 1996.Google Scholar

Diamond, P., ‘Single Activity Accidents’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1974, Vol. 70(1), pp. 107–164.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dias, A., ‘Judicial Activism in the Development and Enforcement of Environmental Law: Some Comparative Insights from the Indian Experience’, Journal of Environmental Law, 1994, Vol 6(2), pp. 243–262.Google Scholar

Divan, S. & Rosencranz, A., Environmental Law and Policy in India, 2nd ed., India, Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

Dodson, G., ‘Co-governance and Local Empowerment? Conservation Partnership Frameworks and Marine Protection at Mimiwhangata, New Zealand’, Society & Natural Resources, 2014, Vol. 27, pp. 521–539.Google Scholar

Dommering-Van Rongen, L., Schade Vergoeden door Fondsvorming, Deventer, Kluwer, 1996.Google Scholar

Dornau, R., ‘The Emissions Trading Scheme of the European Union’, in Freestone, D. & Streck, C. (eds.), Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 412–425.Google Scholar

Doucette, J. E., ‘Wading in the Pool: Interlocal Cooperation in Municipal Insurance and the State Regulation of Public Entity Risk Sharing Pools – A Survey’, Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 2001, Vol. 8, pp. 533–547.Google Scholar

Douma, W. Th., Massai, L., & Montini, M. (eds.), The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond: Legal and Policy Challenges of Climate Change, The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Dowding, T., Global Developments in Captive Insurance, Brussels, FT Energy, 1997.Google Scholar

Downing, P. B., ‘A Political Economy Model of Implementing Pollution Laws’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1989, Vol. 8, pp. 255–271.Google Scholar

Driesen, D. M., ‘The Ends and Means of Pollution Control: Toward a Positive Theory of Environmental Law’, Utah Law Review, 2017, Vol. 2017(1), pp. 57–113.Google Scholar

Drupsteen, Th. G., Milieurecht, 2nd ed., Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink, 1991.Google Scholar

Dubin, J. A. & Rothwell, G. S., ‘Subsidy to Nuclear Power through Price-Anderson Liability Limit’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 1990, Vol. 8(3), pp. 73–79.Google Scholar

Duvic-Paoli, L. A., ‘Principle of Prevention’, in Krämer, L. & Orlando, E. (eds.), Principles of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2018, pp. 161–173.Google Scholar

Earnhart, D., ‘Liability for Past Environmental Contamination and Privatisation’, Environmental & Resource Economics, 2004, Vol. 29, pp. 97–122.Google Scholar

Easterbrook, F., ‘Criminal Procedure as a Market System’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1983, Vol. 12, pp. 289–332.Google Scholar

Eckert, H., ‘Inspections, Warnings, and Compliance: The Case of Petroleum Storage Regulation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2004, Vol. 47, pp. 232–259.Google Scholar

Eggertson, T., ‘Analyzing Institutional Successes and Failures: A Millennium of Common Mountain Pastures in Iceland’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1992, Vol. 12(4), pp. 423–437.Google Scholar

Ehrlich, I. & Posner, R., ‘An Economic Analysis of Legal Rule-Making’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1974, Vol. 3, pp. 257–286.Google Scholar

Eichner, T. & Pethig, R., ‘EU-Type Carbon Emissions Trade and the Distributional Impact of Overlapping Emissions Taxes’, CESifo Working Paper No. 2579, 2009.Google Scholar

Ellerman, A. D., ‘The US SO2 Cap-and-Trade Programme’, in Tradable Permits: Policy Evaluation, Design, and Reform, Paris, OECD, 2004, pp. 71–97.Google Scholar

Ellerman, A. D., ‘US Experience with Emissions Trading: Lessons for CO₂ Emissions Trading’, in Hansjürgens, B. (ed.), Emissions Trading for Climate Policy: US and European Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 78–95.Google Scholar

Ellerman, A. D., ‘Are Cap-and-Trade Programs more Environmentally Effective than Conventional Regulation’, in Freeman, J. & Kolstad, Ch. D. (eds.), Moving to Markets in Environmental Regulation: Lessons from 20 Years of Experience, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 48–62.Google Scholar

Ellerman, A. D., Joskow, P. L., Schmalensee, R., Montero, J. P., & Bailey, E., Markets for Clean Air: The US Acid Rain Program, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Ellickson, R., ‘Alternatives to Zoning. Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls’, University of Chicago Law Review, 1973, Vol. 40(4), pp. 681–781.Google Scholar

ELNI, The Role and Effects of Environmental Agreements In Environmental Policies, London, Cameron May, 1998.Google Scholar

Endres, A., Environmental Economics: Theory and Policy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar

Endres, A., Environmental Economics: Theory and Policy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar

Endres, A. & Schwarze, R., ‘Allokationswirkungen einer Umwelthaftpflicht-versicherung’, Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, 1991, Vol. 14, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Endres, A. & Staiger, B., ‘Ökonomische Aspekte des Umwelthaftungsrecht’, in Ahrens, M. & Simon, J. (eds.), Umwelthaftung, Risikosteuerung und Versicherung, Berlin, Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1996, pp. 79–93.Google Scholar

Engel, E., Die Production und Consumptionverhältnisse des Konigreich Sachsen, 1857.Google Scholar

Engel, K. H., ‘State Environmental Standard Setting: Is There a “Race” and Is It “to the Bottom”?’, Hastings Law Journal, 1997, Vol. 48, pp. 271–398.Google Scholar

Epstein, R., ‘A Theory of Strict Liability’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1973, Vol. 2, pp. 151–204.Google Scholar

Epstein, R., ‘Nuisance Law: Corrective Justice and Its Utilitarian Constraints’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1979, Vol. 8(1), pp. 49–102.Google Scholar

Epstein, R. A., ‘From Common Law to Environmental Protection: How the Modern Environmental Movement Has Lost Its Way’, Supreme Court Economic Review, 2016, Vol. 23(1), pp. 141–167.Google Scholar

Epstein, R., Gregory, Ch., & Kalven, H., Cases and Materials on Torts, 4th ed., Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company, 1984.Google Scholar

Eskridge, W. N. Jr., ‘Politics without Romance: Implications of Public Choice Theory for Statutory Interpretation’, Virginia Law Review, 1988, Vol. 74, pp. 275–338.Google Scholar

Estep, E., ‘Radiation Injuries and Statistics: The Need for a New Approach to Injury Litigation’, Michigan Law Review, 1960, Vol. 59, pp. 259–304.Google Scholar

Esty, D., ‘Revitalising Environmental Federalism’, Michigan Law Review, 1996, Vol. 95, pp. 570–653.Google Scholar

Esty, D., ‘Economic Integration and the Environment’, in Vig, N. & Axelrod, R. (eds.), The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy, Washington, DC, CQ Press, 1999, pp. 190–209.Google Scholar

Esty, D. C., ‘Red Lights to Green Lights: From 20th Century Environmental Regulation to 21st Century Sustainability’, Environmental Law, 2017, Vol. 47(1), pp. 1–80.Google Scholar

Esty, D. & Geradin, D., ‘Market Access, Competitiveness and Harmonisation: Environmental Protection in Regional Trade Agreements’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 1997, Vol. 21(2), pp. 265–336.Google Scholar

Esty, D. & Gerardin, D., ‘Environmental Protection and International Competitiveness: A Conceptual Framework’, Journal of World Trade, 1998, Vol. 32(3), pp. 5–46.Google Scholar

Esty, D. C. & Porter, M. E., ‘Industrial Ecology and Competitiveness: Strategic Implications for the Firm’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 1998, Vol. 2(1), pp. 35–43.Google Scholar

Esty, D. C. & Porter, M. E., ‘Ranking National Environmental Regulation and Performance: A Leading Indicator of Future Competitiveness’, The Global Competitiveness Report 2002 (2001), pp. 78–100.Google Scholar

Esty, D. C. & Porter, M. E., ‘National Environmental Performance: An Empirical Analysis of Policy Results and Determinants’, Environment and Development Economics, 2005, Vol. 10, pp. 391–434.Google Scholar

European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Directive Amending Directive 2003/93/EC Restructuring the Community Framework for the Taxation of Energy Products and Electricity’, Brussels, COM(2011) 169/3.Google Scholar

European Group on Tort Law, Principles of European Tort Law, Text and Commentary, Vienna, Springer, 2005.Google Scholar

Ewenczyk, A., ‘For a Fistful of Dollars: Quick Compensation and Procedural Rights in the Aftermath of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill’, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 2013, Vol. 44(3), p. 267.Google Scholar

Farber, D., ‘Addressing Externalities: A Modest Proposal – How to Make Health and Safety a Personal Priority for Industry Officials’, Legal Planet, University of California at Berkeley, 19 October 2015, available at: http://legal-planet.org/2015/10/19/addressing-externalities-a-modest-proposal/Google Scholar

Fagotto, E., Industry Food Safety Standards: Public and Private Interests in Food Safety, diss., Rotterdam, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2015.Google Scholar

Faure, M.G., (G)een Schijn van Kans: Beschouwingen over het Statistisch Causaliteitsbewijs bij Milieugezondheidsschade, Inaugural lecture Maastricht November 1993, Antwerp, Maklu, 1993.Google Scholar

Faure, M., ‘Eerstingebruikneming in het milieurecht: een rechtseconomische analyse’, in Raes, K. & Willekens, H. (eds.), Economische verklaringen van het recht, The Hague, VUGA, 1994, pp. 147–178.Google Scholar

Faure, M., ‘Economic Models of Compensation for Damage Caused by Nuclear Accidents: Some Lessons for the Revision of the Paris and Vienna Conventions’, European Journal of Law and Economics, 1995a, Vol. 21, pp. 21–43.Google Scholar

Faure, M., ‘The Limits to Insurability from a Law and Economics Perspective’, in The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 1995b, pp. 454–462.Google Scholar

Faure, M., ‘Economic Aspects of Environmental Liability: An Introduction’, European Review of Private Law, 1996, Vol. 4(2), pp. 85–110.Google Scholar

Faure, M., ‘Harmonization of Environmental Law and Market Integration: Harmonizing for the Wrong Reasons?’, European Environmental Law Review, 1998a, Vol. 7(6), pp. 169–175.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G., ‘Is aansprakelijkheid ‘met terugwerkende kracht’ efficiënt en verzekerbaar?’, Aansprakelijkheid en Verzekering, 1998b, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar

Faure, M., ‘The Harmonisation, Codification and Integration of Environmental Law: A Search for Definitions’, European Environmental Law Review, 2000, Vol. 9, pp. 174–182.Google Scholar

Faure, M., ‘Regulatory Competition vs Harmonisation in EU Environmental Law’, in Esty, D. C. & Geradin, D. (eds.), Regulatory Competition and Economic Integration, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 263–286.Google Scholar

Faure, M., ‘Environmental Damage Insurance in the Netherlands’, Environmental Liability, 2002, pp. 31–41.Google Scholar

Faure, M., ‘Gewinnabschöpfung und Verfall auf ökonomischen Prüfstand’, in Arnold, J. et al. (eds.), Menschengerechtes Strafrecht: Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag, Munich, Beck, 2005, pp. 1311–1330.Google Scholar

