Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:58:01.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evolution of Transnational Environmental Law: Four Cases in Historical Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2012

Peter H. Sand
Peter H. Sand*
Affiliation:
Institute of International Law, University of Munich, Germany. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay places transnational environmental law in an epistemological context. Starting from the general concept of ‘transnational law’ and the specific environmental dimension of ‘international administrative law’, four case histories are presented to illustrate the integrant approach of transnational environmental law. The cases – all arising in the 1970s – deal with transboundary problems of aircraft noise, ocean dumping, river pollution, and marine protected areas. In addition to traditional aspects of public international law in the environmental field, they typically interface with questions of administrative law, private international law, criminal law, and human rights law. The essay advocates a new focus on mechanisms for participation by civil society in the operation and implementation of transnational environmental law.

Keywords

Transnational LawPublic ParticipationAircraft NoiseOcean DumpingRiver PollutionMarine Protected Areas
Type
Commentary
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , April 2012 , pp. 183 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

1 Jessup, P., Transnational Law (Yale University Press, 1956), at p. 2.Google Scholar

2 Steiner, H.J. & Vagts, D.F., Transnational Legal Problems (1st edn, Foundation Press, 1968), p. xi.Google Scholar

3 Steiner, H.J., ‘Constructing and Developing Transnational Law: The Contribution of Detlev Vagts’, in Bekker, P.H.E. et al. . (eds.), Making Transnational Law Work in the Global Economy: Essays in Honour of Detlev Vagts (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 10–16, at 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 D. Kalderimis, ‘Is Transnational Law Eclipsing International Law?’, ibid., pp. 93–107, at 101.

5 See Hale, T.N. & Held, D. (eds.), Handbook of Transnational Governance: Institutions and Innovations (Polity Press, 2011)Google Scholar; see also Slaughter, A.M. & Hale, T.N., ‘Transgovernmental Networks and Multilevel Governance’, in Enderlein, H. et al. . (eds.), Handbook on Multi-Level Governance (Edward Elgar, 2010), pp. 358–69.Google Scholar

6 Walker, G., Internationales Privatrecht (Österreichische Staatsdruckerei, 1934), p. 13.Google Scholar

7 See Gaillard, E., ‘Transnational Law: A Legal System or a Method of Decision Making?’, in Berger, K.P. (ed.), The Practice of Transnational Law (Kluwer Law International, 2001), pp. 53–65.Google Scholar

8 See Editorial, , ‘Developments in the Law: International Environmental Law’ (1991) 104 Harvard Law Review, pp. 1484–639, at 1489.Google Scholar

9 Declaration on the Human Environment, Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm (Sweden), 5–16 June 1972, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 vol. I (1973), p. 5 (German translation in (1972) 20 Vereinte Nationen, p. 109).

10 See, e.g., Beyerlin, U., Umweltvölkerrecht (Beck Verlag, 2000)Google Scholar; Epiney, A. & Scheyli, M., Umweltvölkerrecht (Stämpfli Verlag, 2000)Google Scholar; and, for an early critique, Stoll, P.T. & Schillhorn, K., ‘Das völkerrechtliche Instrumentarium und transnationale Anstösse im Recht der natürlichen Lebenswelt’ (1998) 20 Natur und Recht, pp. 625–32.Google Scholar

11 See, e.g., Romano, C.P.R., The Peaceful Settlement of International Environmental Disputes: A Pragmatic Approach (Kluwer Law International, 2000), at p. 14.Google Scholar

12 Notable exceptions are McCaffrey, S.C., Private Remedies for Transfrontier Environmental Disturbances (IUCN, 1975)Google Scholar; and Siehr, K., ‘Grenzüberschreitender Umweltschutz: europäische Erfahrungen mit einem weltweiten Problem’ (1981) 45 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, pp. 377–98.Google Scholar

13 McCaffrey, S.C., ‘Liability for Transfrontier Environmental Harm: The Relationship between Public and Private International Law’, in von Bar, C. (ed.), Internationales Umwelthaftungsrecht, vol. I (Carl Heymanns Verlag, 1995), pp. 81–104, at 83.Google Scholar

14 Neumeyer, K., Internationales Verwaltungsrecht, vol. 2 (Schweitzer Verlag, 1922).Google Scholar

15 Neumeyer, K., Internationales Verwaltungsrecht, vol. 1 (Schweitzer Verlag, 1910)Google Scholar; see Walker, n. 6 above, at p. 15.

