Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:08:01.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Global Commons through a Regional Lens: The Arctic Council on Short-Lived Climate Pollutants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Sabaa A. Khan
Sabaa A. Khan*
Affiliation:
Centre for Climate, Energy and Environmental Law, Law School, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu (Finland). Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The regulation of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) is widely seen as an important dimension of global atmospheric pollution control and climate change governance. SLCPs emitted outside the Arctic influence the Arctic atmosphere, Arctic communities, and the rate of ice melt. As an intergovernmental forum that brings together three of the world’s major petroleum producers (Russia, the United States, and Canada), the Arctic Council has a pivotal role in reducing the rate of Arctic warming through SLCP mitigation. This article explores the Arctic Council’s approach to SLCP mitigation. It begins by addressing the current status of black carbon and methane in international legal instruments, and goes on to explore the important regime linkages that are set in place through the Arctic Council’s Framework for Action on Enhanced Black Carbon and Methane Emission Reductions. The article suggests that the Arctic Council provides an experimental platform that may catalyze SLCP regulation not only in Arctic jurisdictions but also in Arctic Council observer states, such as China and India. The transnational and inclusive character of the Arctic Council’s constitutional framework and knowledge-generating mechanisms enables new pathways for global action on climate change and air pollution governance.

Keywords

Short-lived climate pollutantsInternational lawArctic governanceExperimental governanceArctic CouncilBlack carbon
Type
Articles
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 131 - 152
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

The author thanks Kati Kulovesi, Harro van Asselt and Yulia Yamineva for their comments on an early draft. She also expresses her gratitude to the anonymous TEL reviewers for their time and valuable remarks.

References

1 See Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (Cambridge University Press and ACIA, 2004)Google Scholar.

2 Fragmentation is understood here along the lines of the International Law Commission (ILC) 2006 report on fragmentation: ‘the splitting up of the law into highly specialized “boxes” that claim relative autonomy from each other and from the general law’: ILC, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 Apr. 2006, at pp. 13–4. International legal discourse reveals ongoing debate as to the causes, solutions, and positive and negative dimensions of fragmentation: see Charney, J., ‘The Impact on the International Legal System of the Growth of International Courts and Tribunals’ (1999) 31(4) New York University Journal of International Law & Politics, pp. 697–708 Google Scholar, at 699; Dupuy, P.-M., ‘The Danger of Fragmentation or Unification of the International Legal System and the ICJ’ (1999) 31 International Law and Politics, pp. 791–807 Google Scholar; Koskenniemi, M. & Leino, P., ‘Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties’ (2002) 15(3) Leiden Journal of International Law, pp. 553–579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benvinisti, E. & Downs, G., ‘The Empire’s New Clothes: Political Economy and the Fragmentation of International Law’ (2007) 60(2) Stanford Law Review, pp. 595–632 Google Scholar, at 597. On the fragmentation of international environmental law, see Loibl, G., ‘International Environmental Regulations: Is a Comprehensive Body of Law Emerging or Is Fragmentation Going to Stay?’, in G. Hafner & I. Buffard (eds), International Law between Universalism and Fragmentation: Festschrift in Honour of Gerhard Hafner (Martinus Nijhoff, 2008), pp. 783–796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On climate law, in particular, see Kulovesi, K., The WTO Dispute Settlement System: Challenges of the Environment, Legitimacy and Fragmentation (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2010)Google Scholar; van Asselt, H., The Fragmentation of Global Climate Governance: Consequences and Management of Regime Interactions (Edward Elgar, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone: Summary for Decision Makers (UNEP/WMO, 2011)Google Scholar; Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) & Quinn, P.K. et al., ‘The Impact of Short-Lived Pollutants on Arctic Climate’, AMAP Technical Report No. 1 (2008)Google Scholar; AMAP & Quinn, P.K. et al., ‘The Impact of Black Carbon on Arctic Climate’, AMAP Technical Report No. 4 (2011)Google Scholar; Zaelke, D. & Borgford-Parnell, N., ‘The Importance of Phasing Down Hydrofluorocarbons and Other Short-Lived Climate Pollutants’ (2015) 5(2) Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, pp. 169–175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hu, A. et al., ‘Mitigation of Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Slows Sea-Level Rise’ (2013) 3(8) Nature Climate Change, pp. 730–734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shindell, D. et al., ‘Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security’ (2012) 335(6065) Science, pp. 183–189 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Shoemaker, J.K. et al., ‘What Role for Short-Lived Climate Pollutants in Mitigation Policy’ (2013) 342(6164) Science, pp. 1323–1324 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Report to Congress on Black Carbon (US EPA, 2012); United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Executive Body for the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, ‘Report by the Co-Chairs of the Ad-hoc Expert Group on Black Carbon’, UN Doc. ECE/EB.AIR/2010/7, 30 Sept. 2010.

