Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:37:21.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of ‘Macro’ Legal Analysis in the Understanding and Development of Global Environmental Governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2016

Stephen J. Turner
Stephen J. Turner*
Affiliation:
Lincoln University, Law School, Lincoln (United Kingdom). Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the manner in which ‘macro’ legal analysis can potentially assist in overcoming some of the issues that are faced in the understanding and development of global environmental governance (GEG). It argues that the analysis of law through separate and distinct disciplines – such as environmental law, trade law, corporate law, and human rights law – results in what this article refers to as ‘micro’ legal analysis. As such, it contends that this can have the effect of creating obstacles in the development of coherent and effective legal and policy choices related to the protection of the environment. It illustrates these arguments with examples of practical problems that have arisen from the separation of legal issues in practice and provides the theoretical underpinnings, based on the critique of international lawyers, for the application of ‘macro’ legal analysis. In other words, it argues for a form of analysis that would consider the entire range of relevant legal disciplines in a unitary process. It then provides a methodology for the development and application of ‘macro’ legal analysis in relation to environmental issues. Finally, it considers the potential that this approach could have within the field of GEG and comments on the implications that it could have for the way in which lawyers are trained in the future.

Keywords

Global environmental governanceMacro legal analysisMicro legal analysisInternational environmental lawNon-state actorsLegal training
Type
Articles
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , July 2017 , pp. 237 - 257
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 would like to thank Duncan French, Christy Shucksmith and two anonymous TEL reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. All views expressed in this article and all errors remain those of the author.

References

1 Bodansky, D., The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law (Harvard University Press, 2011), p. 35 Google Scholar.

2 Biermann, F., Pattberg, P. & Zelli, F., ‘Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012: An Introduction’, in F. Biermann, P. Pattberg & F. Zelli (eds), Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptation (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 1–12 Google Scholar, at 11.

3 See, e.g., Tienhaara, K., The Expropriation of Environmental Governance: Protecting Foreign Investors at the Expense of Public Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Sjåfell, B. & Richardson, B.J. (eds), Company Law and Sustainability: Legal Barriers and Opportunities (Cambridge University Press, 2014)Google Scholar; Daly, E. & May, J., Global Environmental Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press, 2014)Google Scholar; Turner, S.J., A Substantive Environmental Right: An Examination of the Legal Obligations of Decision-Makers Towards the Environment (Kluwer Law International, 2009)Google Scholar; Esty, D.C., Greening the GATT: Trade, the Environment, and the Future (Institute for International Economics, 1994)Google Scholar.

4 Koskenniemi, M., The Politics of International Law (Hart, 2011), pp. 334–337 Google Scholar.

5 Desai, B.H., International Environmental Governance: Towards UNEPO (Brill/Nijhoff, 2014), p. 18 Google Scholar.

6 Green, J.F., Rethinking Private Authority: Agents and Entrepreneurs in Global Environmental Governance (Princeton University Press, 2014), pp. 37–38 Google Scholar.

7 Levi-Faur, D., ‘From “Big Government” to “Big Governance”?’, in D. Levi-Faur (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 3–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 5.

8 E.g., Park, S. & Strand, J.R. (eds), Global Economic Governance and the Development Practices of the Multilateral Development Banks (Routledge, 2016)Google Scholar; Eccleston, R., The Dynamics of Global Economic Governance: The Financial Crisis, the OECD, and the Politics of International Tax Cooperation (Edward Elgar, 2014)Google Scholar.

9 E.g., Voß, J.P. & Freeman, R. (eds), Knowing Governance: The Epistemic Construction of Political Order (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015)Google Scholar.

10 E.g., Avgouleas, E., Governance of Global Financial Markets (Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

11 E.g., de Búrca, G., Kilpatrick, C. & Scott, J. (eds), Critical Legal Perspectives on Global Governance (Hart, 2013)Google Scholar.

12 E.g., Solomon, J., Corporate Governance and Accountability (Wiley, 2013)Google Scholar.

13 Underhill, G.R.D. & Zhang, X. (eds), International Financial Governance under Stress: Global Structures versus National Imperatives (Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

14 Kotzé, L., Global Environmental Governance: Law and Regulation for the 21st Century (Edward Elgar, 2012)Google Scholar.