16 Neumeyer, K., ‘Le droit administratif international’ (1911) 18 Revue Générale de Droit International Public, p. 492–99.Google Scholar

17 Neumeyer, K., Internationales Verwaltungsrecht, vol. 4 (Verlag für Recht und Gesellschaft, 1936).Google Scholar

18 See Vogel, K., ‘Karl Neumeyer: In den Tod getrieben’, in Landau, P. & Nehlsen, H. (eds.), Grosse jüdische Gelehrte an der Münchener Juristischen Fakultät (Aktiv Verlag, 2001), pp. 97–111.Google Scholar

19 See Kingsbury, B. et al. ., ‘The Emergence of Global Administrative Law’ (2005) 68 Law and Contemporary Problems, pp. 15–61.Google Scholar

20 Durner, W., ‘Internationales Umweltverwaltungsrecht’, and M. Rossi, ‘Europäisiertes internationales Umweltverwaltungsrecht’, in Möllers, C. et al. . (eds.), Internationales Verwaltungsrecht: Eine Analyse anhand von Referenzgebieten (Mohr Siebeck Verlag, 2007), pp. 121–64 and 165–80.Google Scholar

21 Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada) (1941) 3 UN Reports on International Arbitration Awards 1911, (1941) 35 American Journal of International Law, p. 684.

22 British South Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambique [1893] AC 602.

23 See Read, J.E., ‘The Trail Smelter Dispute’ (1963) 1 Canadian Yearbook of International Law, pp. 213–39, at 223.Google Scholar

24 See Knox, J.J., ‘The Flawed Trail Smelter Procedure: The Wrong Tribunal, the Wrong Parties, and the Wrong Law’, in Bratspies, R.M. & Miller, R.A. (eds.), Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 66–78.Google Scholar For a recent follow up case decided in a US federal court, see Pakootas v. Teck COMINCO Metal Ltd., US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (3 July 2006), 452 F. 3rd 1066; van de Kerkhof, M., ‘The Trail Smelter Case Re-examined: Examining the Development of National Procedural Mechanisms to Resolve a Trail Smelter Type Dispute’ (2011) 27 Merkourios: Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, pp. 68–83.Google Scholar

25 Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken, 22 Oct. 1957, (1958) 11 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, p. 752 (English summary in Sand, P.H., Transnational Environmental Law: Lessons in Global Change (Kluwer Law International, 1999), at pp. 89–90).Google Scholar

26 Annex 8, Art. 8, Franco-German Treaty for the Settlement of the Question of the Saar, Luxemburg, 27 Oct. 1956, 1053 UNTS 3; and the Implementation Protocol, Paris (France), 20 Dec. 1961, 1053 UNTS 511.

27 Winter, G. (ed.), Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change: Perspectives from Science, Sociology and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; S. Wälti, ‘Multi-Level Environmental Governance’, in Enderlein, n. 5 above, pp. 411–22.

28 Verwaltungsgerichtshof 30 May 1969, (1969) 24 Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verwaltungsgerichtshofs, p. 264 (English summary in Sand, n. 25 above, at pp. 90–2).

29 Verfassungsgerichtshof 10 Oct. 1969, (1969) 34 Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofs 681.

30 Kaiserlicher und Königlicher Verwaltungsgerichtshof 1 March 1913, (1913) 7 Niemeyer’s Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, p. 56 (English translation in (1913) 7 American Journal of International Law, p. 653).