4 European Environment Agency (EEA), Status of Black Carbon Monitoring in Ambient Air in Europe, EEA Technical Report No. 18/2013 (EEA, 2013); World Health Organization (WHO), Health Effects of Black Carbon (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2012)Google Scholar.

5 Bond, T.C. et al., ‘Bounding the Role of Black Carbon in the Climate System: A Scientific Assessment’ (2013) 118(11) Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, pp. 5380–5552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ramanathan, V. & Carmichael, G., ‘Global and Regional Climate Changes Due to Black Carbon’ (2008) 1(4) Nature Geoscience, pp. 221–227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See AMAP, Summary for Policy-Makers: Arctic Climate Issues 2015 – Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (AMAP, 2015)Google Scholar.

7 HFCs are factory-produced SLCPs that have replaced ozone-depleting substances in air conditioning and refrigeration systems, among other industrial applications.

8 Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, Kyoto (Japan), 11 Dec. 1997, in force 16 Feb. 2005, available at: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.

9 New York, NY (US), 9 May 1992, in force 21 Mar. 1994, available at: http://unfccc.int.

10 For a discussion of the controversial aspects of certain HFC-23 abatement projects under the Clean Development Mechanism, see Schneider, L.R., ‘Perverse Incentives under the CDM: An Evaluation of HFC-23 Destruction Projects’ (2011) 11(2) Climate Policy, pp. 851–864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rich, B., Foreclosing the Future (Island Press, 2013), p. 163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Montreal (Canada), 16 Sept. 1987, in force 1 Jan. 1989, available at: http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/montreal_protocol.php.

12 UNEP, Decision XXVII/5: Issues Related to the Phase-Out of Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, ‘Report of the 27th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Dubai (United Arab Emirates), 1–5 Nov. 2015’, UN Doc. UNEP/OzL.Pro.27/13, 30 Nov. 2015.

13 IPCC, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of WGI to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1996).

14 Geneva (Switzerland), 13 Nov. 1979, in force 16 Mar. 1983, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap.

15 IMO, ‘Environment Meeting Completes Packed Agenda’, Marine Environment Protection Committee, 62nd Session, 11–15 July 2011, 2011. Briefing 43, 19 July 2011, available at: http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/43%20MEPC62ENDS.aspx#.VrIfNhFaFU0.

16 Bond et al., n. 5 above.

17 IMO, Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response, 2nd Session, 19–23 Jan. 2015, Meeting Summary, 23 Jan. 2015, available at: http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/PPR/Pages/PPR-2.aspx.

18 The possibility of ‘institutional interplay’, in relation to the global and sub-global regulation of SLCPs, remains an open and relevant question for prospective research. As elaborated by Young, the notion of institutional interplay refers to interactions and linkages between institutions and regimes, both intentional and unintentional, that impact upon their individual performance and effectiveness: Young, O.R., Institutional Interplay: Biosafety and Trade (UN University Press, 2008)Google Scholar, and Stokke, S. & Oberthür, O.S., ‘Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Change’, in S. Stokke & O.S. Oberthür (eds), Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change (The MIT Press, 2011), pp. 1–23 Google Scholar. In particular, there is room for greater understanding as to the degree of interplay that exists in SLCP regulation, if any.