15 E.g., Speth, J.G. & Haas, P.M., Global Environmental Governance (Pearson-Longman, 2006)Google Scholar.

16 Pattberg, P.H., ‘Transnational Environmental Regimes’, in F. Biermann & P. Pattberg (eds), Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered (The MIT Press, 2012), pp. 97–122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Winter, G., ‘Introduction’, in G. Winter (ed.), Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change: Perspectives from Science, Sociology and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 1–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 12; Haas, P.M., Andresen, S. & Kanie, N., ‘Introduction: Pluralistic Actor Configurations and Global Environmental Governance: Best and Worst Practices for Improving Environmental Governance’, in N. Kanie, S. Andresen & P.M. Haas (eds), Improving Global Environmental Governance: Best Practices for Architecture and Agency (Routledge, 2014), pp 1–30 Google Scholar.

18 Desai, n. 5 above, p. 91.

19 Biermann, F. & Pattberg, P., ‘Global Environmental Governance Revisited’, in Biermann & Pattberg (eds), n. 16 above, pp. 1–24 Google Scholar, at 4.

20 Levi-Faur, n. 7 above, p. 8.

21 For an extensive analysis of definitional issues see Kotzé, n. 14 above.

22 Bosselman, K., Earth Governance: Trusteeship of the Global Commons (Edward Elgar, 2015)Google Scholar.

23 Ongolo, S., ‘On the Banality of Forest Governance Fragmentation: Exploring “Gecko Politics” as a Bureaucratic Behaviour in Limited Statehood’ (2015) 53 Forest Policy & Economics, pp. 12–20 Google Scholar.

24 van Asselt, H., The Fragmentation of Global Climate Governance (Edward Elgar, 2014)Google Scholar.

25 Conti, K.I. & Gupta, J., ‘Protected by Pluralism? Grappling with Multiple Legal Frameworks in Groundwater Governance’ (2014) 11 Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, pp. 39–47 Google Scholar.

26 Basurto, X. & Nenadovic, M., ‘A Systematic Approach to Studying Fisheries Governance’ (2012) 3(2) Global Policy, pp. 222–230 Google Scholar.

27 Daccache, M., ‘Questioning Biodiversity Governance through its Articulations’ (2013) 18(1) Science, Technology & Society, pp. 51–62 Google Scholar.

28 E.g., Leal-Arcas, R., Filis, A. & Abu Ghosh, E.S., International Energy Governance: Selected Legal Issues (Edward Elgar, 2014)Google Scholar; Goldthau, A. & Martin Witte, J. (eds), Global Energy Governance: The New Rules of the Game (Brookings Institution Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

29 Craig, R. Kundis, ‘Ocean Governance for the 21st Century: Making Marine Zoning Climate Change Adaptable’ (2012) 36(2) Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 305–350 Google Scholar.

30 Abraham, C.M., Environmental Jurisprudence in India (Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 74 Google Scholar.

31 Fisher, D.E., ‘A Jurisprudential Model for Sustainable Water Resources Governance’, in M. Kidd et al. (eds), Water Security and the Law: Towards Sustainability (Edward Elgar, 2014), pp. 139–166 Google Scholar, at 139.

32 Ibid.

33 Siems, M.M., Comparative Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 14 Google Scholar; de Cruz, P., Comparative Law in a Changing World (Routledge-Cavendish, 2007)Google Scholar; Zweigert, K. & Kötz, H. (trans. T. Weir), An Introduction to Comparative Law (Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 4 Google Scholar; Siems, M.M., ‘Legal Originality’ (2008) 28(1) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 147–164 Google Scholar, at 152–4; Granstrand, O. (ed.), Economics, Law and Intellectual Property: Seeking Strategies for Research (Springer, 2013), p. 539 Google Scholar.

34 Nelken, D., ‘Using the Concept of Legal Culture’ (2004) 29 Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, pp. 1–28 Google Scholar, at 3–4.