31 Schreuer, C.H., ‘Zur verwaltungs- und völkerrechtlichen Problematik des Salzburger Flughafenfalles’ (1971) 26 Oesterreichische Juristenzeitung, pp. 542–45, at 544 (völkerrechtsfeindlich).Google Scholar

32 See, e.g. Verwaltungsgerichtshof 29 Jan. 1991 (English summary by G. Loibl in (1993) 44 Austrian Journal of Public and International Law, p. 243) (denying standing to a foreign environmental agency in hearings for hydropower development on the Austro-Slovenian border).

33 See the OECD recommendations at n. 98 below.

34 Council of Europe, Madrid (Spain), 21 May 1980, 1272 UNTS 61; see U. Beyerlin, ‘Dezentrale grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit als transnationales Rechtsphänomen’ (1989) 27 Archiv des Völkerrechts, pp. 286–327.

35 Bundesverwaltungsgericht 17 Dec. 1986, (1988) 48 Heidelberg Journal of International Law, p. 42.

36 Rauschning, D., ‘Klagebefugnis von Auslandsbewohnern gegen eine inländische Atomanlagengenehmigung’ (1987) 25 Archiv des Völkerrechts, pp. 312–32.Google Scholar

37 Bundesverwaltungsgericht 16 Oct. 2008, (2009) 34 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, p. 452; and Oberverwaltungsgericht Lüneburg 1 Aug. 2011, (2011) 36 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, p. 1073.

38 Agreement concerning the Effects on the Territory of the Federal Republic of Germany of Construction and Operation of the Salzburg Airport, Vienna (Austria), 19 Dec. 1967, 945 UNTS 87; see Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., ‘À propos des nuisances dues aux aéroports limitrophes: le cas de Salzbourg et le traité austro-allemand du 19 décembre 1967’ (1973) 19 Annuaire Français de Droit International, pp. 890–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Art. 2 of the German Ratification Act of 9 Jan. 1974, [1974] Bundesgesetzblatt II, p. 13.

40 Art. VIII(5), Status of Forces Agreement, London (UK), 19 June 1951, 199 UNTS 67; see Kiss, A.C. & Lambrechts, C.C., ‘Les dommages causés au sol par les vols supersoniques’ (1970) 16 Annuaire Français de Droit International, pp. 769–81, at 771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Art. II, Treaty relating to the Boundary Waters and Questions Arising along the Boundary between the United States and Canada, Washington, DC (US), 11 Jan. 1909, (1910) 36 Statutes at Large 2448 (emphasis added).

42 Pretura di Livorno 27 Apr. 1974 (English summary in (1977) 3 Italian Yearbook of International Law, p. 294, and in Sand, n. 25 above, at pp. 92–4); see Kiss, A.C., ‘Un cas de pollution internationale: l’affaire des boues rouges’ (1975) 102 Journal du Droit International, pp. 207–48, at 237.Google Scholar

43 Tribunale di Livorno 7 July 1976, (1976) 128 Giurisprudenza Italiana, p. 624 (English translation in (1997) 3 Italian Yearbook of International Law, p. 298).

44 Prud’hommie des Pêcheurs de Bastia c. Montedison Co. et SIBIT S.p.a., Cour de Cassation 3 Apr. 1978, (1978) Recueil Sirey-Dalloz II, p. 367.

45 Tribunal de Grande Instance (Bastia, 2ème chambre civile) 4 July 1985, (1987) 112 Foro Italiano IV, p. 499.

46 Cour de Cassation, n. 44 above.

47 Procuratura c. Maltese e Turli, Corte di Cassazione (Sezioni Unite) 25 Jan. 1989, (1990) 115 Foro Italiano I, p. 232; reversing Corte dei Conti (Sezioni Riunite) of 16 June 1984, (1985) 110 Foro Italiano III, p. 37.