19 Art. 1(a), Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council, Ottawa, ON (Canada), 19 Sept. 1996.

20 Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council (ibid.), Arctic Council Rules of Procedure, and Arctic Council Observer Manual for Subsidiary Bodies, adopted at the 8th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, Kiruna (Sweden), 15 May 2013.

21 These include Canada, China, the European Union (EU), India, Japan, Russia, and the US.

22 Nord, D.C., ‘The Challenge of Governance in the Arctic: Now and in the Future’, in B. Evengard, J.N. Larsen & O. Paasche (eds), The New Arctic (Springer, 2015), pp. 303–314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 307.

23 Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic, Nuuk (Greenland), 12 May 2011, in force 19 Jan. 2013, available at: https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/531; Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic, Kiruna (Sweden), 15 May 2013, in force 25 Mar. 2016, available at: https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/529.

24 Arctic Council, An Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Options for Black Carbon: Technical Report of the Task Force on Short-Lived Climate Forcers (Arctic Council, 2011); and Arctic Council, Recommendations to Reduce Black Carbon and Methane Emissions to Slow Arctic Climate Change, Task Force on Short-Lived Climate Forcers (Arctic Council, 2013).

25 Arctic Council, ‘Framework for Action on Enhanced Black Carbon and Methane Emission Reductions’, Annex 4, Iqaluit [NU (Canada)] 2015 SAO Report to Ministers (Arctic Council, 2015) (Framework), available at: https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/610.

26 N. 14 above.

27 N. 9 above.

28 As Hickman remarks, the involvement of new (non-state) actors in global negotiations is conditioned by state-determined rules, norms and existing frameworks for international cooperation: Hickman, T., Rethinking Authority in Global Climate Governance: How Transnational Climate Initiatives Relate to the International Climate Regime (Routledge, 2016), p. 191 Google Scholar.

29 As articulated by Lassa Oppenheim in 1912, ‘International Law is the name for the customary and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by civilised States in their intercourse with each other. …[S]tates solely and exclusively are the subjects of international law’: Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise, Vol. 1: Peace, 2nd edn (Longmans, Green and Co., 1912), pp. 3 Google Scholar, 19.

30 See the discussion by McCaffrey, Shelton and Cerone of the post-Second World War evolution of the definition of international law to include non-state actors. In particular, they point to Phillip Jessup’s 1948 definition: ‘[I]nternational law or the law of nations must be defined as law applicable to states in their mutual relations and to individuals in their relations with states … [It] may also be applicable to certain interrelationships of individuals themselves, where such relationships involve matters of international concern’: Jessup, P., A Modern Law of Nations (Macmillan, 1948)Google Scholar, cited in McCaffrey, S.C. Shelton, , D. & Cerone, J., Public International Law: Cases, Problems and Texts (Lexis Nexis, 2010), p. 552 Google Scholar. Even in his 1912 Treatise, Oppenheim admits his understanding of international law is not without contestation: Oppenheim, ibid., p. 20, n. 1.

31 See Scott, J.C., Seeing Like a State (Yale University Press, 1998)Google Scholar, on the simplification of space, or ‘narrowing of vision’, as a technique for producing certain forms of knowledge and control. See also Braverman, I., ‘Hidden in Plain View: Legal Geography from a Visual Perspective’ (2011) 7(2) Law, Culture and the Humanities, pp. 173–186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on the limits of legal sights and technologies and how they produce ‘invisible legal geographies’.

32 E.g., legal obligations under the recently adopted Paris Agreement, Paris (France), 13 Dec. 2015, not yet in force (in UNFCCC, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Twenty-First Session, Addendum, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1, 29 Jan. 2016), are essentially informational: communicating nationally determined contributions every five years to a public registry (Art. 4(2)(9)(12)), providing national inventory reports on anthropogenic emissions and carbon sink capacity (Art. 13(7)) and, in the case of developed countries, providing reporting on financial support, technology transfer and capacity building provided to developing countries (Art. 13(9)).