35 Picker, C.B., ‘International Investment Law: Some Legal Cultural Insights’, in L.E. Trakman & N.A. Ranieri (eds), Regionalism in International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 27–58 Google Scholar, at 33.

36 Enright, C., Legal Technique (Federation Press, 2002), p. 347 Google Scholar.

37 Bodansky, n. 1 above, p. 10; Turner, S.J., A Global Environmental Right (Routledge, 2014), pp. 67–68 Google Scholar.

38 Burger, W.E., ‘The Special Skills of Advocacy: Are Specialized Training and Certification of Advocates Essential to Our System of Justice?’ (1973) 42(2) Fordham Law Review, pp. 227–242 Google Scholar, at 231.

39 Moorhead, R., ‘Lawyer Specialisation: Managing the Professional Paradox’ (2008) 32(2) Law & Policy, pp. 226–259 Google Scholar; Khan, M.H. & Davidson Kahn, L., ‘Specialization in Criminal Law’ (1977) 41(1) Law and Contemporary Problems, pp. 252–292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Ricardo, D., The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (Dover Publications, 2004; first published 1817)Google Scholar.

41 Jouannet, E. (trans. C. Sutcliffe), The Liberal-Welfarist Law of Nations: A History of International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Ibid.

43 International Law Commission (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, Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (13 Apr. 2006); Koskenniemi, n. 4 above, pp. 334–7; Carlane, C.P., ‘Good Climate Governance: Only a Fragmented System of International Law Away?’ (2008) 30(4) Law & Policy, pp. 450–480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 457; Shelton, D., ‘Legitimate and Necessary: Adjudicating Human Rights Violations related to Activities Causing Environmental Harm or Risk’ (2015) 6(2) Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, pp. 139–155 Google Scholar.

44 Marrakesh (Morocco), 15 Apr. 1994, in force 1 Jan. 1995, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/06-gatt_e.htm.

45 Palmer, A., Chaytor, B. & Werksman, J., ‘Interactions between the World Trade Organization and International Environmental Regimes’, in S. Oberthür & T. Ghering (eds), Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies (The MIT Press, 2006), pp. 181–204 Google Scholar.

46 Esty, n. 3 above. p. 140.

47 Esty, D.C., ‘Free Trade and Environmental Protection’, in R.S. Axelrod & S.D. VanDeveer (eds), The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy, 4th edn (Sage/CQ Press, 2015), pp. 330–349 Google Scholar, at 344.

48 Tienhaara, n. 3 above, p. 102.

49 Ibid., p. 268.

50 Gupta, J., The History of Global Climate Governance (Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 207 Google Scholar.

51 Anton, D.K., ‘“Treaty Congestion” in Contemporary International Environmental Law’, in S. Alam et al. (eds), Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law (Routledge, 2015), pp. 651–666 Google Scholar.

52 Wolfrum, R. & Matz, N., Conflicts in International Environmental Law (Springer, 2003), p. 7 Google Scholar.

53 Rome (Italy), 3 Nov. 2001, in force 29 June 2004, available at: http://www.planttreaty.org/content/texts-treaty-official-versions.

54 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 June 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, available at: http://www.cbd.int.

55 Marrakesh (Morocco), 15 Apr. 1994, in force 1 Jan. 1995, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf.

56 Andersen, R., Governing Agrobiodiversity: Plant Genetics and Developing Countries (Ashgate, 2013), pp. 173–214 Google Scholar; Rosendal, G.K., ‘The Convention on Biological Diversity: Tensions with the WTO TRIPS Agreement over Access to Genetic Resources and the Sharing of Benefits’, in Oberthür & Ghering, n. 45 above, pp. 79–102 Google Scholar; Condon, B.J. & Sinha, T., The Role of Climate Change in Global Economic Governance (Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 130–153 Google Scholar.

57 Andersen, ibid; Lightbourne, M., ‘The FAO Multilateral System for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: Better than Bilateralism?’ (2009) 30 Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, pp. 465–507 Google Scholar, at 466; Beyerlin, U. & Marauhn, T., International Environmental Law (Hart, 2011), pp. 198–199 Google Scholar.