48 Bianchi, A., ‘Harm to the Environment in Italian Practice: The Interaction of International and Domestic Law’, in Wetterstein, P. (ed.), Harm to the Environment: The Right to Compensation and the Assessment of Damage (Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 103–29, at 104–5.Google Scholar

49 Directive 78/176/EEC on Waste from the Titanium Dioxide Industry [1978] OJ L54/19.

50 Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, Barcelona (Spain), 16 Feb. 1976, in force 12 Feb. 1978; since amended as Protocol for the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft or Incineration at Sea, Barcelona (Spain), 10 June 1995, not yet in force, both available at: http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&catid=001001001.

51 Barcelona (Spain), 16 Feb. 1976, in force 12 Feb. 1978, 1102 UNTS 92; amended as: Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, Barcelona (Spain), 10 June 1995, in force 9 July 2004, available at: http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&catid=001001004.

52 N. 50 above, Annex I(A) para. 8 (subject to further negotiations on specific thresholds).

53 See http://www.sec.gov/answers/form10k.htm.

54 See http://www.iso.org/iso_14000_essentials.

55 See http://www.responsiblecare.org.

56 Case 21/76, Bier Co. and Reinwater Foundation v. Mines de Potasse d’Alsace [1976] ECR I-1735.

57 The Foundation had to withdraw from the case after being denied standing in an interim decision by the Rotterdam District Court on 8 Jan. 1979: see Siehr, n. 12 above, at 381.

58 The ICPR was established by the Agreement on the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine against Pollution, Bern (Switzerland), 29 Apr. 1963, in force 1 May 1965, 994 UNTS 3, as amended (see nn. 65 and 69 below); see C. Dieperink, ‘International Water Negotiations under Asymmetry: Lessons from the Rhine Chlorides Dispute Settlement’ (2011) 11 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, pp. 139–57, at 145–47.

59 Brussels (Belgium), 27 Sept. 1968, in force 1 Feb. 1973, [1972] OJ L299/32. The Convention has since been replaced by the EU Regulations ‘Brussels-I’ and ‘Rome-II’, respectively Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001, [2001] OJ L12/1; and Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007, [2007] OJ L199/40. von Hein, See J. & Wolf, C.U., ‘Transboundary Environmental Damage in the Conflict of Laws’, in Wolfrum, R. et al. . (eds.), Environmental Liability in International Law: Towards a Coherent Conception (Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2005), pp. 381–454Google Scholar; and Dickinson, A., The Rome-II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Oxford University Press, 2008, Supplement 2010).Google Scholar

60 Case 21/76, n. 56 above. Jessurun d’Oliveira, H.U., ‘La pollution du Rhin et le droit international privé’, in Hueting, R. et al. . (eds.), Rhine Pollution: Legal, Economic and Technical Aspects (Tjeenk Willink, 1978), pp. 81–127.Google Scholar

61 Bier, Strik, and Valstar Gardening Companies v. Mines Domaniales de Potasse d’Alsace S.A. (MDPA), Hoge Raad, 23 Sept. 1988 (English translation in (1990) 21 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, p. 443); see Nollkaemper, A., ‘Judicial Application of International Environmental Law in the Netherlands’ (1998) 7 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, pp. 40–6, at 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 Rest, A., ‘Internationaler Umweltschutz vor Verwaltungs-, Zivil- und Strafgerichten: Der niederländisch-französische Rheinverschmutzungsprozess’ (1985) 35 Austrian Journal of Public International Law, pp. 225–63Google Scholar, at 228–49.

63 See Romy, I., Les pollutions transfrontières des eaux: l’exemple du Rhin, moyens d’action des lésés (Payot, 1990).Google Scholar

64 See Wilhelm, A., ‘Grenzüberschreitende Umweltverschmutzung und Haftung: Der Fall “Rhein”’ (1991) 13 Natur und Recht, pp. 115–52.Google Scholar

65 Bonn (Germany), 3 Dec. 1976, in force 5 July 1985, 1404 UNTS 59.

66 Kiss, A., ‘The Protection of the Rhine against Pollution’ (1985) 25 Natural Resources Journal, pp. 613–37.Google Scholar

67 Brussels (Belgium), 25 Sept. 1991, in force 1 Nov. 1994, 1840 UNTS 423. See T. Bernauer, ‘The International Financing of Environmental Protection: Lessons from Efforts to Protect the River Rhine against Chloride Pollution’ (1995) 4 Environmental Politics, pp. 369–90.