33 Ivanova, M. & Roy, J., ‘The Architecture of Global Governance: Pros and Cons of Multiplicity’, in L. Swart & E. Perry (eds), Global Environmental Governance: Perspectives on the Current Debate (Center for UN Reform Education, 2007)Google Scholar; Rajamani, L. & Bodansky, D., ‘Evolution and Governance Architecture of the Climate Change Regime’, in D. Sprinz & U. Luterbacher (eds), International Relations and Global Climate Change: New Perspectives, 2nd edn (The MIT Press, 2016)Google Scholar, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2168859; van Asselt, H. Mehling, , M. & Siebert, C.K., ‘The Changing Architecture of International Climate Change Law’, in G. van Calster, W. Vandenberghe & L. Reins (eds), Research Handbook on Climate Change Mitigation Law (Edward Elgar, 2015), pp. 1–30 Google Scholar.

34 Berman, P. Schiff, ‘The New Legal Pluralism’ (2009) 5(1) Annual Review of Law and Social Science, pp. 225–242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Drawing from Sassen, I use ‘life space’ here to denote the collective embodiment of our environmental, social, and economic spaces: Sassen, S., Expulsions (Belknap, 2014)Google Scholar.

36 On fragmentation in international environmental law, in particular, see Gehring, T., ‘Treaty-Making and Treaty Evolution’, in D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée & E. Hey (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2007) pp. 467–497 Google Scholar, at 475; Biermann, F. et al., ‘The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures’ (2009) 9(4) Global Environmental Politics, pp. 14–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stokke & Oberthür, n. 18 above.

37 Soft law is understood here as referring to ‘legally non-binding norms’ of the international system: see Shelton, D., ‘Introduction: Law, Non-Law and the Problem of Soft Law’, in D. Shelton (ed.), Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System (Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 1–20 Google Scholar. Because the notion of soft law essentially introduces a third dimension to the traditional dichotomy of law and non-law, its role, functions and even conceptual relevance are extensively debated in international legal scholarship. Even though the normativity of soft law may be deeply contested, it is widely accepted that non-legal norms can generate legal effects. According to Abbott and Snidal, the hard law and soft law concepts do not reflect a dichotomy, but rather a continuum of legalization that varies along three dimensions: obligation, precision, and delegation: Abbott, K.W. & Snidal, D., ‘Hard and Soft Law in International Governance’ (2001) 54(3) International Organization, pp. 421–456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 I use the term ‘ordering’ to overcome dichotomous ideologies of the legal and non-legal, and to invoke the sense that law is expressed concretely via ‘complexes’ that engage plural scales and actors. My framing draws on the rejection by Rose and Valverde of the idea of law as a uniform concept or autopoietic social subsystem and their suggestion that law should instead be thought of in terms of the ‘legal complex’, which they describe as encompassing the ‘assemblage of legal practices, legal institutions, statutes, legal codes, authorities, discourses, texts, norms and forms of judgment’: Rose, N. & Valverde, M., ‘Governed by Law?’ (1998) 7(4) Social & Legal Studies, pp. 541–551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 542.

39 Chinkin, C., ‘Normative Development in the International Legal System’, in Shelton (ed.), n. 37 above, pp. 21–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 22.

40 Shelton, n. 37 above, p. 10.

41 See the discussion by Cottrell and Trubek of the characteristics and processes of institutions that promote law’s problem-solving function: Cottrell, M.P. & Trubek, D.M, ‘Law as Problem-Solving: Standards, Networks, Experimentation and Deliberation in Global Space’ (2012) 21 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, pp. 359–393 Google Scholar, at 367.

42 See Shelton’s discussion of what motivates states to adopt soft law over hard law in Shelton, n. 37 above, pp. 12–3.

43 For a comprehensive overview see Yamineva, Y. & Kulovesi, K., ‘Keeping the Arctic White: The Current Legal Landscape for Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants in the Arctic Region and Opportunities for Future Development’ (unpublished draft, filed with author)Google Scholar.