58 Andenas, M. & Bjorge, E., ‘Introduction: From Fragmentation to Convergence in International Law’, in M. Andenas & E. Bjorge (eds), A Farewell to Fragmentation: Reassertion and Convergence in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 1–36 Google Scholar, at 2; Crawford, J., Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law – General Course on International Law (The Hague Academy of International Law, 2014), p. 289 Google Scholar; Greenwood, C., Unity and Diversity in International Law, in Andenas & Bjorge (eds), ibid., pp. 37–55 Google Scholar; Biermann, F., Earth System Governance: World Politics in the Anthropocene (The MIT Press, 2014), pp. 89–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kotzé, L.J., ‘Fragmentation Revisited in the Context of Global Environmental Law and Governance’ (2014) 131(3) South African Law Journal, pp. 548–582 Google Scholar.

59 Vienna (Austria), 23 May 1969, in force 27 Jan 1980, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf.

60 Andenas & Bjorge, n. 58 above, p. 2.

61 Jinnah, S., Post-Treaty Politics: Secretariat Influence in Global Environmental Governance (The MIT Press, 2014), p. 5 Google Scholar; O’Neill, K., ‘Architects, Agitators and Entrepreneurs: International and Nongovernmental Organizations in Global Environmental Politics’, in Axelrod & VanDeveer (eds), n. 47 above, pp. 26–52 Google Scholar, at 33.

62 Macey, J.R., ‘Legal Scholarship: A Corporate Scholar’s Perspective’ (2004) 41(4) San Diego Law Review, pp. 1759–1774 Google Scholar; Calabresi, G., ‘An Introduction to Legal Thought: Four Approaches to Law and to the Allocation of Body Parts’ (2003) 55 Stanford Law Review, pp. 2113–2151 Google Scholar.

63 Preston, B., ‘Benefits of Judicial Specialisation in Environmental Law: The Land and Environmental Court of New South Wales as a Case Study’ (2012) 29(2) Pace Environmental Law Review, pp. 396–440 Google Scholar.

64 See, e.g., Green, n. 6 above, p. 7.

65 Drumbl, M.A., ‘Actors and Law-Making in International Environmental Law’, in M. Fitzmaurice, D.M. Ong & P. Merkouris (eds), Research Handbook on International Environmental Law (Edward Elgar, 2010), pp. 3–25 Google Scholar, at 11–4.

66 Auld, G. et al., ‘The Emergence of Non-State Market-Driven (NSMD) Global Environmental Governance: A Cross-Sectoral Assessment’, in M.A. Delmas & O.R. Young, Governance for the Environment: New Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 183–218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 189.

67 E.g., Pattberg, n. 16 above; Pattberg, P.H. & Zelli, F., Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Governance and Politics (Edward Elgar, 2015)Google Scholar; Bulkeley, H. et al., Transnational Climate Change Governance (Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 1 Google Scholar.

68 Green, n. 6 above, p. 163; Falkner, R., ‘Private Environmental Governance and International Relations: Exploring the Links’ (2003) 3(2) Global Environmental Politics, pp. 72–87 Google Scholar.

69 Carr, C.T. (ed.), Select Charters of Trading Companies AD 1530–1707 (Selden Society, 1913) p. xiGoogle Scholar.

70 The Royal Society of Protection of Birds, available at: http://www.rspb.org.uk.

71 See, e.g., Churchyard, T. et al., ‘The UK’s Wildlife Overseas: A Stocktake of Nature in Our Overseas Territories’, 2014, available at: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/ukots-stocktake_tcm9-369597.pdf Google Scholar.

72 USAID, available at: https://www.usaid.gov/partnership-opportunities/ngo.

73 TRAFFIC, available at: http://www.traffic.org.

74 Washington, DC (US), 3 Mar. 1973, in force 1 July 1975, available at: http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php.

75 WRI, available at: http://www.wri.org.

76 Greenpeace, available at: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk.

77 Haas, P.M., Epistemic Communities, Constructivism, and Environmental Politics (Routledge, 2016), p. 222 Google Scholar.