68 Mcmahon, B. (ed.), The Rhine Chlorides Arbitration Concerning the Auditing of Accounts (Netherlands-France), PCA Award Series, vol. 4 (Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2008).Google Scholar

69 Bern (Switzerland), 12 Apr. 1999, in force 1 Jan. 2003, [2000] OJ L 289/31; Nollkaemper, A., ‘The Evolution of the Regime for the River Rhine’, in Subedi, S. (ed.), International Watercourses Law for the 21st Century: The Case of the River Ganges Basin (Ashgate, 2005), pp. 151–66.Google Scholar

70 Helsinki (Finland), 17 Mar. 1992, in force 6 Oct. 1996, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/water. See Reichert, G., Der nachhaltige Schutz grenzüberschreitender Gewässer in Europa: Die Entstehung eines völker- und europarechtlichen Umweltregimes (Duncker & Humblot, 2005).Google Scholar

71 [2000] OJ L327/1.

72 Chagos Islanders v. United Kingdom, Application No. 35622/04 (20 Feb. 2009), [2009] ECHR 410.

73 Background documents can be found in Sand, P.H., United States and Britain in Diego Garcia: The Future of a Controversial Base (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), pp. 69–121.Google Scholar See also Snoxell, D.R., ‘Anglo/American Complicity in the Removal of the Inhabitants of the Chagos Islands’ (2009) 37 Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, pp. 127–34Google Scholar; and Vine, D.S., Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base in Diego Garcia (rev’d. edn, Princeton University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

74 British Indian Ocean Territory Order, SI 1965/1920, amended by SI 1968/111. Mauritius continues to claim sovereignty over the area and, according to Art. 111 of its constitution, ‘Mauritius includes … the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia’; see Flanz, G.H. (ed.), Constitutions of the Countries of the World (Oceana, 1998), pp. 81, 95Google Scholar; and n. 89 below.

75 Fox, H., ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Dependent Territories’, in Bernhardt, R. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. 4 (Elsevier, 2000), pp. 1025–29, at 1026.Google Scholar

76 Fox, ibid., at p. 1029, with regard to the 1966 UN Covenants on Human Rights (ratified by the UK in 1976). In contrast, the UN Human Rights Committee considers the Covenants to apply to the BIOT, and in 2008 urged the UK government ‘to include the territory in its next periodic report’: Report of the Committee on its 93rd Session, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6, Geneva (Switzerland), 30 July 2008, p. 6. Among the environmental treaties ratified by the UK but not extended to the BIOT – out of concern for operations on the US military base – are the 1989 Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes, Basel (Switzerland) 22 Mar. 1989, in force 5 May 1992, 173 UNTS 57, available at: http://www.basel.int; the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 June 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, 1760 UNTS 79, available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/text; the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto (Japan), 10 Dec. 1997, in force 16 Feb. 2005, 2303 UNTS 148, available at: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php; the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Stockholm (Sweden), 22 May 2001, in force 17 May 2004, 2256 UNTS 119, available at: http://www.pops.int; and the Aarhus Convention (see n. 110 below).

77 See Moor, L. & Simpson, A.W.B., ‘Ghosts of Colonialism in the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2005) 76 British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 121–93Google Scholar, at 162, 188, 193; and Sand, P.H., ‘Diego Garcia: British-American Legal Blackhole in the Indian Ocean?’ (2009) 21 Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 113–39.Google Scholar

78 Tucker, T. & Doughty, B.T., ‘Naval Facilities, Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory: Management and Administration’ (1988) 84 Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Maritime Engineering Group, pp. 191–215, at 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 Sheppard, C.R.C. & Spalding, M. (eds.), Chagos Conservation Management Plan (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2003), p. 30.Google Scholar

80 Ramsar (Iran), 2 Feb. 1971, in force 21 Dec. 1975, 996 UNTS 245, available at: http://www.ramsar.org. Diego Garcia was listed as Site No. 1077 (2UK001) on 4 July 2001.