Faure, M., ‘Economic Criteria for Compulsory Insurance’, in The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 2006, Vol. 31, pp. 149–168.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G., ‘Optimal Specificity in Environmental Standard-Setting’, in Dias Soares, C., Milne, J. E., Ashiabor, H., Kreiser, L., & Deketelaere, K. (eds.), Critical Issues in Environmental Taxation: International and Comparative Perspectives, Vol. III, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 730–745.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G., ‘Does Environmental Law Matter?’, in Faure, M. G. & Smits, J. (eds.), Does Law Matter? On Law and Economic Growth, Antwerp, Intersentia, 2011, pp. 385–416.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G., ‘In the Aftermath of the Disaster: Liability and Compensation Mechanisms as Tools to Reduce Disaster Risks’, Stanford Journal of International Law, 2016a, Vol. 52(1), pp. 95–178.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G., ‘Liability and Compensation for Damage Resulting from CO₂ Storage Sites’, William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review, 2016b, Vol. 40(2), pp. 387–476.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Betlem, G., ‘Applying National Liability Law to Transboundary Pollution. Some Lessons from Europe and the United States’, in Faure, M. & Song, Y. (eds.), China and International Environmental Liability. Legal Remedies for Transboundary Pollution, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2008, pp. 129–191.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & De Roos, Th., De berekening van het wederrechtelijk verkregen voordeel uit milieudelicten, The Hague, SDU Uitgevers, 1998.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Fenn, P., ‘Retroactive Liability and the Insurability of Long-Tail Risks’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1999, Vol. 19(4), pp. 487–500.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Fiore, K., ‘An Economic Analysis of the Nuclear Liability Subsidy’, Pace Environmental Law Review, 2009, Vol. 26(2), pp. 419–447.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Grimeaud, D., ‘Financial Assurance Issues of Environmental Liability’, in Faure, M. (ed.), Deterrence, Insurability, and Compensation in Environmental Liability: Future Developments in the European Union, Vienna, Springer, 2003, pp. 7–255.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Hartlief, T., ‘Gevolgen van de uitbreidende werkgeversaansprakelijkheid: beleidsconsequenties voor verzekeraars?’, in Faure, M. G. & Hartlief, T. (eds.), Verzekering en de Groeiende Aansprakelijkheidslast, een juridisch, gezondheidskundig en economisch onderzoek naar ontwikkelingen met betrekking tot de Aansprakelijkheidslast en de consequenties voor verzekeraars naar aanleiding van de werkgeversaansprakelijkheid voor bedrijfsongevallen en beroepsziekten, Deventer, Kluwer, 1995, pp. 283–337.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Hartlief, T., ‘Towards an Expanding Enterprise Liability in Europe? How to Analyze the Scope of Liability of Industrial Operators and Their Insurers’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 1996a, Vol. 3, pp. 235–270.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Hartlief, T., ‘Een Asbestfonds als alternatief voor de aansprakelijkheid van de werkgever?’, Tijdschrift voor Sociaal Recht, 1996c, pp. 37–43.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Hartlief, T., ‘Remedies for Expanding Liability’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1998, Vol. 18, pp. 681–706.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Hartlief, T., Insurance and Expanding Systemic Risks, Paris, OECD, 2003.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Heine, G., ‘The Insurance of Fines: The Case of Oil Pollution’, in The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 1991, Vol. 39, pp. 39–54.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Heine, G., Criminal Enforcement of Environmental Law in the European Union, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2005.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Johnston, J. S., ‘The Law and Economics of Environmental Federalism: Europe and the United States Compared’, Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 2009, Vol. 27(3), pp. 205–274.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Lefevere, J., ‘Protecting Drinking Water Quality against Contamination by Pesticides: An Alternative Regulatory Framework’, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 1995, Vol. 4(4), pp. 321–326.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Lefevere, J. G. J., ‘The Draft Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: An Economic Perspective’, European Environmental Law Review, 1996, Vol. 5, pp. 112–122.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Liu, J., ‘The Tsunami of March 2011 and the Subsequent Nuclear Incident at Fukushima: Who Compensates the Victims?’, William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review, 2012, Vol. 37, pp. 129–218.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Luth, H. A., ‘Behavioural Economics in Unfair Contract Terms. Cautions and Considerations’, Journal of Consumer Policy, 2011, Vol. 34, pp. 337–358.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Oudijk, J.C., ‘Die strafgerichtliche Überprüfung von Verwaltungsakten im Umweltrecht, ein rechtvergleichender Überblick der Systeme in Deutschland, den Niederlanden und Belgien’, Juristenzeitung, 1994, Vol. 49, pp. 86–91.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Partain, R. A., Carbon Capture and Storage: Efficient Legal Policies for Risk Governance and Compensation, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2017.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Philipsen, N. (eds.), Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, The Hague, Eleven International Publishing, 2014.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Porrini, D., ‘Göran Skogh on Risk Sharing and Environmental Policy’, in The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 2017, Vol. 42(2), pp. 177–192.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Ruegg, M., ‘Environmental Standards Setting through General Principles of Environmental Law’, in Faure, M., Vervaele, J., & Weale, A. (eds.), Environmental Standards in the European Union in an Interdisciplinary Framework, Antwerp, Maklu, 1995, pp. 39–60.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Skogh, G., ‘Compensation for Damages Caused by Nuclear Accidents: a Convention as Insurance’, in The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 1992, pp. 499–513.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Skogh, G., The Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy and Law: An Introduction, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2003.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Svatikova, K., ‘Enforcement of Environmental Law in the Flemish Region’, European Energy & Environmental Law Review, 2010, Vol. 19(2), pp. 60–79.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Ubachs, S., ‘Environmental Taxation in the Netherlands: A Dutch Treat?’, in Kreiser, L. A. (ed.), Critical Issues in International Environmental Taxation: Insights and Analyses for Achieving Environmental Policy Goals through Tax Policy, Chicago, CCH, 2002, pp. 301–329.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Ubachs, S., ‘Comparative Benefits and Optimal Use of Environmental Taxes’, in Milne, J., Deketelaere, K., Kreiser, L., & Ashiabor, H. (eds.), Critical Issues in Environmental Taxation, Vol. I: International and Comparative Perspectives, Richmond, Richmond Law and Tax, 2003, pp. 29–49.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Ubachs, S., ‘Harmful Tax Measures and Greying of Taxation in the Netherlands: What Went Wrong?’, in Ashiabor, H., Deketelaere, K., Kreiser, L., & Milne, J. (eds.), Critical Issues in Environmental Taxation: International and Comparative Perspectives, Vol. II, Richmond, Richmond Law and Tax, 2005, pp. 521–532.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Van den Bergh, R., ‘Negligence, Strict Liability and Regulation of Safety under Belgian Law: An Introductory Economic Analysis’, in The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 1987, pp. 95–114.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Van den Bergh, R., ‘Compulsory Insurance for Professional Liability’, in The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 1989a, pp. 308–330.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Van den Bergh, R., Objectieve aansprakelijkheid, verplichte verzekering en veiligheidsregulering, Antwerp, Maklu, 1989b.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Van den Bergh, R., ‘Liability for Nuclear Accidents in Belgium from an Interest Group Perspective’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1990, Vol. 10, pp. 241–254.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Van den Bergh, R., ‘Restrictions of Competition on Insurance Markets and the Applicability of EC Antitrust Law’, Kyklos, 1995, Vol. 48, pp. 65–85.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Visser, M., ‘Law and Economics of Environmental Crime’, in Sjögren, H. & Skogh, G. (eds.), New Perspectives on Economic Crime, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar, 2004, pp. 57–75.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Wang, H., ‘Economic Analysis of Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage’, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 2006, Vol. 37, pp. 179–217.Google Scholar

Faure, M. & Wang, H., ‘Compensating Victims of a European Deepwater Horizon Accident: OPOL Revisited’, Marine Policy, 2015, Vol. 62, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar

Faure, M. G. & Weishaar, S. E., ‘The Role of Environmental Taxation: Economics and the Law’, in Milne, J. E. & Andersen, M. S. (eds.), Handbook of Research of Environmental Taxation, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2012, pp. 399–421.Google Scholar

Faure, M., Goodwin, M., & Weber, F., ‘Bucking the Kuznets Curve: Designing Effective Environmental Regulation in Developing Countries’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 2010, Vol. 51, pp. 95–156.Google Scholar

Faure, M., Koopmans, I., & Oudijk, J., ‘Imposing Criminal Liability on Government Officials under Environmental Law: A Legal and Economic Analysis’, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal, 1996, Vol. 18, pp. 529–569.Google Scholar

Feinberg, K., Who Gets What? Fair Compensation after Tragedy and Financial Upheaval, New York, NY, Public Affairs, 2012.Google Scholar

Fenn, P. & Veljanovski, C., ‘A Positive Economic Theory of Regulatory Enforcement’, Economic Journal, 1988, Vol. 98, pp. 1055–1070.Google Scholar

Field, B. C., Environmental Economics: An Introduction, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1994.Google Scholar

Firestone, J., ‘Enforcement of Pollution Laws and Regulations: An Analysis of Forum Choice’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 2003, Vol. 27(1), pp. 105–176.Google Scholar

Fischel, W. A., ‘Externalities and Zoning’, Public Choice, 1980, Vol. 35, pp. 37–43.Google Scholar

Fischel, W. A., The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Controls, Baltimore, MD, The John Hopkins University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Fischman, R. L. & Barbarsh-Riley, L., ‘Empirical Environmental Scholarship’, Ecology Law Quarterly, 2018, Vol. 44, pp. 767–807.Google Scholar

Frank, R. H., Microeconomics and Behavior, 8th ed., Boston, MA, McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2010.Google Scholar

Frankel, M., The Alkali Inspectorate: The Control of Air Pollution. Social Audit, A Special Report, London, Headly Brothers, 1974.Google Scholar

Freeman, A. M., ‘Economics, Incentives, and Environmental Regulation’, in Vig, N. J. & Kraft, M. E. (eds.), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Reform or Reaction?, 3rd ed., Washington, DC, CQ Press, 1997, pp. 187–207.Google Scholar

Freeman, J. & Kolstad, Ch. D. (eds.), Moving to Markets in Environmental Regulation: Lessons from 20 Years of Experience, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Freestone, D. & Frenkil, D., ‘Emissions Trading in the US: A New Regime Approaching?’, in Roggenkamp, M. & Hammer, U. (eds.), European Energy Law Report VII, Antwerp, Intersentia, 2009, pp. 75–94.Google Scholar

Frey, B. S., Umweltökonomie, 3rd ed., Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1992.Google Scholar

Frey, B., ‘FOCJ: Competitive Governments for Europe’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1996, Vol. 16, pp. 315–327.Google Scholar

Frey, B. S., Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1997.Google Scholar

Frey, B., ‘Morality and Rationality in Environmental Policy’, Journal of Consumer Policy, 1999, Vol. 22, pp. 395–417.Google Scholar

Frey, B. & Eichenberger, R., ‘To Harmonise or to Compete? That’s Not the Question’, Journal of Public Economics, 1996, Vol. 60, pp. 335–349.Google Scholar

Friedmann, L., Micro Economic Policy Analysis, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1984.Google Scholar

Friedmann, L., ‘In Defence of Corporate Criminal Liability’, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2000, Vol. 23, pp. 833–858.Google Scholar

Friesen, L., ‘Targeting Enforcement to Improve Compliance with Environmental Regulations’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2003, Vol. 46, pp. 72–85.Google Scholar

Fullerton, D., ‘Six Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy’, NBER Working Paper No. 16703, National Bureau of Economic Research (January 2011), pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Fullerton, D., Leicester, A., & Smith, S., ‘Environmental Taxes’, in Institute for Fiscal Studies (ed.), Dimensions of Tax Design, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 423–535.Google Scholar

Galle, B., ‘Carrots, Sticks, and Salience’, Tax Law Review, 2013, Vol. 67, pp. 108–109.Google Scholar

Garoupa, N. & Klerman, D., ‘Corruption and the Optimal Use of Non-monetary Sanctions’, International Review of Law and Economics, 2004, Vol. 24, pp. 219–225.Google Scholar

Garoupa, N. & Gomez-Pomar, F., ‘Punish Once or Punish Twice: A Theory of the Use of Criminal Sanctions in Addition to Regulatory Penalties’, American Law and Economics Review, 2004, Vol. 6, pp. 410–433.Google Scholar

Geers, A. J. C. M., Recht en humanisering van de arbeid, Deventer, Kluwer, 1988.Google Scholar

Geers, A. J. C. M. & Gevers, J. K. M., ‘Schadeloosstelling van slachtoffers van bedrijfsongevallen en beroepsziekten’, Nederlands Juristenblad, 1977, pp. 951–959.Google Scholar

Gerard, D. & Wilson, E., ‘Environmental Bonds and the Challenge of Long-Term Carbon Sequestration’, Journal of Environmental Management, 2009, Vol. 90(2), pp. 1097–1105.Google Scholar

Gibbard, A., ‘Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result’, Econometrica, 1973, Vol. 41(4), pp. 587–601.Google Scholar

Gilead, I., ‘Tort Law and Internalization: The Gap between Private Loss and Social Cost’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1997, Vol. 17(4), pp. 589–608.Google Scholar

Gilhuis, P. & Verschuuren, J., Een Milieuschadefonds in Nederland; een Onderzoek naar de Mogelijkheden, Publicatiereeks Milieubeheer, 1994.Google Scholar

Gilles, M., ‘Public-Private Approaches to Mass Tort Victim Compensation: Some Thoughts on the Gulf Coast Claims Facility’, DePaul Law Review, 2012, Vol. 61(2), p. 427.Google Scholar

Gilles, S., ‘Rule-Based Negligence and the Regulation of Activity Levels’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1992, Vol. 22, pp. 319–363.Google Scholar

Glasbergen, P. (ed.), Cooperative Environmental Governance: Public-Private Agreements as a Policy Strategy, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar

Gold, S., ‘Causation in Toxic Torts: Burdens of Proof, Standards of Persuasion and Statistical Evidence’, Yale Law Journal, 1986, Vol. 96, pp. 376–402.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, B. J. & Bergkamp, L., ‘Introduction’, in Bergkamp, L. & Goldsmith, B. J. (eds.), The EU Environmental Liability Directive: A Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar

Gravelle, H. S. E., ‘Accidents, Taxes, Liability Rules and Insurances’, in The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 1987, Vol. 12, pp. 115–131.Google Scholar

Greenspan, D. & Neuberger, M., ‘Blowout: Legal Legacy of the Deepwater Horizon Catastrophe: Settle or Sue? The Use and Structure of Alternative Compensation Programs in the Mass Claims Context’, Roger Williams University Law Review, Winter 2012, Vol. 17, p. 97.Google Scholar

Greenstone, M., ‘The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufacturers’, Journal of Political Economy, 2002, Vol. 110(6), pp. 1175–1219.Google Scholar

Grimeaud, D., ‘The Integration of Environmental Concerns into EC Policies: A Genuine Policy Development?’, European Environmental Law Review, 2000, Vol. 9(7), pp. 207–218.Google Scholar

Grober, U., Sustainability: A Cultural History, Devon, UK, Green Books, 2012.Google Scholar

Groosman, B., ‘Pollution Tax’, in Bouckaert, B. & De Geest, G. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, II: Civil Law and Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2000, pp. 538–568.Google Scholar

Grossman, G. M. & Krueger, A. B., ‘Environmental Impacts of a North-American Free Trade Agreement’, in Garber, P. M. (ed.), The US, Mexico Free Trade Agreement, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1993, pp. 13–56.Google Scholar

Grossman, G. M. & Krueger, A. B., ‘Economic Growth and the Environment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1995, Vol. 110, pp. 353–377.Google Scholar

Grossman, P. Z., Clearley, R. W., & Cole, D. H., ‘Uncertainty, Insurance and the Learned Hand Formula’, Law, Probability and Risk, 2006, Vol. 5(1), pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

Gunningham, M. & Grabosky, P., Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy, Oxford, UK, Clarendon Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Guiso, L. & Paiella, M., ‘Risk Aversion, Wealth, and Background Risk’, Journal of European Economic Association, 2008, Vol. 6(6), pp. 1109–1150.Google Scholar

Gupta, S. van Houtven, G., & Cropper, M., ‘Do Benefits and Costs Matter in Environmental Regulation? An Analysis of EPA Decisions under Superfund’, in Revesz, R. L. & Stewart, R. B. (eds.), Analyzing Superfund Economics, Science, and Law, Washington, DC, Resources for the Future, 1995, pp. 83–113.Google Scholar

Gupta, S., van Houtven, G., & Cropper, M., ‘Paying for Permanence: An Economic Analysis of EPA’s Cleanup Decisions at Superfund Sites’, Rand Journal of Economics, 1996, Vol. 27(3), pp. 563–582.Google Scholar

Haazen, O. A. & Spier, J., ‘Amerikaanse toestanden en de nieuwe aansprakelijkheidsverzekering voor bedrijven en beroepen’, Nederlands Juristenblad, 1996, Vol. 71, pp. 45–50.Google Scholar

Hahn, R. W., ‘A New Approach to the Design of Regulation in the Presence of Multiple Objectives’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1989a, Vol. 17, pp. 195–211.Google Scholar

Hahn, R. W., A Primer on Environmental Policy Design, New York, Harwood Academic, 1989b.Google Scholar

Hahn, R. W., ‘Economic Prescriptions for Environmental Problems: How the Patient Followed the Doctor’s Orders’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1989c, Vol. 3(2), pp. 95–114.Google Scholar

Hahn, R. W., ‘Regulatory Constraints on Environmental Markets’, Journal of Public Economics, 1990a, Vol. 42, pp. 149–175.Google Scholar

Hahn, R. W., ‘The Political Economy of Environmental Regulation: Towards a Unifying Framework’, Public Choice, 1990b, Vol. 65, pp. 21–47.Google Scholar