78 Kiss, A. & Shelton, D., A Guide to International Environmental Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), p. 66 Google Scholar; Drumbl, n. 65 above; McCormick, J., ‘The Role of Environmental NGOs in International Regimes’, in Axelrod & Vandeveer, n. 47 above, pp. 92–110 Google Scholar.

79 UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (vol. I) (12 Aug. 1992), available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf. Section III of Agenda 21 provides for the strengthening role of major groups.

80 Paris (France), 22 Sept. 1992, in force 25 Mar. 1998, Art. 11(1), available at: http://www.ospar.org.

81 New York, NY (US), 9 May 1992, in force 21 Mar. 1994, Art. 7(6), available at: http://unfccc.int.

82 Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, Art. 10(5), available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html.

83 Drumbl, n. 65 above, pp. 11–4. However, it must be acknowledged that both corporations and NGOs can and often do also influence decision making that affects the environment through non-formal means.

84 See Green, n. 6 above, p. 7; see also Richardson, B.J., ‘Socially Responsible Investing for Sustainability: Overcoming its Incomplete and Conflicting Rationales’ (2013) 2(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 311–338 Google Scholar, at 316.

85 Available at: http://www.accountability.org/about-us/index.html.

86 Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html.

87 Available at: https://ic.fsc.org.

88 Available at: https://www.cdp.net.

89 Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org.

90 Available at: http://corporate.walmart.com/article/sustainability-index.

91 Lemos, M.C. & Agrawal, A., ‘Environmental Governance and Political Science’, in Delmas & Young, n. 66 above, pp. 69–97 Google Scholar, at 83.

92 Auld, G., Constructing Private Governance: The Rise and Evolution of Forest, Coffee, and Fisheries Certification (Yale University Press, 2014), p. 2 Google Scholar; Cashore, B., Auld, G. & Newsom, D., Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority (Yale University Press, 2004)Google Scholar. It can be argued that certain IEL regimes, such as CITES (n. 74 above), that restrict certain types of trade have also shown such leadership.

93 See GRI, n. 89 above.

94 Sands, P., ‘The Environment, Community and International Law’ (1989) 30(2) Harvard International Law Journal, pp. 393–420 Google Scholar, at 399.

95 Ibid., p. 393.

96 E.g., Richardson, B.J. & Sjåfell, B., ‘Capitalism, the Sustainability Crisis, and the Limitations of Current Business Governance’, in Sjåfell & Richardson, n. 3 above, pp. 1–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 18–9.

97 Bodansky, n. 1 above, p. 11.

98 Ibid.

99 Andenas & Bjorge, n. 58 above, p. 2; ILC, n. 43 above.

100 Young, M.A., Trading Fish, Saving Fish: The Interaction between Regimes in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 8–16 Google Scholar; Carlane, n. 43 above, pp. 456–62; Pauwelyn, J., Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

101 Koskenniemi, n. 4 above, p. 360.

102 Fisher, E. et al., ‘Maturity and Methodology: Starting a Debate about Environmental Law Scholarship’ (2009) 21(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 213–250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Balkin, J.M., ‘Understanding Legal Understanding: The Legal Subject and the Problem of Legal Coherence’ (1993) 103(1) The Yale Law Journal, pp. 105–176 Google Scholar, at 138; Pedersen, O., ‘Modest Pragmatic Lessons for a Diverse and Coherent Environmental Law’ (2013) 33(1) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 103–131 Google Scholar; Owen, D. & Noblet, C., ‘Interdisciplinary Research and Environmental Law’ (2014) 41(4) Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 887–938 Google Scholar; Little, G., ‘Developing Environmental Law Scholarship: Going beyond the Legal Space’ (2016) 36(1) Legal Studies, pp. 48–74 Google Scholar.

103 Fisher et al., ibid., p. 241.

104 Biermann, n. 58 above.

105 Ibid., pp. 9–10.

106 Bodansky, n. 1 above, p. 11.

107 See, e.g., GRI, n. 89 above; Auld, n. 92 above, p. 2; Cashore, Auld & Newsom, n. 92 above; FSC, n. 87 above; Pattberg, n. 16 above.