44 N. 14 above.

45 Canada and the US are parties to the CLRTAP and have implemented their obligations through a bilateral treaty: US and Canada Air Quality Agreement, Ottawa, ON (Canada), 13 Mar. 1991, in force 13 Mar. 1991, available at: https://www.ec.gc.ca/Air/1E841873-E03B-4F16-A8E1-EB2E37095B62/CanadaUSAirQualityAgreement.pdf.

46 Lidskog, R. & Sundqvist, G., ‘Transboundary Air Pollution Policy in Transition’, in R. Lidskog & G. Sundqvist (eds), Governing the Air (The MIT Press, 2011), pp. 1–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone, Gothenburg (Sweden), 30 Nov. 1999, available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/lrtap/full%20text/1999%20Multi.E.Amended.2005.pdf.

48 1999 Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, as amended on 4 May 2012, not yet in force except for Annex I (5 June 2013), available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2013/air/eb/ECE.EB.AIR.114_ENG.pdf.

49 Ibid., Art. 2(2).

50 Ibid., Arts 6(2)(2) and 7(1)(d).

51 N. 8 above.

52 N. 32 above.

53 Brewer, T.L., Arctic Black Carbon from Shipping: A Club Approach to Climate and Trade Governance, Issue Paper No. 4 (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), 2015)Google Scholar.

54 Bodansky, D., ‘A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future U.N. Climate Change Regime’ (2011) 43(3) Arizona State Law Journal, pp. 697–712 Google Scholar.

55 UNFCCC, n 9 above, Preamble.

56 Art. 1(4) UNFCCC defines ‘emissions’ restrictively, as ‘the release of greenhouse gases and/or their precursors into the atmosphere over a specified area and period of time’; hence, aerosols do not fall within the Convention’s definitional understanding of emissions.

57 Vienna (Austria), 23 May 1969, in force 27 Jan. 1980, available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf.

58 Prior to the Paris negotiations, UNFCCC parties were invited to communicate their intended NDC towards achieving the objective of the Convention as stipulated under Art. 2 UNFCCC: see Decision 1/CP.19 Further Advancing the Durban Platform, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1, 31 Jan. 2014. As per the Paris Agreement, these communications are now referred to as NDCs. Certain countries (e.g. Mexico) have included BC mitigation measures in their NDCs.

59 For a discussion on contemporary challenges of the UNFCCC regime, see A. Vihma, How to Reform the UN Climate Negotiations? Perspectives from the Past, Present and Neighbour Negotiations, FIIA Working Paper 82 (Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2014).

60 Rogelj, J. et al., ‘Disentangling the Effects of CO2 and Short-Lived Climate Forcer Mitigation’ (2014) 111(46) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, pp. 16325–16330 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; see also Blackstock, J.J. & Allen, M.R., The Science and Policy of Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, Oxford Martin Policy Brief (Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

61 Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic, n. 23 above; Agreement on Cooperation in Marine Oil Pollution, Preparedness and Response in the Arctic, n. 23 above.

62 Koivurova, T., ‘Increasing Relevance of Treaties: The Case of the Arctic,’ AJIL Unbound, 6 May 2014, available at: https://www.asil.org/blogs/increasing-relevance-treaties-case-arctic-agora-end-treaties CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Framework, n. 25 above, Annex B.

64 Ibid., Annexes A and C. The iterative process is stipulated in Annex A of the Framework. The objective, composition, and working modalities of the Expert Group are outlined in Annex C. Members of the Expert Group include representatives from Arctic states, Permanent Participants, Arctic Council Working Groups and Arctic Council observer states that intend to implement the Framework.