Hahn, R. W. & Hester, G. L., ‘Where Did All the Markets Go? An Analysis of EPA’s Emissions Trading Programme’, Yale Journal on Regulation, 1989, Vol. 6, pp. 109–153.Google Scholar

Hahn, R. W. & Noll, R., ‘Barriers to Implementing Tradeable Air Pollution Permits: Problems of Regulatory Interaction’, Yale Journal on Regulation, 1983, Vol. 1, pp. 63–91.Google Scholar

Hansmann, H. & Kraakman, R. H., ‘Toward Unlimited Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts’, Yale Law Journal, 1991, Vol. 100, pp. 1978–1934.Google Scholar

Hansson, I. & Skogh, G., ‘Moral Hazard and Safety Regulation’, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 1987, Vol. 12, pp. 132–144.Google Scholar

Hardin, G., ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science, 1968, Vol. 162(3859), pp. 1243–1248.Google Scholar

Harford, J. D. & Harrington, W., ‘A Reconsideration of Enforcement Leverage When Penalties Are Restricted’, Journal of Public Economics, 1991, Vol. 45, pp. 391–395.Google Scholar

Haritz, M., An Inconvenient Deliberation: The Precautionary Principles Contribution to the Uncertainties Surrounding Climate Change Liability, Alphen aan den Rijn, Wolters Kluwer, 2011.Google Scholar

Harrington, W., ‘Enforcement Leverage When Penalties Are Restricted’, Journal of Public Economics, 1988, Vol. 37, pp. 29–53.Google Scholar

Harrington, W. & Heyes, A., ‘The Theory of Penalties: “Leverage” and “Dealing”’, in Heyes, A. (ed.), The Law and Economics of the Environment, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar, 2001, pp. 185–197.Google Scholar

Harrison, D. & Rubinfeld, D. L., ‘Hedonic House Prices and the Demand for Clean Air’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1978, Vol. 5, pp. 81–102.Google Scholar

Harrington, W., Morgenstern, R. D., & Sterner, Th. (eds.), Choosing Environmental Policy: Comparing Instruments and Outcomes in the United States and Europe, Washington, DC, Resources for the Future, 2004.Google Scholar

Hartlief, T. & Spier, J., ‘Verzekering en aansprakelijkheid met “terugwerkende kracht”’, Aansprakelijkheid en Verzekering, 1994, pp. 27–33.Google Scholar

Hartlief, T. & Tjittes, R. P. J. L., Invloed van verzekering op de civiele aansprakelijkheid: Preadvies voor de Vereniging voor Burgerlijk Recht, Lelystad, Vermande, 1990a.Google Scholar

Hartlief, T. & Tjittes, R. P. J. L., ‘De aansprakelijkheid voor bedrijfsongevallen en – ziekten – recente ontwikkelingen met betrekking tot tewerkstelling en bewijslast’, Sociaal Recht, 1990b, pp. 282–288.Google Scholar

Hartlief, T. & Tjittes, R. P. J. L., Verzekering en Aansprakelijkheid, Deventer, Kluwer, 1994.Google Scholar

Hausman, J. A., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1993.Google Scholar

Havercroft, I. & Macrory, R., Legal Liability and Carbon Capture and Storage: A Comparative Perspective, Melbourne, Global CCS Institute, 2014.Google Scholar

Hawkins, K., Environment and Enforcement: Regulation and the Social Definition of Pollution, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984.Google Scholar

Hayek, F. A., ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’, American Economic Review, 1945, Vol. 35(4), pp. 519–530.Google Scholar

Hazelwood, S. J. & Semark, D., P&I Clubs: Law and Practice, London, Lloyd’s List, 2010.Google Scholar

Heimert, A. J., ‘How the Elephant Lost His Tusks’, Yale Law Journal, 1995, Vol. 104(6), pp. 1473–1506.Google Scholar

Heine, G., ‘Die Verwältungsakzessorietät im deutschen Umweltstrafrecht unter Berücksichtigung des österreichischen Rechts. Aktuelle Probleme und Reformüberlegungen’, Österreichische Juristenzeitung, 1991, pp. 370–378.Google Scholar

Heine, G. & Meinberg, V., Empfehlen sich Änderungen im strafrechtlichen Umweltschutz, insbesondere in Verbindung mit dem Verwaltungsrecht? Gutachten für den 57. Deutschen Juristentag, Munich, Beck, 1988.Google Scholar

Hendrickx, R., ‘Maritime Oil Pollution: An Empirical Analysis’, in Faure, M. & Verheij, A. (eds.), Shifts in Compensation for Environmental Damage, Vienna, Springer, 2007, pp. 243–260.Google Scholar

Heringa, A. W., ‘Private Life and the Protection of the Environment’, European Court of Human Rights, 9 December 1994, Lopez Ostra v. Spain’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 1995, Vol. 2, pp. 196–204.Google Scholar

Heyes, A. G., ‘Eight Things about Enforcement That Seem Obvious But May Not Be’, in Swanson, T. (ed.), An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Environmental Policy: Issues in Institutional Design, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2002, pp. 519–537.Google Scholar

Heyes, A. G. & Liston-Heyes, C., ‘Subsidy to Nuclear Power through Price-Anderson Liability Limit: Comment’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 1998, Vol. 16(1), pp. 122–124.Google Scholar

Heyes, A. & Rickman, N., ‘Regulatory Dealing – Revisiting the Harrington Paradox’, Journal of Public Economics, 1999, Vol. 72, pp. 361–378.Google Scholar

Hirschman, A. O., Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organisations and States, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Hirshleifer, J., ‘The Expanding Domain of Economics’, American Economic Review, 1985, Vol. 75, pp. 53–68.Google Scholar

Hoch, I. & Drake, J., ‘Wages, Climate and the Quality of Life’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1974, Vol. 1, pp. 268–295.Google Scholar

Hodas, D. & De Armey, P., ‘North-American Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Systems’, in Farber, D. A. & Peeters, M. (eds.), Climate Change Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2016, pp. 388–399.Google Scholar

Holcombe, R. G., ‘Creating a Public-Private Partnership for Florida’s Conservation Land Management’, Backgrounder, 2009, Vol. 59, pp. 3–10.Google Scholar

Holley, C. & Sinclair, D., ‘Enforcement Strategies: Inspection, Targetting and Escalation’, in Paddock, L. C., Markell, D. L., & Bryner, N. S. (eds.), Compliance and Enforcement of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2017, pp. 101–113.Google Scholar

Hotelling, H., ‘Stability in Competition’, Economic Journal, 1929, Vol. 39(153), pp. 41–57.Google Scholar

Howarth, R. B. & Norgaard, R. B., ‘Environmental Valuation under Sustainable Development’, American Economic Association, 1992, Vol. 82(2), pp. 473–477.Google Scholar

Hsu, S.-L., ‘Fairness versus Efficiency in Environmental Law’, Ecology Law Quarterly, 2004, Vol. 31, pp. 303–401.Google Scholar

Hsu, S.-L., ‘Some Quasi-Behavioral Arguments for Environmental Taxation’, Critical Issues in Environmental Taxation, 2008, Vol. V, pp. 29–52.Google Scholar

Hsu, S.-L., ‘The Accidental Postmodernists: A New Era of Skepticism in Environmental Policy’, Vermont Law Review, 2014, Vol. 39, pp. 27–88.Google Scholar

Huber, B. R., ‘Temporal Spillovers’, in Mathis, K. & Huber, B., Environmental Law and Economics, Cham, Springer, 2017, pp. 43–57.Google Scholar

Huber, P., ‘The Old-New Division in Risk Regulation’, Virginia Law Review, 1983, Vol. 63, pp. 1025–1107.Google Scholar

Hughes, D., Environmental Law, 2nd ed., Oxford, Butterworths, 1992.Google Scholar

Huisman, W., Tussen winst en moral, achtergronden van regelnaleving en regelovertreding door ondernemingen, The Hague, Boom, 2001.Google Scholar

Huisman, W. & Van de Bunt, H. G., ‘Sancties, organisatiecriminaliteit en milieudelicten’, Ars Aequi, 1997, pp. 695–697.Google Scholar

Hulst, E., Grondslagen van Milieuaansprakelijkheid, diss., Arnhem, Gouda Quint, 1993.Google Scholar

Hulst, E., ‘De werkelijkheid rondom een algemeen milieuschadefonds, een commentaar’, Tijdschrift voor Milieuaansprakelijkheid, 1995, pp. 167–173.Google Scholar

Huther, J. & Anwar, S., ‘Anti-Corruption Policies and Programs: A Framework for Evaluation’, World Bank Working Paper 2501, 2001.Google Scholar

Hylton, K. N., ‘When Should We Prefer Tort Law to Environmental Regulation?’, Washburn Law Journal, 2002, Vol. 41, pp. 515–543.Google Scholar

Inman, R. & Rubinfeld, D., ‘The EMU and Fiscal Policy in the New European Community: An Issue for Economic Federalism’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1994, Vol. 14(2), pp. 147–161.Google Scholar

Innes, R., ‘Self-Enforcement of Environmental Law’, in Heyes, A. (ed.), The Law and Economics of the Environment, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar, 2001, pp. 150–184.Google Scholar

Innes, R. & Sam, A. G., ‘Voluntary Pollution Reductions and the Enforcement of Environmental Law: An Empirical Study of the 33/50 Programme’, Journal of Law and Economics, 2008, Vol. 51(2), pp. 271–296.Google Scholar

Interuniversitaire Commissie tot Herziening van het Milieurecht in het Vlaamse Gewest, Voorontwerp Decreet Milieubeleid, Brugge, die Keure, 1995.Google Scholar

Jacob, H., ‘Deterrent Effects of Formal and Informal Sanctions’, Law & Policy, 1980, Vol. 2(1), pp. 61–80.Google Scholar

Jaffe, A., Peterson, D., Portney, P., & Stavins, R., ‘Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of US Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell us?’, Journal of Economic Literature, 1995, Vol. 33, pp. 132–163.Google Scholar

Jaffer, S. & Kay, J., ‘The Regulation of Shop Opening Hours in the United Kingdom’, in Graf von den Schulenburg, J. M. & Skogh, G. (eds.), Law and Economics and the Economics of Legal Regulation, Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 1986, pp. 169–183.Google Scholar

Jans, J. H., European Environmental Law, The Hague/London/Boston, Kluwer Law International, 1995.Google Scholar

Jans, J. H., European Environmental Law, 2nd ed., Groningen, European Law Publishing, 2000.Google Scholar

Jans, J. H. & Vedder, H. H. B., European Environmental Law: After Lisbon, 4th ed., Groningen, Europa Law Publishing, 2012.Google Scholar

Jeppesen, T., List, J. A., & Folmer, H., ‘Environmental Regulations and New Plant Location Decisions: Evidence from a Meta-analysis’, Journal of Regional Science, 2002, Vol. 42, pp. 19–49.Google Scholar

Johnston, J. S., ‘The Law and Economics of Environmental Contracts’, in Orts, E. W. & Deketelaere, K. (eds.), Environmental Contracts: Comparative Approaches to Regulatory Innovation in the United States and Europe, The Hague, Kluwer, 2001, pp. 271–304.Google Scholar

Jones, B., ‘The Identification and Remediation of Contaminated Sites: The United Kingdom’s Environment Act 1995’, Tijdschrift voor Milieuaansprakelijkheid, 1995, pp. 159–166.Google Scholar

Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W., & Zito, A. R., ‘New Instruments of Environmental Governance: Patterns and Pathways of Change’, Special Issue Environmental Politics, 2003, Vol. 12(1), pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

Josen, J., ‘Catastrophe Bonds – Fear of the Unknown?’, Derivative Times, 5 June, 2015.Google Scholar

Jost, P. J., ‘Limited Liability and the Requirement to Purchase Insurance’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1996, Vol. 16(2), pp. 259–276.Google Scholar

Kahan, D. M., ‘Social Meaning and the Economic Analysis of Crime’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1998, Vol. 27, pp. 609–622.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A., ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk’, Econometrica, 1979, Vol. 47, pp. 263–281.Google Scholar

Kane, P., ‘Using Tort Law to Enforce Environmental Regulations?’, Washburn Law Journal, 2002, Vol. 41, pp. 427–467.Google Scholar

Kaplow, L., ‘An Economic Analysis of Legal Transition’, Harvard Law Review, 1986, Vol. 99, pp. 509–617.Google Scholar

Kapp, W., ‘Environmental Disruption and Social Costs: A Challenge to Economics’, Kyklos, 1970, Vol. 23(4), pp. 833–848.Google Scholar

Karpoff, J. M. Lott, J. R., & Ranike, G., ‘Environmental Violations, Legal Penalties, and Repudiation Costs’, University of Chicago John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 71 (2nd series), 1998.Google Scholar

Kathuria, V., ‘Controlling Water Pollution in Developing and Transition Countries – Lessons from Three Successful Cases’, Journal of Environmental Management, 2006, Vol. 78, pp. 405–426.Google Scholar

Katzman, M. T., ‘Pollution Liabilitiy Insurance and Catastrophic Environmental Risks’, Journal of Risk and Insurance, 1988, Vol. 55(1), pp. 75–100.Google Scholar

Kaye, D., ‘The Limits of the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard: Justifiable Naked Statistical Evidence and Multiple Causation’, Law & Social Inquiry, 1982, Vol. 7(2), pp. 487–516.Google Scholar

Keenan, D. & Rubin, P., ‘Shadow Interest Groups and Safety Regulation’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1988, Vol. 8, pp. 21–36.Google Scholar

Keohane, N. O., ‘Cost Savings from Allowance Trading in the 1990 Clean Air Act: Estimates from a Choice-Based Model’, in Freeman, J. & Kolstad, Ch. D. (eds.), Moving to Markets in Environmental Regulation: Lessons from 20 Years of Experience, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 194–229.Google Scholar

Ketchum, L., ‘Epidemiologic Tables Law Groundwork for Future Radiogenic Cancer Claims’, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 1985, Vol. 26, pp. 967–972.Google Scholar

Kilchling, M., ‘Comparative Perspectives on Forfeiture Legislation in Europe and the United States’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 1997, Vol. 5, pp. 342–361.Google Scholar

Kilchling, M. (ed.), Die Praxis der Gewinnabschöpfung in Europa, Freiburg im Breisgau, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, 2002.Google Scholar

Kirchgässner, G. & Pommerehne, W., ‘Tax Harmonisation and Tax Competition in the European Community: Lessons from Switzerland’ (paper presented at the Cost Meeting in Luzern November 1993).Google Scholar

Kitzmueller, M. & Shimshack, J., ‘Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Economic Literature, 2012, Vol. 50(1), pp. 51–84.Google Scholar