108 Bodansky, n. 1 above, p. 10.

109 Examples could include directors’ duties under the company law of all jurisdictions around the globe: Turner, n. 37 above, pp. 36–50; also aspects of the trade rules under the GATT: see Esty, n. 3 above, p. 140.

110 Literature on the redesign of international environmental institutions includes Bosselmann, K., Earth Governance: Trusteeship of the Global Commons (Edward Elgar, 2015) pp. 257–267 Google Scholar; Desai, n. 5 above; Anton, n. 51 above; Goetyn, N. & Maes, F., ‘The Quest for a World Environment Organization: Reflections on a Failing Debate and Input for Future Improvement’, in P. Martin et al. (eds), Environmental Governance and Sustainability (Edward Elgar, 2012), pp. 233–247 Google Scholar; Charnovitz, S., ‘Towards a World Environment Organization: Reflections on a Vital Debate’, in F. Biermann & S. Bauer (eds), A World Environment Organization: Solution or Threat to Effective International Environmental Governance? (Ashgate, 2005), pp. 173–193 Google Scholar.

111 Koskenniemi, n. 4 above, p. 360. Certain authors argue for the establishment of a ‘grundnorm’, or in other words a goal that would bind the actions of international environmental actors and institutions: see, e.g., Kim, R.E. & Bosselmann, K., ‘International Environmental Law in the Anthropocene: Towards a Purposive System of Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ (2013) 2(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 285–309 Google Scholar.

112 Lemos & Agrawal, n. 91 above, p. 73.

113 Ibid.

114 Winter, n. 17 above, p. 2.

115 See Centre for Governance and Sustainability, University of Massachusetts Boston, ‘Summary Report – Workshop on International Environmental Governance: Grounding Policy Reform in Rigorous Analysis’, 27–28 June 2011, Bern (Switzerland), p. 11, available at: http://dev.environmentalgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/12.058_CGS_report_single_v10.pdf; Campbell Keller, A., Science in Environmental Policy: The Politics of Objective Advice (The MIT Press, 2009)Google Scholar; also P.M. Haas, ‘Science Policy for Multilateral Environmental Governance’, Feb. 2012, available at: http://www.crcresearch.org/files-crcresearch/File/haas_02.pdf.

116 Rockström, J. et al., ‘A Safe Operating Space for Humanity’ (2009) 461(7263) Nature, pp. 472–475 Google Scholar.

117 Biermann, n. 58 above, p. 32.

118 Such areas of law may, for example, include company law, tax law, investment law, banking law, trade law, environmental law and international environmental law.

119 E.g., if it was clear that company law had an impact, it may be pertinent to analyze the specific aspect of corporate law, such as ‘directors’ duties’, that was having an effect on the outcome for the aspect of the environment concerned: see, e.g., Sjåfell, B. & Richardson, B., ‘The Future of Company Law and Sustainability’, in Sjåfell & Richardson, n. 3 above, pp. 312–340 Google Scholar, at 330–1.

120 E.g., the initiatives of the GRI, n. 89 above, and FSC, n. 87 above.

121 Questions for further thought include: How would it be possible to determine what the desired outcome for the environment should be, based on scientific evidence? How would this type of analysis be linked to other ‘non-legal’ policy considerations in the development of renewed strategies for global environmental governance?

122 Picker, C.B., ‘Comparative Law as an Engine of Change for Civil Procedure’, in C.B. Picker & G.I. Seidman (eds), The Dynamics of Civil Procedure: Global Trends and Developments (Springer, 2016), pp. 45–59 Google Scholar, at 47.

123 Abbott, K.W., ‘Towards a Richer Institutionalism for International Law and Policy’ (2005) 1(1–2) Journal of International Law and International Relations, pp. 9–34 Google Scholar, at 11.

124 Ivanova, M., ‘UNEP in Global Environmental Governance: Design, Leadership, Location’ (2010) 10(1) Global Environmental Politics, pp. 30–59 Google Scholar, at 53.

125 Steiner, A., ‘Uniting Nations: The UN at a Crossroads’, Feb. 2015, available at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/uniting-nations-the-un-at-a-crossroads Google Scholar.

126 See, e.g., Turner, n. 3 above.