65 Ibid., para. 3.

66 See Van Asselt, Mehling & Siebert, n. 33 above, and Yamineva & Kulovesi, n. 43 above.

67 For a discussion of the legitimacy and accountability issues surrounding transnational governance see Schaffer, G.C., Transnational Legal Ordering and State Change (Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 34 Google Scholar; Bernstein, S., ‘Legitimacy in Intergovernmental and Non-State Global Governance (2011) 18(1) Review of International Political Economy, pp. 17–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bernstein, S. & Cashore, B., ‘Can Non-State Global Governance be Legitimate? An Analytical Framework’ (2007) 1(4) Regulation & Governance, pp. 347–371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 G. de Búrca, Keohane, R.O. & Sabel, C.F., ‘Global Experimentalist Governance’ (2014) 44(3) British Journal of Political Science, pp. 477–486 Google Scholar, at 477.

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid., p. 478.

71 Framework, n. 25 above, para. 1.

72 Ibid., Annex C, Terms of Reference.

73 Ibid., para.2.

74 Ibid.

75 De Búrca, Keohane & Sabel, n. 68 above, p. 482.

76 For a discussion of the relevance of club governance in the context of climate change, see D. Victor, ‘The Case for Climate Clubs’, E15 Expert Group on Measures to Address Climate Change and the Trade System, ICTSD and World Economic Forum, Jan. 2015. See also Brewer’s proposal for an Arctic Black Carbon ‘club’ according to which licences to operate ships in the Arctic region would be made available only to those entities that meet specific standards regarding BC emissions: Brewer, n. 53 above.

77 Baker, B. & Yeager, B., ‘Coordinated Ocean Stewardship in the Arctic: Needs, Challenges and Possible Models for an Arctic Ocean Coordinating Agreement’ (2015) 4(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 359–394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Young, O.R., ‘Governing the Arctic Ocean’ (2016) 72 Marine Policy, issue in press, available at: doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.038, pp. 1–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Kankaapää, P. & Young, O., ‘The Effectiveness of the Arctic Council’ (2012) 31 Polar Research, pp. 1–14 Google Scholar.

80 Young, n. 78 above, p. 4.

81 For a discussion of the establishment of a regional fisheries management organization via a legally binding agreement on the Central Arctic Ocean and other potential shifts towards hard law in the Arctic, see Koivurova, T. & VanderZwaag, D., ‘The Arctic Council at 10 Years: Retrospect and Prospects’ (2007) 40(1) University of British Columbia Law Review, pp. 121–194 Google Scholar. See also Young’s discussion on the prospects of a multi-functional regional seas agreement with distinct categories of membership for states that would govern all human activities in the Arctic Ocean: Young, ibid., p. 6.

82 For a recent and insightful compilation of works on how different realms of international law relate to the constantly changing nature of their objects and subjects, see Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2014: Between Pragmatism and Predictability – Temporariness in International Law (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2015).

83 Kirkton, J. & Trebilcock, M.J. (eds), Hard Choices, Soft Law: Voluntary Standards in Global Trade, Environment and Social Governance (Ashgate, 2004)Google Scholar; Pauwelyn, J., ‘Informal International Law-Making: Framing the Concept and Research Questions’, in J. Pauwelyn, R. Wessel & J. Wouters (eds), Informal International Lawmaking (Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 13–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Van Asselt, Mehling & Seibert, n. 33 above.

85 N. 32 above.

86 Slaughter, A.-M., ‘The Paris Approach to Global Governance’, Project Syndicate, 28 Dec. 2015, available at: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/paris-agreement-model-for-global-governance-by-anne-marie-slaughter-2015-12 Google Scholar.

87 Haas, P., ‘The Day after Paris: Politicians Hand the Baton to Green Industries’, The Conversation, 17 Dec. 2015, available at: https://theconversation.com/the-day-after-paris-politicians-hand-the-baton-to-green-industries-51787 Google Scholar.

88 Bodansky, D., ‘Reflections on the Paris Conference’, Opinio Juris, 15 Dec. 2015, available at: http://opiniojuris.org/2015/12/15/reflections-on-the-paris-conference Google Scholar.

89 I am referring here to accounts of law centred on order, rules, command, control and sanction, i.e. ‘the view that law and legal institutions can keep order and solve policy disputes’: Posner, E.A., The Perils of Global Legalism (University of Chicago Press, 2009), p. 21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, cited in Cottrell & Trubek, n. 41 above, p. 361.