Kloepfer, M., ‘On the Codification of German Environmental Law’, in Bocken, H. & Ryckbost, D. (eds.), Codification of Environmental Law, Proceedings of the International Conference, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1996, pp. 87–100.Google Scholar

Klosse, S., ‘Bedrijfsongevallen en beroepsziekten: individuele of collectieve verantwoordelijkheid’, Nederlands Juristenblad, 1993, pp. 1608–1613.Google Scholar

Knottenbelt, J., Produktaansprakelijkheid, diss., Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, 1990.Google Scholar

Koch, B. A. & Koziol, H., ‘Comparative Conclusions’, in Koch, B. A. & Koziol, H. (eds.), Unification of Tort Law: Strict Liability, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2002, pp. 395–435.Google Scholar

Kolstad, C. D., ‘Uniformity versus Differentiation in Regulating Externalities’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1987, Vol. 1, pp. 386–399.Google Scholar

Kolstad, Ch. D., Ulen, Th. S., & Johnson, G. V., ‘Ex Post Liability for Harm vs. Ex Ante Safety Regulation: Substitutes or Complements’, American Economic Review, 1990, Vol. 80, pp. 888–901.Google Scholar

Konar, S. & Cohen, M. A., ‘Information as Regulation: The Effect of Community Right to Know Laws on Toxic Emissions’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1997, Vol. 32, pp. 109–124.Google Scholar

Körber, A., ‘Standards and Taxes in Environmental Law from a Public Choice Perspective’, in Bouckaert, B. & De Geest, G. (eds.), Essays in Law and Economics II, Antwerp, Maklu, 1995, pp. 161–191.Google Scholar

Kornhauser, L. A., ‘An Economic Analysis of the Choice between Enterprise and Personal Liability for Accidents’, California Law Review, 1982, Vol. 70, pp. 1345–1392.Google Scholar

Kornhauser, L. A. & Revesz, R. L., ‘Sharing Damages among Multiple Tortfeasors’, Yale Law Journal, 1989, Vol. 98(5), pp. 831–884.Google Scholar

Kornhauser, L. A. & Revesz, R. L., ‘Apportioning Damages among Potentially Insolvent Actors’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1990, Vol. 19(2), pp. 617–651.Google Scholar

Kosonen, K. & Nicodème, G., ‘The Role of Fiscal Instruments in Environmental Policy’, CESifo Working Paper No 2719, July 2009.Google Scholar

Kottenhagen-Edzes, P. A., Onrechtmatige daad en milieu. Het gebruik van het privaatrecht bij het voorkomen van milieuaantasting en het verhaal van milieuschade, Arnhem, Gouda Quint, 1992.Google Scholar

Kozeltsev, M. & Markandya, A., ‘Pollution Charges in Russia: The Experience of 1990–1995’, in Bluffstone, R. & Larson, B. A. (eds.), Controlling Pollution in Transition Economies: Theories and Methods, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1997, pp. 128–143.Google Scholar

Krämer, L., ‘Community Environmental Law under the Maastricht Treaty on European Union and the Fifth Action Programme’, in Abraham, T., Deketelaere, K., & Stuyck, J. (eds.), Recent Economic and Legal Developments in European Environmental Policy, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 1995, pp. 75–106.Google Scholar

Krämer, L., ‘The Principle of Fighting Environmental Harm and Source (Source Principle)’, in Krämer, L. & Orlando, E. (eds.), Principles of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2018, pp. 186–194.Google Scholar

Krutilla, J. V., ‘Conservation Reconsidered’, American Economic Review, 1967, Vol. 57, pp. 777–786.Google Scholar

Krutilla, J. V. & Fisher, A., The Economics of Natural Environments: Studies in the Valuation of Commodity and Amenity Recourses, rev. ed., Washington, DC, Recourses for the future, 1985.Google Scholar

Kuik, O. & Oosterhuis, F., ‘Economic Impacts of the EU ETS: Preliminary Evidence’, in Faure, M. & Peeters, M. (eds.), Climate Change and European Emissions Trading. Lessons for Theory and Practice, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2008, pp. 208–222.Google Scholar

Kunreuther, H. & Freeman, P., ‘Insurability, Environmental Risks and the Law’, in Heyes, A. (ed.), The Law and Economics of the Environment, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2001, pp. 302–318.Google Scholar

Kunreuther, H., Hogarth, R., & Meszaros, J., ‘Insurer Ambiguity and Market Failure’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1993, Vol. 7, pp. 71–87.Google Scholar

Kuznets, S., ‘Economic Growth and Income Inequality’, American Economic Review, 1955, Vol. 45,(1), pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Landes, W. M. & Posner, R. A., ‘The Private Enforcement of Law’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1975, Vol. 4, pp. 1–46.Google Scholar

Landes, W. & Posner, R., ‘An Economic Theory of Intentional Torts’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1981a, Vol. 1, pp. 127–154.Google Scholar

Landes, W. & Posner, R., ‘The Positive Economic Theory of Tort Law’, Georgia Law Review, 1981b, Vol. 15, pp. 851–924.Google Scholar

Landes, W. & Posner, R., ‘Causation in Tort Law: An Economic Approach’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1983, Vol. 12, pp. 109–134.Google Scholar

Landes, W. & Posner, R., ‘Tort Law as a Regulatory Regime for Catastrophic Personal Injuries’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1984, Vol. 13, pp. 417–434.Google Scholar

Landes, W. & Posner, R., The Economic Structure of Tort Law, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1987.Google Scholar

Lando, O., ‘Die Regeln des Europäischen Vertragsrecht’, in Müller-Graff, P. C. (ed.), Gemeinsames Privatrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1993, pp. 473–474.Google Scholar

Laskowska, A. & Scrimgeour, F., ‘Environmental Taxation: The European Experience’, University of Waikato, Working Paper, 2002, available at: http://wms.soros.mngt.vaikato.ac.nz/NR/exeres/E33CCD10-4841-47AE-8A1A-C66E1B01E9FD.htm.Google Scholar

Lazarus, R. J., The Making of Environmental Law, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Lee, D. R., ‘Rent-Seeking and Its Implications for Pollution Taxation’, Southern Economic Journal, 1985, Vol. 51, pp. 731–744.Google Scholar

Lee, M., ‘The Intersection between Environmental Law and Tort Law’, in Paddock, L. C., Glicksman, R. L., & Bryne, N. S. (eds.), Decision-Making in Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2016, pp. 62–72.Google Scholar

Legrand, P., ‘The Impossibility of “Legal Transplants”’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 1997, Vol. 4, pp. 111–124.Google Scholar

Legrand, P., ‘Antivonbar’, Journal of Comparative Law, 2008, Vol. 1(1), pp. 13–39.Google Scholar

Levinson, A., ‘The Missing Pollution Haven Effect’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 2000, Vol. 15(4), pp. 343–364.Google Scholar

Levinson, A., ‘Environmental Regulatory Competition: A Status Report and Some New Evidence’, National Tax Journal, 2003, Vol. 56(1), pp. 91–106.Google Scholar

Libecap, G. D. & Wiggins, S. N., ‘Contractual Responses to the Common Pool: Prorationing of Crude Oil Production’, American Economic Review, 1994, Vol. 74(1), pp. 87–98.Google Scholar

Lierman, S. & Veuchelen, L., ‘The Optimisation Approach of ALARA in Nuclear Practice: An Early Application of the Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty versus Legal Uncertainty’, Water Science & Technology, 2005, Vol. 52(6), pp. 81–86.Google Scholar

List, J. A., McHone, W. W., & Millimet, D. L., ‘Effects of Air Quality Regulation on the Destination Choice of Relocating Plants’, Oxford Economic Papers, 2003, pp. 657–678.Google Scholar

Litz, F. T., ‘Harnessing Market Forces in Natural Resources Management: Lessons from the Surf Clam Fishery’, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 1994, Vol. 21(2), pp. 335–361.Google Scholar

Liu, J., Compensation for Ecological Damage: Comparative and Economic Observations, Antwerp, Intersentia, 2013.Google Scholar

Livermore, M. A., ‘The Perils of Experimentation’, Yale Law Journal, 2017, Vol. 126(3), pp. 636–708.Google Scholar

Lofton, J. A., ‘Environmental Enforcement: The Impact of Cultural Values and Attitudes on Social Regulation’, Environmental Liability, 2001, Vol. 4, pp. 167–181.Google Scholar

Lokur, M. B.‚ ‘Environmental Law – Its Development and Jurisprudence’, Green Law Lecture 2006, WWF-India, available at: www.wwfindia.org/news_facts/?1320.Google Scholar

Lomas, O., ‘Current Survey: Environment’, Utilities Law Review, Summer 1990, p. 62.Google Scholar

Lu, M., Choose or Loose, Another Road to China’s Sustainable Development: A Law and Economics Analysis of Corporate Sustainability Theories and Practices, diss., Maastricht, Maastricht University, 2017.Google Scholar

Lu, M. & Faure, M. G., ‘The Regulation of Corporate Environmental Responsibility’, in Philipsen, N., Weishaar, S. E., & Xu, G. (eds.), Market Integration: The EU Experience and Implications for Regulatory Reform in China, Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer, 2016, pp. 239–265.Google Scholar

Lueck, D., ‘The Economic Nature of Wildlife Law’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1989, Vol. 18(2), pp. 291–324.Google Scholar

Lueck, D., ‘Property Rights and the Economic Logic of Wildlife Institutions’, Natural Resources Journal, 1995, Vol. 35, pp. 625–670.Google Scholar

Lueck, D., ‘Property Institutions and the Limits of Coase’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 2017, Vol. 13(4), pp. 793–800.Google Scholar

Lueck, D. & Micelli, T. J., ‘Property Law’, in Polinsky, A. M. & Shavell, S. (eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics, Vol. 1, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 2007, pp. 183–257.Google Scholar

Lutterer, W. & Hoch, H. K., Rechtliche Steuerung im Umweltbereich. Funktionsstrukturen des Umweltstrafrechts und des Umweltordnungswidrigkeitenrechts: Empirische Untersuchungen zur Implementation strafbewehrter Vorschriften im Bereich des Umweltschutzes, Freiburg im Breisgau, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, 1997.Google Scholar

MacDonell, C., ‘The Gulf Coast Claims Facility and the Deepwater Horizon Litigation: Judicial Regulation of Private Compensation Schemes’, Stanford Law Review, 2012, Vol. 64(3), p. 765.Google Scholar

Mackaay, E., Economics of Information and the Law, The Hague, Kluwer, 1982.Google Scholar

Majone, G., ‘Unity in Diversity: European Integration and the Enlargement Process’, European Law Review, 2008, Vol. 33, pp. 457–481.Google Scholar

Makdisi, J., ‘Proportional Liability: A Comprehensive Rule to Apportion Tort Damages Based on Probability’, North Carolina Law Review, 1989, Vol. 67, pp. 1063–1101.Google Scholar

Maler, K. G., ‘A Note on the Use of Property Values in Estimating Marginal Willingness to Pay for Environmental Quality’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1977, Vol. 4, pp. 355–369.Google Scholar

Maloney, M. & McCormick, R., ‘A Positive Theory of Environmental Quality Regulation’, Journal of Law and Economics, 1982, Vol. 25(1), pp. 99–123.Google Scholar

Markesinis, B. S., The German Law of Torts: A Comparative Introduction, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2002.Google Scholar

Marshall, J., ‘Moral Hazard’, American Economic Review, 1976, Vol. 66, pp. 880–890.Google Scholar

Martinez Gandara, A., The Law and Economics of Eco-labels, diss., Rotterdam, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2013.Google Scholar

Mashale, C., Moyo, T., & Mtapuri, O., ‘An Evaluation of the Public-Private Partnership in the Lekgalameetse Nature Reserve in South Africa’, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2014, Vol. 5(20), pp. 855–862.Google Scholar

Massai, L., ‘The Revision of the EU Emissions Trading System’, in Roggenkamp, M. & Hammer, U. (eds.), European Energy Law Report VII, Antwerp, Intersentia, 2009, pp. 3–25.Google Scholar

Mattei, U., Comparative Law and Economics, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2000.Google Scholar

May, P. J. & Winter, S., ‘Regulatory Enforcement and Compliance: Examining Danish Agro-Environmental Policy’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1999, Vol. 18, pp. 625–651.Google Scholar

Mayers, D. & Smith, C. Jr., ‘On the Corporate Demand for Insurance’, Journal of Business, 1982, Vol. 55(2), pp. 281–296.Google Scholar

Mburu, J. & Birner, R., ‘Emergence, Adoption and Implementation of Collaborative Wildlife Management or Wildlife Partnerships in Kenya: A Look at Conditions for Success’, Society and Natural Resources, 2007, Vol. 20(5), pp. 379–395.Google Scholar

McAllister, L. K., Van Rooij, B., & Kagan, R. A., ‘Re-orienting Regulation: Pollution Enforcement in Industrialising Countries’, Law & Policy, 2010, Vol. 32, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

McCormick, R. & Tollison, R., Politicians, Legislation and the Economy: An Inquiry into the Interest Group Theory of Governments, Boston, MA, Martinus Nijhoff, 1982.Google Scholar

McPherson, M. A. & Nieswiadomy, M. L., ‘African Elephants: The Effect of Property Rights and Political Stability’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 2000, Vol. 18(1), pp. 14–26.Google Scholar

Medema, S. G., ‘Juris Prudence: Calabresi’s Uneasy Relationship with the Coase Theorem’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 2014, Vol. 77(65), pp. 65–95.Google Scholar

Mehta, M. C., ‘The Accountability Principle: Legal Solutions to Break Corruption’s Impact on India’s Environment’, Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation, 2006, Vol. 21(1), pp. 141–156.Google Scholar

Meinberg, V., ‘Empirische Erkenntnisse zum Vollzug des Umweltstrafrechts’, Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaften, 1988, Vol. 100, pp. 112–157.Google Scholar

Merrill, T., ‘Trespass, Nuisance and the Costs of Determining Property Rights’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1985, Vol. 14(1), pp. 13–48.Google Scholar

Mettler, F. & Moseley, R., Medical Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Orlando, FL, Grune and Stratton, 1985.Google Scholar

Miceli, T., ‘Optimal Prosecution of Defendants Whose Guilt Is Uncertain’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organisation, 1990, Vol. 6, pp. 189–201.Google Scholar

Miceli, Th. J., ‘Litigation Costs and the Statute of Limitations for Tort Suits’, International Review of Law and Economics, 2000, Vol. 20(3), pp. 383–394.Google Scholar