81 Allen, S., ‘Responsibility and Redress: The Chagossian Litigation in the English Courts’, in Evers, S.J.T.M. & Kooy, M. (eds.), Eviction from the Chagos Islands: Displacement and Struggle for Identity against Two World Powers (Brill Publishers, 2011), pp. 127–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82 Olivier Bancoult et al. v. Robert S. McNamara et al., 445 Federal Reporter 3rd Series 427 (D.C. Cir. 2006), certiorari denied on 16 Jan. 2007, 127 Supreme Court Reporter 1225 (2007).

83 The Queen (on the application of Bancoult) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Bancoult 2) [2008] UKHL 61, (2008) 4 All England Law Reports 1055, (2010) 138 International Law Reports 628; critical case notes in (2009) 103 American Journal of International Law, pp. 317–24, and (2009) Public Law, pp. 260–86, 697–722.

84 British Indian Ocean Territory, Proclamation No. 1 of 2010 (Marine Protected Area) and Sch., 1 Apr. 2010; see Sand, P.H., ‘The Chagos Archipelago: Footprint of Empire, or World Heritage?’ (2010) 40 Environmental Policy and Law, pp. 232–42.Google Scholar

85 Statement by BIOT Commissioner C. Roberts (Overseas Territories Directorate, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office), as quoted in R. Mills, ‘HMG Floats Proposal for Marine Reserve Covering the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory)’, Cable EO12958 from the US Embassy in London to the State Department (15 May 2009): see ‘US Embassy Cables: Foreign Office Does Not Regret Evicting Chagos Islanders’, The Guardian (2 Dec. 2010).

86 See ‘New Protection for the Marine Life of the British Indian Ocean Territory’, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Press Statement, 1 Apr. 2010, available at: http//www.ukotcf.org/pdf/News/MPA100401FCOStatementonBIOT.pdf.

87 Montego Bay (Jamaica), 10 Dec. 1982, in force 16 Nov. 1994, 1833 UNTS 3, available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_agreements.htm.

88 See n. 76 above; Abraham, G., ‘Paradise Claimed: Disputed Sovereignty Over the Chagos Archipelago’ (2011) 128 South African Law Journal, pp. 63–99Google Scholar; and Papanicolopulu, I., ‘Submission to Arbitration of the Dispute on the Marine Protected Area around the Chagos Archipelago’ (2011) 26 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, pp. 667–78.Google Scholar

89 Allen, S., ‘International Law and the Resettlement of the (Outer) Chagos Islands’ (2008) 8 Human Rights Law Review, pp. 683–702Google Scholar; and de l’Estrac, J.C., L’an prochain à Diego Garcia … (Éditions Le Printemps, 2011).Google Scholar

90 Pearce, F., ‘Conservation at the Expense of Homes?’, New Scientist, 21 Feb. 2009Google Scholar, 10; and Sheppard, C.R.C. & Turner, J., ‘Eco-Imperialism’, letter to the editor, New Scientist, 21 Mar. 2009.Google Scholar

91 de Santo, E.M. et al. ., ‘Fortress Conservation at Sea: A Commentary on the Chagos Marine Protected Area’ (2010) 35 Marine Policy, pp. 258–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

92 R v. SoS Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Bancoult 2), n. 83 above, at para. 23 (‘looming over the whole debate was the effect of global warming which was raising the sea level’).