90 Stepien, A. et al., ‘Arctic Indigenous Peoples and the Challenge of Climate Change’, in E. Tedsen, S. Cavalieri & R.A. Kramer (eds), Arctic Marine Governance: Opportunities for Transatlantic Cooperation (Springer, 2014), pp. 71–99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Anghie, A., ‘“The Heart of my Home”: Colonialism, Environmental Damage and the Nauru Case’ (1993) 34(2) Harvard International Law Journal, pp. 445–506 Google Scholar; Islam, M.R., ‘History of the North-South Divide in International Law: Colonial Discourses, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination’, in S. Alam et al. (eds), International Environmental Law and the Global South (Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 23–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 23; Anghie, A., Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Koivurova, T. & Heinämäki, L., ‘The Participation of Indigenous Peoples in International Norm-Making in the Arctic’ (2006) 42(221) Polar Record, pp. 101–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the participation of indigenous groups within the climate regime, see E.A. Kronk Warner, ‘South of South: Examining the International Climate Regime from an Indigenous Perspective’, in Alam et al., ibid., pp. 451–68, at 451.

93 Koivurova & Heinämäki, ibid., p. 104.

94 For a discussion of the evolution of the culture of climate change assessment see Martello, M.L., ‘Arctic Indigenous Peoples as Representations and Representatives of Climate Change’ (2008) 38(3) Social Studies of Science, pp. 351–376 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

95 Koivurova & Heinämäki, n. 92 above, p. 103.

96 Epistemic communities are understood here as Peter Haas has described them: ‘a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area’: Haas, P., ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’ (1992) 46(1) International Organization, pp. 1–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 3.

97 WHO, Reducing Global Health Risks through Mitigation of Short-term Climate Pollutants (WHO, 2015)Google Scholar.

98 Bond et al., n. 5 above.

99 See AMAP, n. 6 above.

100 ILC, ‘Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of its 65th Session’, UN Doc. A/68/10 (2013), para. 168, available at: http://legal.un.org/docs/index.asp?symbol=A/68/10&referer=http://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2013/&Lang=E.

101 Sand, P.H. & Weiner, J.B., ‘Towards a New International Law of the Atmosphere?’ (2015) 7(2) Goettingen Journal of International Law, pp. 1–25 Google Scholar.

102 Dual-impact substances refer to those which have implications for both atmospheric pollution and climate change: ILC, n. 100 above, para. 168(b).

103 Sand & Weiner, n. 101 above, p. 19.

104 While displacement as a result of global warming affects all Arctic inhabitants, the negative outcomes of climate change especially impact upon Arctic indigenous peoples because of their unique cultural, social and economic reliance on the Arctic environment, which is crucial for sustaining their livelihoods and indigenous ways of life: see Nuttall, M. et al., ‘Hunting, Herding, Fishing and Gathering: Indigenous Peoples and Renewable Resource Use in the Arctic’, in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment – Scientific Report (Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 649–690 Google Scholar. For a discussion of specific environmental justice claims initiated by Arctic indigenous communities, see Kronk Warner, E.A. & Abate, R.S., ‘International and Domestic Law Dimensions of Climate Justice for Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ (2013) 43 Revue générale de droit, pp. 113–150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is also worth noting that with regard to SLCP emissions specifically, in 2013 the Arctic Athabaskan Council (a Permanent Participant of the Arctic Council, which represents approximately 45,000 indigenous peoples spread across 76 communities in Alaska, Yukon and the Northwest territories) filed a petition against the government of Canada in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, for undermining the human rights of Athabaskan peoples by failing to implement effective regulatory measures on BC emissions: Arctic Athabaskan Council, Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Seeking Relief from Violations of the Rights of Arctic Athabaskan Peoples Resulting from Rapid Arctic Warming and Melting Caused by Emissions of Black Carbon by Canada, 23 Apr. 2013, available at: http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/AAC_PETITION_13-04-23a.pdf.