Miller, J. G. & Justice, C., ‘Organisational Liability for Environmental Crimes’, in Paddock, L. C., Markell, D. L., & Bryner, N. S. (eds.), Compliance and Enforcement of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2017, pp. 200–214.Google Scholar

Millimet, D. L. & List, J. A., ‘The Case of the Missing Pollution Haven Hypothesis’, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 2004, Vol. 26, pp. 239–262.Google Scholar

Ministry of Housing, ‘Spatial Planning and the Environment, the Netherlands’ Energy Tax: Questions and Answers’, The Hague, Ministry of Housing, 2004.Google Scholar

Mishan, E. J., ‘Pangloss on Pollution’, Swedish Journal of Economics, 1971a, Vol. 73(1), pp. 113–120.Google Scholar

Mishan, E. J., ‘The Post War Literature on Externalities: An Interpretative Essay’, Journal of Economic Literature, 1971b, Vol. 9(1), pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Mishan, E. J., Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Informal Introduction, London, Allen & Unwin, 2nd ed., 1974.Google Scholar

Moloney, M. T. & McCormick, R. E., ‘A Positive Theory of Environmental Quality Regulation’, Journal of Law & Economics, 1982, Vol. 25, pp. 99–123.Google Scholar

Monti, A., ‘Environmental Risk: A Comparative Law and Economics Approach to Liability and Insurance’, European Review of Private Law, 2001, Vol. 1, pp. 51–79.Google Scholar

Montini, M., ‘The Principle of Integration’, in Krämer, L. & Orlando, E. (eds.), Principles of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2018, pp. 139–149.Google Scholar

Moore, T. P., ‘The Purpose of Licensing’, Journal of Law and Economics, 1961, Vol. 4, pp. 93–117.Google Scholar

Morely, B., ‘Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness of Environmental Taxes’, University of Bath, Working Paper No. 02/10, 2010, available at: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/18105/1/0210.pdf.Google Scholar

Mullenix, L., ‘Prometheus Unbound: The Gulf Coast Claims Facility as a Means for Resolving Mass Tort Claims – A Fund Too Far’, 2011, Louisiana Law Review, Vol. 71, p. 819.Google Scholar

Mullis, A. & Oliphant, K., Torts, London, Palgrave, 2011.Google Scholar

Myerson, R. B. & Satterthwaite, M. A., ‘Efficient Mechanisms for Bilateral Trading’, Journal of Economic Theory, 1983, Vol. 29(2), pp. 265–281.Google Scholar

Nash, J. R., ‘Too Much Market? Conflict between Tradable Pollution Allowances and the “Polluter Pays Principle”’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 2000, Vol. 24, pp. 465–535.Google Scholar

Nash, J. R. & Revesz, R. L., ‘The Design of Marketable Permit Schemes to Control Local and Regional Pollutants’, Ecology Law Quarterly, 2001, Vol. 28, pp. 559–661.Google Scholar

Nash, J. R. & Revesz, R. L., ‘The Design of Marketable Permit Schemes to Control Local and Regional Pollutants’, in Swanson, Th. (ed.), An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Environmental Policy: Issues in Institutional Design, Amsterdam, JAI Press, 2002, pp. 331–377.Google Scholar

Nelson, B., Economic Analysis of Transportation Noise Abatement, Cambridge, MA, Ballinger, 1978.Google Scholar

Nentjes, A. & Hommes, J., ‘Handhaving van het milieurecht’, Tijdschrift voor Milieuaansprakelijkheid, 1990, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar

Newman, P. (ed.), New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, London, Macmillan, 1998.Google Scholar

Niessen, N., ‘Decentralized Environmental Management’, in Faure, M. & Niessen, N. (eds.), Environmental Law in Development: Lessons from the Indonesian Experience, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2006, pp. 143–181.Google Scholar

Niezen, G. J., Raaijmaker, M. J. G. C., & Tervoort, A. J. S. M. (eds.), Aansprakelijkheid voor milieuschade in de Europese Unie: Ongebonden Recht Bedrijven, Deventer, Kluwer, 2000.Google Scholar

Nshimbi, M. & Vinya, R., ‘Impacts of Public-Private Partnerships on Local Livelihoods and Natural Resource Dynamics: Perceptions from Eastern Zambia’, Resources, 2014, Vol. 3(2), pp. 471–487.Google Scholar

Nyborg, K. & Telle, K., ‘The Role of Warnings in Regulation: Keeping Control with Less Punishment’, Journal of Public Economics, 2004, Vol. 88(12), pp. 2801–2816.Google Scholar

Oates, W., Fiscal Federalism, New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972.Google Scholar

Oates, W., ‘Book Review: The Uncertain Search for Environmental Quality’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1976, Vol. 124(3), pp. 864–891.Google Scholar

Oates, W., ‘The Regulation of Externalities: Efficient Behaviour by Sources and Victims’, Public Finance, 1983, Vol. 38(3), pp. 362–375.Google Scholar

Oates, W. E., ‘The Environment and the Economy: Environmental Policy at the Crossroads’, in Quigley, J. & Rubinfeld, D. (eds.), American Domestic Priorities: An Economic Appraisal, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1985, pp. 311–345.Google Scholar

Oates, W. E., ‘Market Incentives for Environmental Protection: A Survey of Some Recent Developments’, in Peston, M. & Quandt, R. (eds.), Prices, Competition and Equilibrium, London, Philip Allen, 1986, pp. 251–267.Google Scholar

Oates, W. E., ‘Economics, Economists, and Environmental Policy’, Eastern Economic Journal, 1990, Vol. 16(4), pp. 289–296.Google Scholar

Oates, W. & McGartland, A. M., ‘Marketable Permits for the Prevention of Environmental Deterioration’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1985, Vol. 12(3), pp. 207–228.Google Scholar

Oates, W. & Schwab, R., ‘Economic Competition among Jurisdictions: Efficiency Enhancing or Distortion Inducing?’, Journal of Public Economics, 1988, Vol. 35(3), pp. 333–354.Google Scholar

Oates, W. E., Portney, P. R., & McGartland, A. M., ‘The Net Benefits of Incentive-Based Regulation: A Case Study of Environmental Standard Setting’, American Economic Review, 1989, Vol. 79, pp. 1233–1244.Google Scholar

OCIMF, ‘The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (‘OPA 90’): Why Has It Been so Successful at Reducing Spills’, 2003.Google Scholar

O’Connor, D., ‘Applying Economic Instruments in Developing Countries: From Theory to Implementation’, Environment and Development Economics, 1998, Vol. 4(1), pp. 91–110.Google Scholar

OECD, The Political Economy of Environmentally Related Taxes, Paris, OECD, 2006.Google Scholar

OECD, Ensuring Environmental Compliance: Trends and Good Practice, Paris, OECD, 2009.Google Scholar

Ogus, A. I., ‘Quantitative Rules and Judicial Decision-Making’, in Burrows, P. & Veljanovski, C. (eds.), The Economic Approach to Law, London, Butterworth, 1981, pp. 210–225.Google Scholar

Ogus, A. I., Regulation: Legal Form and Economic Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994a.Google Scholar

Ogus, A. I., ‘Standard-Setting for Environmental Protection: Principles and Processes’, in Faure, M., Vervaele, J., & Weale, A. (eds.), Environmental Standard in the European Union in an Interdisciplinary Framework, Antwerp, Maklu, 1994b, pp. 23–37.Google Scholar

Ogus, A. I., ‘Quality Control for European Regulation’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 1995, Vol. 2, pp. 325–338.Google Scholar

Ogus, A., ‘Competition between National Legal Systems: A Contribution to Economic Analysis to Comparative Law’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1999b, Vol. 48, pp. 405–418.Google Scholar

Ogus, A., ‘Enforcing Regulation: Do We Need the Criminal Law?’, in Sjögren, H. & Skogh, G. (eds.), New Perspectives on Economic Crime, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar, 2004a, pp. 42–56.Google Scholar

Ogus, A. I., Regulation: Legal Form and Economic Theory, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2004b.Google Scholar

Ogus, A. I., ‘Corruption and Regulatory Structures’, Law & Policy, 2004c, Vol. 26, pp. 229–246.Google Scholar

Ogus, A. I., ‘Regulatory Arrangements and Incentives for Opportunistic Behaviour’, in Eger, Th., Faure, M., & Zhang, N. (eds.), Economic Analysis of Law in China, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2007, pp. 151–158.Google Scholar

Ogus, A. I., ‘Regulation Revisited’, Public Law, 2009, Vol. 2, pp. 332–346.Google Scholar

Ogus, A. & Abbot, C., ‘Pollution and Penalties’, in Swanson, T. (ed.), An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Environmental Policy: Issues in Institutional Design, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2002a, pp. 493–516.Google Scholar

Ogus, A. & Abbot, C., ‘Sanctions for Pollution: Do We Have the Right Regime?’, Journal of Environmental Law, 2002b, Vol. 14, pp. 283–300.Google Scholar

Ogus, A. I. & Carbonara, E., ‘Self-Regulation’, in Parisi, F. (ed.), Production of Legal Rules, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2011, pp. 228–252.Google Scholar

Olken, B. A., ‘Corruption and the Costs of Redistribution: Micro Evidence from Indonesia’, Journal of Public Economics, 2006, Vol. 90, pp. 853–870.Google Scholar

Olmstead, S. M. & Stavins, R. N., ‘Comparing Price and Nonprice Approaches to Urban Water Conservation’, Water Resources Research, 2009, Vol. 45, W04301, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

Olson, M., The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar

Olson, M., The Rise and Decline of Nations, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1982.Google Scholar

Orts, E. W. & Deketelaere, K. (eds.), Environmental Contracts: Comparative Approaches to Regulatory Innovation in the United States and Europe, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2002.Google Scholar

Ostrom, E., ‘Self-Governance and Forest Resources’, 1999, available at: www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-20.pdf.Google Scholar

Ostrom, E. et al., ‘Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges’, Science, 1999, Vol. 284(5412), pp. 278–282.Google Scholar

Ott, C. L. & Schäfer, H.-B., ‘Die Vereinheitlichung des Europäischen Vertragsrechts: Ökonomische Notwendigkeit oder akademisches Interesse?’, in Ott, C. L. & Schäfer, H.-B. (eds.), Vereinheitlichung und Diversität des Zivilrechts in transnationalen Wirtschaftsraum, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 203–236.Google Scholar

Otto, H. J., General Prävention und externe Verhaltenskontrolle: Wandel von soziologischen zum ökonomischen Paradigma in der nord-amerikanischen Kriminologie?, Freiburg im Breisgau, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, 1982.Google Scholar

Pagh, P., ‘The New Danish Act on Strict Liability for Environmental Damage’, Environmental Liability, 1995, Vol. 3, pp. 15–19.Google Scholar

Pagh, P., ‘Experiences of and Plans for the Codification of Environmental Law in Denmark’, in Bocken, H. & Ryckbost, D. (eds.), Codification of Environmental Law, Proceedings of the International Conference, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1996, pp. 143–153.Google Scholar

Palmer, T. & Riera, A., ‘Tourism and Environmental Taxes: With Special Reference to the “Balearic Ecotax”’, Tourism Management, 2003, Vol. 24, pp. 665–674.Google Scholar

Paloniitty, T. & Eliantonio, M., ‘Scientific Knowledge in Environmental Judicial Review: Safeguarding Effective Judicial Protection in the EU Member States?’, European Energy and Environmental Law Review, 2018, Vol. 27, pp. 108–114.Google Scholar

Panayotou, T., ‘Economic Instruments for Environmental Management in Developing Countries’, Prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme’s Consultative Expert Group Meeting on the Use and Application of Economic Policy Instruments for Environmental Management and Sustainable Development, Nairobi, February 23–24, 1995; Environmental Economics Series Paper No. 16; 1–73.Google Scholar

Pallemaerts, M., ‘De opkomst van het begrip duurzame ontwikkeling, het internationaal juridisch en politiek discours: een Conceptuele revolutie’, Recht en kritiek, 1995, Vol. 21, pp. 60–77.Google Scholar

Parpworth, N., ‘Enforcement in Environmental Regulation: The Defra Review’, Environmental Liability, 2007, Vol. 15(1), pp. 15–26.Google Scholar

Partain, R. A., ‘Moerman versus Pierson: The Nexus of Occupancy in Animals Ferae Naturae and Liability in Tort,’ Soongsil Law Review, 2012, Vol. 28, pp. 241–290.Google Scholar

Partain, R., ‘The Legally Pluralistic Tourist’, in Sonnenburg, S. & Wee, D. (eds.), Touring Consumption – Management – Culture – Interpretation, Wiesbaden, Springer VS, 2015, pp. 261–284.Google Scholar

Pashigian, B. P., ‘The Effect of Environmental Regulation on Optimal Plant Size and Factor Shares’, Journal of Law & Economics, 1984, Vol. 27, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Pauly, M., ‘The Economics of Moral Hazard: Comment’, American Economic Review, 1968, Vol. 58, pp. 531–545.Google Scholar

Peeters, M., ‘Emissions Trading as a New Dimension to European Environmental Law: The Political Agreement of the European Council on Greenhouse Gas Allowance Trading’, European Environmental Law Review, 2003, Vol. 12, pp. 82–92.Google Scholar

Peeters, M., ‘Enforcement of the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme’, in Deketelaere, K. & Peeters, M. (eds.), EU Climate Change Policy: The Challenge of New Regulatory Initiatives, Cheltenham UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006a, pp. 169–187.Google Scholar

Peeters, M., ‘Inspection and Market-Based Regulation Through Emissions Trading: The Striking Reliance on Self-Monitoring, Self-Reporting and Verification’, Utrecht Law Review, 2006b, Vol. 2(1), pp. 177–195.Google Scholar

Peeters, M., ‘The Joint Governance of Transboundary River Basins: Some Observations on the Role of Law’, in Faure, M. & Song, Y. (eds.), China and International Environmental Liability: Legal Remedies for Transboundary Pollution, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2008, pp. 192–224.Google Scholar

Peeters, M., ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading in the EU’, in Farber, D. A. & Peeters, M. (eds.), Climate Change Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2016, pp. 377–387.Google Scholar

Pelzman, S., ‘Toward a More General Theory of Regulation’, Journal of Law and Economics, 1976, Vol. 19, pp. 211–240.Google Scholar

Perez, O., ‘Reflections on an Environmental Struggle: P&O, Dahanu and the Regulation of Multinational Enterprises’, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 2002, Vol. 15(1), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