93 Dunne, R.P. et al. ., ‘Contemporary Sea Level in the Chagos Archipelago, Central Indian Ocean’ (2011) 82–83Global and Planetary Change, pp. 25–37.Google Scholar

94 Scelle, G., ‘Obsession du territoire’, in van Asbeck, F.M. et al. . (eds.), Symbolae Verzijl (Martinus Nijhoff, 1958), pp. 347–61.Google Scholar

95 Lorenz, K., Die Rückseite des Spiegels: Versuch einer Naturgeschichte menschlichen Erkennens (Piper, 1973), pp. 30–32, 320.Google Scholar The English translation by R. Taylor, Behind the Mirror: A Search for a Natural History of Human Knowledge (Harcourt Brace, 1978) unfortunately misplaces the nuance of the metaphor: Lorenz was not at all concerned with some wonderland behind the looking-glass, but most pragmatically with the mirror itself, and its dark reverse side (Rückseite) neglected by conventional epistemologies.

96 Friedman, L., ‘Borders: On the Emerging Sociology of Transnational Law’ (1996) 32 Stanford Journal of International Law, pp. 65–90Google Scholar; and generally Rawls, J., The Law of Peoples (Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

97 Stockholm (Sweden), 19 Feb. 1974, in force 5 Oct. 1976, 1092 UNTS 279.

98 Recommendations C(74)224 on Principles Concerning Transfrontier Pollution, 14 Nov. 1974; C(76)55 on Equal Right of Access in Relation to Transfrontier Pollution, 11 May 1976; and C(77)28 on the Implementation of a Regime of Equal Right of Access and Non-Discrimination in Relation to Transfrontier Pollution, 17 May 1977.

99 E.g., Art. 2(6) of the unece Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Espoo (Finland), 25 Feb. 1991, in force 10 Sept. 1997, 1989 UNTS 309, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/eia/eia.html; Art. 9(3) of the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Helsinki (Finland), 17 March 1992, in force 6 Oct. 1996, 1936 UNTS 269; and Art. 32 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, New York, NY (US) 21 May 1997, not yet in force, (1997) 36 International Legal Materials, p. 719.

100 Art. 15 (‘Non-Discrimination’); see the Report of the International Law Commission on its 53rd Session, 23 Apr.–1 June and 2 July–10 Aug. 2001, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), at p. 427.

101 See text at nn. 14–18 above.

102 Based on Art. 258 TFEU. See Krämer, L., ‘Du contrôle de l’application des directives communautaires en matière de l’environnement’ (1988) 31 Revue du Marché Commun, pp. 22 – 40.Google Scholar

103 Website revised in Sept. 2009: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/complaints.htm.

104 See Annex 2 of EEC Information Memo P/90/5, ‘Control of the Application of Community Law on Environment: First Commission Report’, 8 Feb. 1990, Table 2 in P.H. Sand, Lessons Learned in Global Environmental Governance (World Resources Institute, 1990), at p. 32.

105 Art. 14 NAAEC (Canada-Mexico-USA, 13 Sept. 1993), (1993) 32 International Legal Materials, p. 1480. See Raustiala, K., ‘Citizen Submissions and Treaty Review in the NAAEC’, in Markell, D.L. & Knox, J.H. (eds.), Greening NAFTA: The North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (Stanford University Press, 2003), p. 256–73.Google Scholar

106 World Bank Resolution 93-10 of 22 Sept. 1993, (1993) 4 Yearbook of International Environmental Law, p. 883; Clark, D. et al. . (eds.), Demanding Accountability: Civil Society Claims and the World Bank Inspection Panel (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).Google Scholar

107 It is no coincidence that the chairperson of the Inspection Panel during its formative years (2003–2007) was a distinguished environmental lawyer, Edith Brown Weiss: see Brown Weiss, E. et al. ., ‘The World Bank Inspection Panel: Participation and Accountability’, in Kuyama, S. & Fowler, M.R. (eds.), Envisioning Reform: Enhancing UN Accountability in the Twenty-First Century (United Nations University Press, 2009), pp. 299–332.Google Scholar

108 D. Bradlow & A. Naudé-Fourie, ‘Independent Accountability Mechanisms at Regional Development Banks’, in Hale & Held, n. 5 above.