Pernetta, A. P., ‘A Disappearing Drylands Icon? White Rhinoceros Conservation and the Need for Public-Private Partnerships’, Biodiversity, 2014, Vol. 15(2–3), pp. 231–233.Google Scholar

Perron, W., ‘Vermögensstrafe und erweiterte Verfall’, Juristenzeitung, 1993, pp. 919–920.Google Scholar

Pigou, A. C., A Study in Public Finance, London, Macmillan, 1951.Google Scholar

Polak, N. V., ‘Algemene beginselen van rechterlijk overgangsrecht’, Themis, 1984, Vol. 46, pp. 231–244.Google Scholar

Polborn, M. K., ‘Mandatory Insurance and the Judgment Proof Problem’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1998, Vol. 18(2), pp. 141–146.Google Scholar

Polinsky, A. M., ‘Controlling Externalities and Protecting Entitlements: Property Rights, Liability Rule and the Tax-Subsidy Approaches’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1979, Vol. 8, pp. 1–48.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M., Introduction to Law and Economics, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company, 1983.Google Scholar

Polinsky, A. M. & Shavell, S., ‘The Optimal Trade-Off between the Probability and the Magnitude of Fines’, American Economic Review, 1979, Vol. 69, pp. 880–891.Google Scholar

Polinsky, A. M. & Shavell, S., ‘A Note on Optimal Fines When Wealth Varies among Individuals’, American Economic Review, 1991, Vol. 81, pp. 618–621.Google Scholar

Polinsky, A. M. & Shavell, S., ‘Should Employees be Subject to Fines and Imprisonment Given the Existence of Corporate Liability?’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1993, Vol. 13, pp. 239–257.Google Scholar

Pommerehne, W. W., ‘Measuring Environmental Benefits: A Comparison of Hedonic Technique and Contingent Valuation’, in Bös, D., Rose, M., & Seidl, Chr. (eds.), Welfare and Efficiency in Public Economics, Berlin, Springer, 1988, pp. 363–400.Google Scholar

Porter, M., ‘America’s Green Strategy’, Scientific American, 1991, Vol. 264(4), pp. 168–179.Google Scholar

Porter, M. E. & Van der Linde, C., ‘Towards a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1995, Vol. 9, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar

Posner, R., Economic Analysis of Law, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company, 1973.Google Scholar

Posner, R., ‘Theories of Economic Regulation’, Bell Journal of Economics, 1974, Vol. 5(2), pp. 335–358.Google Scholar

Posner, R., ‘Optimal Sentences for White-Collar Criminals’, American Criminal Law Review, 1980, Vol. 17, pp. 400–418.Google Scholar

Posner, R., ‘An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law’, Columbia Law Review, 1985, Vol. 85, pp. 1193–1209.Google Scholar

Posner, R., Economic Analysis of Law, 3rd ed., Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company, 1986.Google Scholar

Posner, R., Economic Analysis of Law, 5th ed., New York, Aspen Law & Business, 1998.Google Scholar

Posner, R., Economic Analysis of Law, 6th ed., New York, Aspen Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar

Posner, R., Economic Analysis of Law, 9th ed., New York, Aspen Publishers, 2014.Google Scholar

Pozzo, B., ‘The Liability Problem in Modern Environmental Statutes’, European Review of Private Law, 1996, Vol. 4(2), pp. 111–144.Google Scholar

Priest, G. L., ‘The Current Insurance Crisis and Modern Tort Law’, Yale Law Journal, 1987, Vol. 96, pp. 1521–1590.Google Scholar

Prieur, M., ‘Le parlement contre l’environnement’, Revue Juridique de l’Environnement, 1977, Vol. 2(2), pp. 131–135.Google Scholar

Prieur, M., Droit de l’Environnement, 6th ed., Paris, Dalloz, 2011.Google Scholar

Princen, S. B. M., ‘The California Effect in the Transatlantic Relationship’, diss., University of Utrecht, 2002, unpublished.Google Scholar

Raja, A. V. & Rathinam, F. X., ‘Economic Efficiency and Public Interest Litigations (PIL): Lessons from India’, paper presented at the first annual conference of the Asian Law and Economics Association 20 (June 25, 2005a) (Asian Law and Econ. Ass’n Conference, Kyung Hee Univ. [S. Korea]).Google Scholar

Raja, A. V. & Rathinam, F. X., ‘Efficiency and Strategic Behaviour: The Case of Mass Torts’ (unpublished working paper, on file with the University of Hyderabad, Dep’t Econ.), 2005b.Google Scholar

Raja, A. V. & Rathinam, F. X., ‘Regulatory Failure and the Economic Efficiency of Public Interest Litigation 22’ (Dec. 8, 2006) (unpublished manuscript, University of Hyderabad) (on file with the Virginia Journal of International Law Association).Google Scholar

Rajamani, L., ‘Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability’, Journal of Environmental Law, 2007, Vol. 19(3), pp. 293–323.Google Scholar

Ranchordás, S., ‘Innovation-Friendly Regulation: The Sunset of Regulation, the Sunrise of Innovation’, Jurimetrics, 2015, Vol. 55(2), pp. 201–224.Google Scholar

Rea, S., ‘The Economics of Insurance Law’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1993, Vol. 13, pp. 145–162.Google Scholar

Rea, S., ‘Insurance Law’, in Newman, P. (ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, London, Macmillan, 1998, pp. 342–348.Google Scholar

Reese, M., ‘The Proximity Principle’, in Krämer, L. & Orlando, E. (eds.), Principles of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2018, pp. 219–233.Google Scholar

Reny, Ph. J., ‘Arrow’s Theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem: A Unified Approach’, Economics Letters, 2001, Vol. 70(1), pp. 99–105.Google Scholar

Revesz, R., ‘Rehabilitating Interstate Competition: Rethinking the Race-for-the-Bottom Rationale for Federal Environmental Regulation’, New York University Law Review, 1992, Vol. 67, pp. 1210–1254.Google Scholar

Revesz, R., ‘Federalism and Environmental Regulation: Lessons for the European Union and the International Community’, Virginia Law Review, 1997a, Vol. 83, pp. 1331–1346.Google Scholar

Revesz, R. L., ‘The Race-to-the-Bottom and Federal Environmental Regulation: A Response to Critics’, Minnesota Law Review, 1997b, Vol. 82, pp. 535–564.Google Scholar

Revesz, R., ‘Environmental Regulation, Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Discounting of Human Lives’, Columbia Law Review, 1999, Vol. 99, pp. 941–1017.Google Scholar

Revesz, R., ‘Federalism and Environmental Regulation: An Overview’, in Revesz, R., Sands, Ph., & Stewart, R. (eds.), Environmental Law: The Economy and Sustainable Development, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 37–79.Google Scholar

Revesz, R. L. & Livermore, M. A., Retaking Rationality: How Cost Benefit Analysis Can Better Protect the Environment and Our Health, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Revesz, R. & Stewart, R. (eds.), Analysing Superfund, Economics, Science and Law, Washington, DC, Resources for the Future, 1995.Google Scholar

Richardson, B. J., Environmental Regulation through Financial Organisations: Comparative Perspectives on the Industrialised Nation, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2002.Google Scholar

Richardson, B. & Chanwai, K., ‘The UK’s Climate Change Levy: Is It Working?’, Journal of Environmental Law, 2003, Vol. 15(1), pp. 39–58.Google Scholar

Richardson, G., Ogus, A., & Burrows, P., Policy Pollution: A Study of Regulation and Enforcement, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1982.Google Scholar

Rizzo, M. & Arnold, F., ‘Causal Apportionment in the Law of Torts: An Economic Theory’, Columbia Law Review, 1980, Vol. 80, pp. 1399–1429.Google Scholar

Rizzo, M. & Arnold, F., ‘Causal Apportionment: Reply to the Critics’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1986, Vol. 15, pp. 219–226.Google Scholar

Robinson, G., ‘Probabilistic Causation and Compensation for Tortuous Risk’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1985, Vol. 14, pp. 779–798.Google Scholar

Rody, M., ‘Public Environmental Law in Germany’, in Seerden, R. & Heldeweg, M., Comparative Environmental Law in Europe, An Introduction to Public Environmental Law in the EU Member States, Antwerp, Maklu, 1996, pp. 151–191.Google Scholar

Romano, C. P. R., The Peaceful Settlement of International Environmental Disputes: A Pragmatic Approach, London, Kluwer Law International, 2000.Google Scholar

Ronneberg, N. J., ‘An Introduction to the Protection and Indemnity Clubs and the Marine Insurance They Provide’, University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, 1990, Vol. 3, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar

Rose, C. M., ‘Surprising Commons’, Brigham Young University Law Review, 2014, Vol. 2014(4), pp. 1257–1282.Google Scholar

Rose-Ackerman, S., ‘Regulation and the Law of Torts’, American Economic Review/Papers & Proceedings, 1991, Vol. 81, pp. 54–58.Google Scholar

Rose-Ackerman, S., ‘Environmental Liability Law’, in Tietenberg, T. H. (ed.), Innovation in Environmental Policy: Economic and Legal Aspects in Recent Developments in Environmental Enforcement and Liability, Brookfield VT, Edward Elgar, 1992a, pp. 223–243.Google Scholar

Rose-Ackerman, S., Re-thinking the Progressive Agenda, the Reform of the American Regulatory State, New York, The Free Press, 1992b.Google Scholar

Rose-Ackerman, S., ‘Law versus Private Law in Environmental Regulation: European Union Proposals in the Light of United States Experience’, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 1995a, Vol. 4, pp. 312–332.Google Scholar

Rose-Ackerman, S., Controlling Environmental Policy: The Limits of Public Law in Germany and the United States, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1995b.Google Scholar

Rose-Ackerman, S., ‘Public Law versus Private Law in Environmental Regulation: European Union Proposals in the Light of United States and German Experiences’, in Eide, E. & Van den Bergh, R. (eds.), Law and Economics of the Environment, Oslo, Juridisk Forlag, 1996, pp. 13–39.Google Scholar

Rosen, H. S., Public Finance, Chicago, Irwin, 1999.Google Scholar

Rosenberg, D., ‘The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A “Public Law” Vision of the Tort System’, Harvard Law Review, 1984, Vol. 97(4), pp. 851–929.Google Scholar

Rousseau, S., ‘Economic Empirical Analysis of Sanctions for Environmental Violations: A Literature Overview’, Energy, Transport & Environmental Working Papers Series, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Economic Studies, Working Paper No. 2007a-03.Google Scholar

Rousseau, S., ‘The Impact of Sanctions and Inspections on Firms’ Environmental Compliance Decisions’, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Economic Studies, Working Paper No. 2007b-04.Google Scholar

Rousseau, S., ‘Timing of Environmental Inspections: Survival of the Compliant’, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 2007c, Vol. 32, pp. 17–36.Google Scholar

Rousseau, S., ‘Evidence of a Filtered Approach to Environmental Monitoring’, European Journal of Law & Economics, 2010, Vol. 29(2), pp. 195–209.Google Scholar

Rowell, A., ‘Time in Cost-Benefit Analysis’, UC Irvine Law Review, 2014, Vol. 4, pp. 1215–1239.Google Scholar

Rutagarama, E. & Martin, A., ‘Partnerships for Protected Area Conservation in Rwanda’, Geographic Journal, 2006, Vol. 172(4), pp. 291–305.Google Scholar

Salzman, J., ‘Teaching Policy Instrument Choice in Environmental Law: The Five P’s’, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 2013, Vol. 23, pp. 363–376.Google Scholar

Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A., & Jenkins, M., ‘The Global Status and Trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services’, Nature Sustainability, 2018, Vol. 1(3), pp. 136–144.Google Scholar

Salzman, J., Ruhl, J. B., & Nash, J. R., ‘Environmental Law in Austerity’, Pace Environmental Law Review, 2015, Vol. 32, pp. 481–491.Google Scholar

Sandmo, A., ‘Environmental Taxation and Revenue for Development’, WIDER Discussion Paper, No. 2003/86, The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), Helsinki, 2003, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Sands, Ph., Principles of International Environmental Law I: Frameworks, Standards and Implementation, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Sands, Ph., Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Sands, Ph. & Peel, J., Principles of International Environmental Law, 3rd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google Scholar

Sathe, S. P., ‘Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience’, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 2001, Vol. 6, pp. 29–107.Google Scholar

Satterthwaite, M. A., ‘Strategy-Proofness and Arrow’s Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare Functions’, Journal of Economic Theory, 1975, Vol. 10(2), pp. 187–217.Google Scholar

Schäfer, H.-B., ‘Efficient Third Party Liability of Auditors in Tort Law and in Contract Law’, Supreme Court Economic Review, 2004, Vol. 12, pp. 181–208.Google Scholar

Schäfer, H.-B., ‘Rules versus Standards in Rich and Poor Countries: Precise Legal Norms as Substitutes for Human Capital in Low-Income Countries’, Supreme Court Economic Review, 2006, Vol. 14, p. 113.Google Scholar

Schäfer, H.-B., ‘Can Member State Liability for the Infringment of European Law Deter National Legislators?’, in Eger, Th. & Schäfer, H.-B. (eds.), Research Handbook on the Economics of European Union Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2012, pp. 82–94.Google Scholar

Schmitz, P. W., ‘On the Joint Use of Liability and Safety Regulation’, International Review of Law and Economics, 2000, Vol. 20, pp. 371–382.Google Scholar

Schoep, G. K. & Schuyt, P. M., Feiten en percepties van de sanctionering van milieudelicten en delicten betreffende de volksgezondheid, Leiden, Universiteit Leiden, 2008.Google Scholar

Schultze, Ch., The Public Use of Private Interest, Washington, DC, The Brookings Institution, 1977.Google Scholar

Schulze, W. & D’Arge, R., ‘The Coase Proposition, Information Constraints, and Long Run Equilibrium’, American Economic Review, 1974, Vol. 64(4), pp. 763–772.Google Scholar

Schwartz, A., ‘Statutory Interpretation, Capture, and Tort Law: The Regulatory Compliance Defence’, American Law and Economics Review, 2000, Vol. 2, pp. 1–57.Google Scholar

Schwartz, G., ‘Mixed Theories of Tort Law: Affirming both Deterrence and Corrective Justice’, Texas Law Review, 1997, Vol. 75, pp. 1801–1834.Google Scholar

Schwartz, P., ‘The Polluter-Pays-Principle’, in Krämer, L. & Orlando, E. (eds.), Principles of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2018, pp. 260–271.Google Scholar

Schwartz, A. & Wilde, L., ‘Intervening in Markets on the Basis of Imperfect Information: A Legal and Economic Analysis’, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 1979, Vol. 127, pp. 630–682.Google Scholar

Seerden, R. & Heldeweg, M., ‘Public Environmental Law in the Netherlands’, in Seerden, R. & Heldeweg, M. (eds.), Comparative Environmental Law in Europe: An Introduction to Public Environmental Law in the EU Member States, Antwerp, Maklu, 1996, pp. 269–311.Google Scholar

Segerson, K., ‘An Assessment of Legal Liability as a Market-Based Instrument’, in Freeman, J. & Kolstad, C. D. (eds.), Moving to Markets in Environmental Regulation: Lessons from Twenty Years of Experience, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 250–270.Google Scholar

Segerson, K. & Tietenberg, T., ‘Defining Efficient Sanctions’, in Tietenberg, T. H. (ed.), Innovation in Environmental Policy, Aldershot, UK/Brockfield, VT, Edward Elgar, 1992, pp. 63–65.Google Scholar

Sellenthin, M. O. & Skogh, G., ‘Property Rights in Endangered Species: The Wolverine Case’, European Journal of Law and Economics, 2004, Vol. 18(2), pp. 239–247.Google Scholar

Shapo, M. S., ‘Tort Law and Environmental Risk’, 1997, Pace Environmental Law Review, Vol. 14(2), pp. 531–544.Google Scholar

Sharon, O., Fishman, S. N., Ruhl, J. B., Olander, L., & Roady, S. E., ‘Ecosystem Services and Judge-Made Law: A Review of Legal Cases in Common Law Countries’, Ecosystem Services, 2018, Vol. 32, pp. 9–21.Google Scholar

Shavell, S., ‘On Moral Hazard and Insurance’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1979, Vol. 14, pp. 541–562.Google Scholar

Shavell, S., ‘Strict Liability versus Negligence’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1980a, Vol. 9(1), pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Shavell, S., ‘An Analysis of Causation and the Scope of Liability in the Law of Torts’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1980b, Vol. 9, pp. 463–516.Google Scholar

Shavell, S., ‘Liability for Harm versus Regulation of Safety’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1984a, Vol. 13, pp. 357–374.Google Scholar

Shavell, S., ‘A Model of the Optimal Use of Liability and Safety Regulation’, Rand Journal of Economics, 1984b, Vol. 15, pp. 271–280.Google Scholar

Shavell, S., ‘Uncertainty over Causation and the Determination of Civil Liability’, Journal of Law and Economics, 1985a, Vol. 28, pp. 587–609.Google Scholar

Shavell, S., ‘Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Non-monetary Sanctions as a Deterrent’, Columbia Law Review, 1985b, Vol. 85, pp. 1232–1262.Google Scholar

Shavell, S., ‘The Judgment Proof Problem’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1986, Vol. 6, pp. 45–58.Google Scholar

Shavell, S., Economic Analysis of Accident Law, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1987.Google Scholar

Shavell, S., Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Shavell, S., ‘The Corrective Tax versus Liability as Solutions to the Problem of Harmful Externalities’, Journal of Law and Economics, 2011, Vol. 54, pp. 250–265.Google Scholar

Shimshack, J. P., ‘Quantitatively Measuring Deterrence: Empirical Tools for Assessing the Impact of Environmental Monitoring and Enforcement Actions’, in Paddock, L. C., Markell, D. L. & Bryner, N. S. (eds.), Compliance and Enforcement of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2017, pp. 221–241.Google Scholar

Siems, M., Comparative Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014.Google Scholar

Sigman, H., ‘Environmental Liability in Practice: Liability for Clean-Up of Contaminated Sites under Superfund’, in Heyes, A. (ed.), The Law and Economics of the Environment, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2001, pp. 116–149.Google Scholar

Silberman, J. & Hindin, D., ‘Effective Environmental Monitoring and Reporting’, in Paddock, L. C., Markell, D. L. & Bryner, N. S. (eds.), Compliance and Enforcement of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2017, pp. 128–140.Google Scholar

Simon, J., ‘Das Umwelthaftungsgesetz’, in Ahrens, M. & Simon, J. (eds.), Umwelthaftung, Risikosteuerung und Versicherung, Berlin, Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1996, pp. 15–26.Google Scholar

Sinclair-Desgagné, B., ‘The Environmental Goods and Services Industry’, International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 2008, Vol. 2(1), pp. 69–99.Google Scholar

Sinden, A., ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis’, in Paddock, L. C., Glicksman, R. L. & Bryner, N. S. (eds.), Decision-Making in Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2016, pp. 295–309.Google Scholar

Sioutis, G., ‘Public Environmental Law in Greece’, in Seerden, R. & Heldeweg, M., (eds.), Comparative Environmental Law in Europe: An Introduction to Public Environmental Law in the EU Member States, Antwerp, Maklu, 1996, pp. 193–211.Google Scholar

Skogh, G., ‘A Note on Gary Becker’s Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’, Swedish Journal of Economics, 1973, Vol. 75, pp. 305–311.Google Scholar

Skogh, G., ‘Public Insurance and Accident Prevention’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1982, Vol. 2, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar

Skogh, G., ‘The Combination of Private and Public Regulation of Safety’, in Faure, M. & Van den Bergh, R. (eds.), Essays in Law and Economics: Corporations, Accident Prevention and Compensation for Losses, Antwerp, Maklu, 1989a, pp. 87–101.Google Scholar

Skogh, G., ‘The Transactions Cost Theory of Insurance: Contracting Impediments and Costs’, Journal of Risk and Insurance, 1989b, Vol. 56, pp. 726–732.Google Scholar

Skogh, G., ‘Mandatory Insurance: Transaction Costs Analysis of Insurance’, in Bouckaert, G. & De Geest, G. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, II: Civil Law and Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2000, pp. 521–537.Google Scholar

Skogh, G. & Stuart, C., ‘An Economic Analysis of Crime Rates, Punishment and the Social Consequences of Crime’, Public Choice, 1982, Vol. 38, pp. 171–179.Google Scholar

Smets, H., ‘Pour une indemnisation garantie des victimes de pollution accidentelle’, in Bocken, H. & Ryckbost, D. (eds.), Insurance of Environmental Damage, Brussels, Story-Scientia, 1991, pp. 397–423.Google Scholar

Smets, H., ‘COSCA: A Complementary System for Compensation of Accidental Pollution Damage’, in Wettenstein, P, (ed.), Harm to the Environment: The Right to Compensation and the Assessment of Damage, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1997, pp. 223–248.Google Scholar

Smettan, J. R., Kriminelle Bereicherung in Abhängigkeit von Gewinnen, Risiken, Strafen und Moral, Freiburg im Breisgau, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, 1992.Google Scholar

Smith, G. P. & Steenburg, D. M., ‘Environmental Hedonism or, Securing the Environment Through the Common Law’, William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review, 2015, Vol. 40, pp. 65–114.Google Scholar

Smith, H. E., ‘Governing Water: The Semicommons of Fluid Property Rights’, Arizona Law Review, 2008, Vol. 50, pp. 445–478.Google Scholar

Söderholm, P., ‘Environmental Policy in Transition Economies: The Effectiveness of Pollution Charges’, Center of Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technbology, Working Paper No. 99-006, 1999.Google Scholar

Spence, M. & Zeckhauser, R., ‘Insurance, Information, and Individual Action’, American Economic Review, 1971, Vol. 61, pp. 380–391.Google Scholar

Spier, J., ‘Verdere verscherping van de aansprakelijkheid van de werkgever voor arbeidsongevallen’, Aansprakelijkheid en Verzekering, 1993, pp. 33–38.Google Scholar

Spier, J., ‘De Novelle inzake art. 47 lid 5 ontwerp inbouwwet bodemsanering’, Aansprakelijkheid en Verzekering, 1994, pp. 43–44.Google Scholar

Spier, J., ‘Asbest en aansprakelijkheid’, in Van Dunné, J. M. (ed.), Asbest en aansprakelijkheid, Arnhem, Gouda Quint, 1995, pp. 35–48.Google Scholar

Spier, J. & Haazen, O., ‘The European Group on Tort Law (“Tilburg Group”) and the European Principles of Tort Law’, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht, 1999, pp. 469–493.Google Scholar

Spier, J. & Sterk, C .H. W. M., ‘The Draft Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment’, Tijdschrift voor Milieu en Recht, 1992, Vol. 591, p. 591.Google Scholar

Stavang, E., ‘Tolerance Limits and Temporal Priority in Environmental civil liability’, paper presented at the 13th annual conference of the European Association of Law and Economics, Haifa, Israel. [A version of this paper was published in the International Review of Law and Economics, 1997, Vol. 17, pp. 553–574.]Google Scholar

Stavang, E., ‘Property in Emissions? Analysis of the Norwegian GHG ETS with References also to the UK and the EU’, Environmental Law and Management, 2005, Vol 17, pp. 209–217.Google Scholar

Steinzor, R. I., ‘Reinventing Environmental Regulation: The Dangerous Journey from Command to Self-Control’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 1998, Vol. 22, pp. 103–202.Google Scholar

Steinzor, R., ‘How Criminal Law Can Help Save the Environment’, Environmental Law, 2016, Vol. 46, pp. 209–239.Google Scholar

Stephan, G., ‘Economic Impact of Emissions Standards: A Computational Approach to Waste Water Treatment in Western Europe’, in Bös, D., Rose, M., & Seidl, Chr. (eds.), Welfare and Efficiency in Public Economics, Berlin, Springer, 1988, pp. 401–422.Google Scholar

Sterk, C. H. W. M., Verhoogd gevaar in het aansprakelijkheidsrecht, diss., KUB, Kluwer, 1994.Google Scholar

Sterner, Th. (ed.), The Market and the Environment: The Effectiveness of Market-Based Policy Instruments for Environmental Reform, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1999.Google Scholar

Sterner, Th. & Hammar, H., ‘Designing Instruments for Climate Policy’, in Hansjürgens, B. (ed.), Emissions Trading for Climate Policy: US and European Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 17–36.Google Scholar

Stewart, R. B., ‘Controlling Environmental Risks through Economic Incentives’, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 1988, Vol. 13, pp. 153–169.Google Scholar

Stewart, R. B., ‘Economic Incentives for Environmental Protection: Opportunities and Obstacles’, in Revesz, R. L., Sands, Ph., & Stewart, R. B. (eds.), Environmental Law, the Economy and Sustainable Development, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 171–244.Google Scholar

Stewart, R. B., ‘Instrument Choice’, in Bodanksy, D., Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 147–181.Google Scholar

Stigler, G., ‘The Economics of Information’, Journal of Political Economics, 1961, Vol. 69, pp. 213–225.Google Scholar

Stigler, G., ‘The Optimum Enforcement of Laws’, Journal of Political Economy, 1970, Vol. 78, pp. 526–536.Google Scholar

Stokey, E. & Zeckhauser, R., A Primer for Policy Analysis, New York, Norton, 1978.Google Scholar

Stone, Chr. D., Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment, 3rd ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar

Strand, J., ‘Environmental Kuznets Curves: Empirical Relationships between Environmental Quality and Economic Development’, March 2002, Memorandum No. 04/2002, Department of Economics, University of Oslo, available at: www.oekonomi.uio.no/memo.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R., ‘Behavioural Analysis of Law’, University of Chicago Law Review, 1997, Vol. 64, pp. 1175–1195.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R., ‘Behavioural Law and Economics: A Progress Report’, American Law and Economics Review, 1999, Vol. 1(1), pp. 115–157.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. (ed.), Behavioural Law and Economics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. & Pildes, R. H., ‘Reinventing the Regulatory State’, The University of Chicago Law Review, 1995, Vol. 62(1), pp. 3–129.Google Scholar

Svatikova, K., Economic Criteria for Criminalisation: Optimizing Enforcement in Case of Environmental Violations, diss. Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Law, 2011.Google Scholar

Svendsen, G. T., Public Choice and Environmental Regulation: Tradable Permit Systems in the United States and CO₂ Taxation in Europe, Cheltenham UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, 1998.Google Scholar

Thomas, T., ‘Introduction, Symposium: Remedies for Big Disasters: The BP Gulf Oil Spill and the Quest for Complete Justice’, Akron Law Review, 2012, Vol. 45, pp. 567, 570.Google Scholar

Thommes, K., Faure, M. G., & Heine, K., ‘The Internal Market and the Consumer: What Consumers Actually Choose’, The Columbia Journal of European Law, 2014, Vol. 21(1), pp. 47–70.Google Scholar

Tiebout, C., ‘A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures’, Journal of Political Economy, 1956, Vol. 64(5), pp. 416–424.Google Scholar

Tietenberg, H., ‘Indivisible Toxic Torts: The Economics of Joint and Several Liability’, Land Economics, 1989, Vol. 65(4), pp. 305–319.Google Scholar

Tietenberg, T., Environmental and National Resource Economics, Reading, Addison-Wesley, 2000.Google Scholar

Tietenberg, Th. & Johnston, M., ‘Ex Post Evaluation of Marketable Permits: Methodological Issues and Literature Review’, in Tradable Permits: Policy Evaluation, Design and Reform, Paris, OECD, 2004, pp. 9–44.Google Scholar

Tolley, G. S., Graves, P. H. F., & Blonquist, G. C., Environmental Policy: Elements of Environmental Analysis, Vol. I, Cambridge, Ballinger Publishing Company, 1981.Google Scholar

Totenberg, N., ‘Supreme Court Weighs Exxon Valdez Damages’, NPR, 27 February 2008.Google Scholar

Toy, Ch. R. & Leffler, A. M., ‘Criminal Enforcement of Environmental Law’, Michigan Bar Journal, 2001, Vol. 80(12), pp. 21–23.Google Scholar

Trabucchi, C. & Patton, L., ‘Storing Carbon: Options for Liability Risk Management, Financial Responsibility’, World Climate Change Report, Bureau of National Affairs 5, 2008.Google Scholar

Trebilcock, M. J., ‘The Social Insurance-Deterrence Dilemma of Modern North American Tort Law: A Canadian Perspective on the Liability Insurance Crisis’, San Diego Law Review, 1987, Vol. 24, pp. 929–1002.Google Scholar

Trebilcock, M. & Howse, R., ‘Trade Liberalization and Regulatory Diversity: Reconciling Competitive Markets with Competitive Politics’, European Journal of Law and Economics, 1998, Vol. 6, pp. 5–37.Google Scholar

Trebilcock, M. & Winter, R.A., ‘The Economics of Nuclear Accident Law’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1997, Vol. 17(2), pp. 215–243.Google Scholar

Turner, R. K., Pearce, D., & Bateman, I., Environmental Economics: An Elementary Introduction, New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994.Google Scholar