109 Term coined by Raustiala, K., ‘The “Participatory Revolution” in International Environmental Law’ (1997) 21 Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 537–86.Google Scholar

110 Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, 2161 UNTS 447, available at: http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/treaties/public-participation/aarhus-convention.html.

111 See Decision I/7 of the 1st Meeting of the Parties, UN Doc. ECE/MP.PP/2002/2/Add.8, Annex, Geneva (Switzerland), Oct. 2002.

112 Art. 8 of the Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances, Montreal (Canada), 16 Sept. 1987, in force 1 Jan. 1989, available at: http://ozone.unep.org/, and Decision II/5 of the 2nd Meeting of the Parties. Széll, P., ‘The Montreal Protocol: A New Legal Model for Compliance Control’, in Le Prestre, P.G. et al. . (eds.), Protecting the Ozone Layer: Lessons, Models, and Prospects (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998), pp. 91–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

113 See generally Treves, T. et al. . (eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms, and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (Asser Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

114 See Epiney, A., ‘The Role of NGOs in the Process of Ensuring Compliance with MEAs’, in Beyerlin, U. et al. . (eds.), Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Dialogue between Practitioners and Academia (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), pp. 319–52, at 325, 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

115 Gehring, T., ‘International Environmental Regimes: Dynamic Sectoral Legal Systems’ (1990) 1 Yearbook of International Environmental Law, pp. 35–56, at 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

116 The standard dispute settlement provisions of most multilateral environmental treaties have never been used in practice: see Romano, n. 11 above, at p. 1041.

117 Klabbers, J., ‘Compliance Procedures’, in Bodansky, D. et al. . (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 995–1009.Google Scholar

118 See Koester, V., ‘The Compliance Committee of the Aarhus Convention: An Overview of Procedures and Jurisprudence’ (2007) 37(2/3) Environmental Policy and Law, pp. 83–96.Google Scholar

119 ‘Guidance Document on the Aarhus Convention Compliance Mechanism’, p. 5, available at: http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/CC_GuidanceDocument.pdf. See Pitea, C., ‘NGOs in Non-Compliance Mechanisms under Multilateral Environmental Agreements: From Tolerance to Recognition?’, in Treves, T. (ed.), Civil Society, International Courts and Compliance Bodies (Asser Press, 2004), pp. 205–24.Google Scholar

120 On recent jurisprudence of the Committee, see Koester, V., ‘The Compliance Mechanism: Outcomes and Stocktaking’ (2011) 41 Environmental Policy and Law, pp. 196–204.Google Scholar

121 E-mail communication from the BIOT Administrator to the author (26 Nov. 2008); see also nn. 75 and 76 above. The UK ratified the Convention in 2005, without extension to overseas territories.

122 Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1, vol. I/Annex I, p. 3, (1992) 31 International Legal Materials, p. 874.

123 See European Parliament, Resolution of 29 Sept. 2011 on Developing a Common EU Position Ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), provisional edn. B7-0522/2011, at paras. 82–83 (‘effective global implementation of Rio Principle 10’, ‘global convention’); and Submission by Brazil to the Preparatory Process of the Rio+20 Conference, Brasilia (Brazil), 1 Nov. 2011, at p. 33 (‘launch of negotiations on a global convention’).

124 See http://www.accessinitiative.org.

125 See Petkova, E. & Bruce, G. (eds.), Assessing Access to Information, Participation, and Justice for the Environment: A Guide (World Resources Institute, 2003).Google Scholar But see, on initial US government resistance, Sand, P.H., ‘The Right to Know: Freedom of Environmental Information in Comparative and International Law’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, pp. 1–30, at 23.Google Scholar

126 See 11th Special Session/Global Environmental Forum, Bali (Indonesia), 26 Feb. 2010, UN Doc. UNEP/GCSS.XI/4/1/Annex.

127 Bacon, See F., Essayes or Counsel, Civill and Morall (Havilland, 1625)Google Scholar: 24 (‘Of Innovations’).