Tyran, J.-R. & Zweifel, P., ‘Environmental Risk Internalization through Capital Markets (ERICAM): The Case of Nuclear Power’, International Review of Law and Economics, 1993, Vol. 13, pp. 431–444.Google Scholar

Van, A. J., Onzekerheid over daderschap en causaliteit: drie visies op civielrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid, diss., Arnhem, Gouda Quint, 1995.Google Scholar

Van Acht, R. J. J., ‘Onrechtmatige hinder’, Milieu en Recht, 1993, pp. 220–228.Google Scholar

Van Boom, W. H., Lukas, M., & Kissling, Chr. (eds.), Tort Law and Regulatory Law, Vienna, Springer, 2007.Google Scholar

Van Dam, C., ‘European Tort Law and the Many Cultures of Europe’, in Wilhelmsson, Th. (ed.), Private Law and the Cultures of Europe, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2007, pp. 53–76.Google Scholar

Van den Bergh, R., ‘Belgian Public Policy towards the Retailing Trade’, in Graf von den Schulenburg, J. M. & Skogh, G. (eds.), Law and Economics and the Economics of Legal Regulation, Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 1986, pp. 185–205.Google Scholar

Van den Bergh, R., ‘Le droit civil face à l’analyse économique du droit’, Revue Internationale de Droit Economique, 1988, pp. 229–254.Google Scholar

Van den Bergh, R., ‘Subsidiariteit rechtseconomisch bekeken. Adieu Bruxelles?’ (1994): An English summary of this inauguration address has been published at Van den Bergh, R., ‘The Subsidiarity Principle in European Community Law’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 1994, Vol. 1(4), pp. 337–366.Google Scholar

Van den Bergh, R., ‘Subsidiarity as an Economic Demarcation Principle and the Emergence of European Private Law’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 1998, Vol. 5(2), pp. 129–152.Google Scholar

Van den Bergh, R., ‘Economics in a Legal Strait-Jacket: The Difficult Reception of Economic Analysis in European Law’ (paper presented at the workshop Empirical Research and Legal Realism. Setting the Agenda, Haifa, Israel, 6–9 June 1999).Google Scholar

Van den Bergh, R., ‘Towards an Institutional Legal Framework for Regulatory Competition in Europe’, Kyklos, 2000, Vol. 53, pp. 435–466.Google Scholar

Van den Bergh, R., ‘Farewell Utopia? Why the European Union Should Take the Economics of Federalism Seriously’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 2016, Vol. 23(6), pp. 937–964.Google Scholar

Van den Bergh, R., Faure, M. G. & Lefevere, J., ‘The Subsidiarity Principle in European Environmental Law: An Economic Analysis’, in Eide, E. & Van den Bergh, R. (eds.), Law and Economics of the Environment, Oslo, Juridisk Forlag, 1996, pp. 121–166.Google Scholar

Vanden Borre, T., ‘Transplantatie van “kanalisatie van aansprakelijkheid” van het kernenergierecht naar het milieu(aansprakelijkheids)recht: een goede of een gebrekkige zaak?’, in Faure, M. & Deketelaere, K. (eds.), Ius Commune en Milieurecht. Actualia in het Milieurecht in België en Nederland, Antwerp, Intersentia, 1997, pp. 329–382.Google Scholar

Vanden Borre, T., ‘Channelling of Liability: A Few Juridical and Economic Views on an Inadequate Legal Construction’, in Horbach, N. (ed.), Contemporary Developments in Nuclear Energy Law, Harmonising Legislation in CEEC/NIS, Alphen a/d Rijn, Kluwer Law International, 1999, pp. 13–28.Google Scholar

Vanden Borre, T., Efficiënte preventie en compensatie van catastroferisico’s: het voorbeeld van schade door kernongevallen, Antwerp, Intersentia, 2001.Google Scholar

Vanden Borre, T., ‘Shifts in Governance in Compensation for Nuclear Damage, 20 Years after Tchernobyl’, in Faure, M. & Verheij, A. (eds.), Shifts in Compensation for Environmental Damage, Vienna, Springer, 2007, pp. 261–308.Google Scholar

Van den Heuvel, G., ‘Corporate Crimes in East and West: In Search of Collusion’, in Strang, H. & Vernon, J. (eds.), International Trends in Crime: East Meets West, Canberra, AIC, 1982, pp. 121–136.Google Scholar

Van Dunné, J. M. (ed.), Transboundary Pollution and Liability: The Case of the River Rhine, Lelystad, Vermande, 1991.Google Scholar

Van Dunné, J. M., ‘Het Schelde-arrest en aansprakelijkheid voor asbest’, in Van Dunné, J. M. (ed.), Asbest en aansprakelijkheid, Arnhem, Gouda Quint, 1995, pp. 19–34.Google Scholar

Van Dunné, J. M. (ed.), Non-point Source River Pollution: The Case of the River Meuse, London, Kluwer Law International, 1996.Google Scholar

Van Dunné, J. M. & Snijder, E. E. I., ‘Asbest en aansprakelijkheid’, Tijdschrift voor Milieuaansprakelijkheid, 1991, pp. 60–71.Google Scholar

Van Rooy, B., Regulating Land and Pollution in China: Law Making, Compliance, and Enforcement; Theory and Cases, Leiden, Leiden University Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Van Zeben, J. A. W., ‘The Untapped Potential of Horizontal Private Enforcement Within European Environmental Law’, The Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 2010, Vol. 22, pp. 241–269.Google Scholar

Van Zeben, J., ‘Regulatory Competence Allocation: The Missing Link in Theories of Federalism’, Law, Institutions and Economics in Nanterre Workshop, Paris, France, 2012, Vol. 11, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar

Van Zeben, J., ‘Subsidiarity in European Environmental Law: A Competence Allocation Approach’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 2014, Vol. 38, pp. 415–464.Google Scholar

Veljanovski, C. G., ‘The Economic Theory of Tort Liability – Toward a Corrective Justice Approach’, in Burrows, P. & Veljanovski, C. G. (eds.), The Economic Approach to Law, London, Butterworths, 1981, pp. 125–150.Google Scholar

Veljanovski, C. G., The New Law and Economics: A Research Review, Oxford, Centre for Social Legal Studies, 1982.Google Scholar

Verheij, A., ‘Shifts in Governance: Oil Pollution’, in Faure, M. & Verheij, A. (eds.), Shifts in Compensation for Environmental Damage, Vienna, Springer, 2007, pp. 133–196.Google Scholar

Verschuuren, J., Het grondrecht op bescherming van het leefmilieu, Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink, 1993.Google Scholar

Verschuuren, J., ‘Naar een codificatie van beginselen van het milieurecht’, Recht en kritiek, 1995, Vol. 21, pp. 421–445.Google Scholar

Victor, D. G., The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Viscusi, W. K., ‘Frameworks for Analyzing the Effects of a Risk and Environmental Regulations on Productivity’, American Economic Review, 1983, Vol. 73, pp. 793–801.Google Scholar

Viscusi, W. K., ‘Towards a Diminished Role for Tort Liability: Social Insurance, Government Regulation and Contemporary Risks to Health and Safety’, Yale Journal on Regulation, 1989, Vol. 6, pp. 65–107.Google Scholar

Viscusi, W. K., ‘The Dimensions of the Product Liability Crisis’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1991, Vol. 20, pp. 147–177.Google Scholar

Vogel, D., Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in the Global Economy, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Vogel, D., ‘Environmental Regulation and Economic Integration’, in Esty, D. C. & Geradin, D. (eds.), Regulatory Competition and Economic Integration. Comparative Perspectives, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 330–347.Google Scholar

Vogel, D., ‘Trade and the Environment in the Global Economy’, in Vig, N. J. & Faure, M. G. (eds.), Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2004, pp. 231–252.Google Scholar

Vogenauer, S. & Weatherill, S., ‘The European Community’s Competence to Pursue the Harmonisation of Contract Law – An Empirical Contribution to the Debate’, in Vogenauer, S. & Weatherill, S. (eds.), The Harmonisation of European Contract Law, Oxford, Hart, 2006, pp. 105–148.Google Scholar

Voinov-Kohler, J., ‘The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal’, in Fitzmaurice, M., Tanzy, A. & Papantoniou, A. (eds.), Multilateral Environmental Treaties, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2017, pp. 331–342.Google Scholar

Wagner, G., ‘Die Aufgaben des Haftungsrechts – eine Untersuchung am Beispiel des Umwelthaftungsrechts – Reform’, Juristen Zeitung, 1991a, Vol. 46(4), pp. 175–183.Google Scholar

Wagner, G., ‘Umwelthaftung und Versicherung’, Versicherungsrecht, 1991b, pp. 249–260.Google Scholar

Wagner, G., ‘Die Zukunft der Umwelthaftpflichtversicherung’, Versicherungsrecht, 1992, pp. 261–272.Google Scholar

Wagner, G., ‘Umwelthaftung und Versicherung’, in Ahrens, M. & Simon, J. (eds.), Umwelthaftung, Risikosteuerung und Versicherung, Berlin, Erich Schmidt, 1996, pp. 97–146.Google Scholar

Wagner, G., ‘Tort Law and Liability Insurance’, in Faure, M. (ed.), Tort Law and Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2009, pp. 377–405.Google Scholar

Wang, H., Civil Liability for Marine Oil Pollution Damage: A Comparative and Economic Study of the International, U.S. & Chinese Compensation Regime, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2011.Google Scholar

Wansink, J. H., ‘Het DES-arrest in het perspectief van verzekerbare slachtofferbescherming’, Aansprakelijkheid & Verzekering, 1993, pp. 7–12.Google Scholar

Weishaar, S., ‘CO₂ Emission Allowance Allocation Mechanisms, Allocative Efficiency and the Environment: A Static and Dynamic Perspective’, European Journal of Law and Economics, 2007a, Vol. 24(1), pp. 29–70.Google Scholar

Weishaar, S., ‘The European CO₂ Emission Trading System and State Aid: An Assessment of the Grandfathering Allocation Method and the Performance Standard Rate System’, European Competition Law Review, 2007b, Vol. 28(6), pp. 371–381.Google Scholar

Wessels, B., ‘Zorgen om morgen: beheersing van beroepsaansprakelijkheid in discussie’, Nederlands Juristenblad, 1995a, p. 235.Google Scholar

Wessels, B., Risicobeheer bij preadvisering, Preadvies Ne Voa, Deventer, Law & Practice Publishers, 1995b.Google Scholar

Wheeler, N., ‘The Use of Criminal Statutes to Regulate Product Safety’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1984, Vol. 13, pp. 593–622.Google Scholar

Widmer, P., ‘Switzerland’, in Koch, B. A. & Koziol, H. (eds.), Unification of Tort Law: Strict Liability, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2002, pp. 323–350.Google Scholar

Wiener, J., ‘Global Environmental Regulation: Instrument Choice in Legal Context’, Yale Law Journal, 1999, Vol. 108, pp. 677–800.Google Scholar

Wiener, J. B., ‘Precautionary Principle’, in Krämer, L. & Orlando, E. (eds.), Principles of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2018, pp. 174–185.Google Scholar

Wilde, M., Civil Liability for Environmental Damage: A Comparative Analysis of Law and Policy in Europe and the United States, The Hague/London, Kluwer Law International, 2002.Google Scholar

Wils, W. P. J., ‘Insurance Risk Classifications in the EC: Regulatory Outlook’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1994, Vol. 14, pp. 449–467.Google Scholar

Wilson, E. J., Klass, A. B.; & Bergan, S., ‘Assessing a Liability Regime for Carbon Capture and Storage’, Energy Procedia, 2009, Vol. 1(1), pp. 4575–4582.Google Scholar

Winter, G. (ed.), Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change: Perspectives from Science, Sociology and the Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Winter, G., ‘The Climate Is No Commodity: Taking Stock of the Emissions Trading Community Scheme’, Journal of Environmental Law, 2009, Vol. 22(1), pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Wittman, D., ‘First Come, First Served: An Economic Analysis of “Coming to Nuisance”’, Journal of Legal Studies, 1980, Vol. 9(3), pp. 557–568.Google Scholar

Woerdman, E., The Institutional Economics of Market-Based Climate Policy, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2004.Google Scholar

Woerdman, E., Clo, S., & Arcuri, A., ‘European Emissions Trading and the Polluter Pays Principle: Assessing Grandfathering and Over-Allocation’, in Faure, M. & Peeters, M. (eds.), Climate Change and European Emissions Trading: Lessons for Theory and Practice, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2008a, pp. 128–150.Google Scholar

Woerdman, E., Arcuri, A., & Clò, S., ‘Emissions Trading and the Polluter-Pays Principle: Do Polluters Pay under Grandfathering?’, Review of Law & Economics, 2008b, Vol. 4(2), pp. 565–590.Google Scholar

Wong, H. & Wheeler, D., ‘Financial Incentives and Endogenous Enforcement in China’s Pollution Levy System’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2005, Vol. 49(1), pp. 174–196.Google Scholar

Wood, C., Planning Pollution Prevention: A Comparison of Siting Controls over Air Pollution in Great Britain and the United States, Oxford, Heinemann Newnes, 1989.Google Scholar

Wurzel, R. K. W., Zito, A. R., & Jordan, A. J., Environmental Governance in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of New Environmental Policy Instruments, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2013.Google Scholar

Xing, Y. & Kolstad, Ch. D., ‘Do Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment?’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 1995, Vol. 21, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

Xu, G. & Faure, M. G., ‘Explaining the Failure of Environmental Law in China’, Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 2016, Vol. 29(2), 1–95.Google Scholar

Yang, T., ‘The Emergence of the Environmental Impact Assessment Duty as a Global Legal Norm and General Principle of Law’, Hastings Law Journal, 2019, Vol. 70(2), 525–572.Google Scholar

Yohe, G., ‘Pollutors’ Profits and Political Response: Direct Control versus Taxes: Comment’, American Economic Review, 1976, Vol. 66, pp. 981–982.Google Scholar

Yoshida, R., ‘GE Plan Followed with Inflexibility’, Japan Times, 14 July 2011, available at: www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/07/14/news/ge-plan-followed-with-inflexibility/#.VowMH5MrLVo.Google Scholar

Zhu, L., ‘International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001: Liability and Insurance Aspects’, in Basedow, J. & Magnus, U. (eds.), Pollution of the Sea: Prevention and Compensation, Berlin, Springer Verlag, 2007, pp. 171–180.Google Scholar

Zweigert, K. & Kötz, H., Introduction to Comparative Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Book contents

References

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive