Chapter 2 explores how Etienne Wenger’s theory of communities of practice translates to the context of international law and the concept of a special regime. According to Wenger, a community of practice is defined by the presence of three structural elements: there must be a mutual engagement of community members; community members must be engaged in a joint enterprise; and they must have a shared repertoire. Chapter 2 draws up the contours of a methodology that will help the classically trained legal scholar to justify propositions categorizing segments of the international legal system as special regimes, based on the idealist’s conception of a special regime. As the chapter demonstrates, the task needed to justify a suggestion that some subpart of the international legal system is a special regime is not significantly different from many investigations that classically trained legal scholars are already conducting, more or less as a matter of course.

Effectiveness and efficiency in judicial decision-making are the most important objectives of any court. While this concerns primarily the final decisions that are rendered, it is also relevant to the judicial process and the legal reasoning that a court or tribunal carries out to reach its decision, in order to ensure continuity and coherence. Traditional understandings of the international judiciary have seen the judges’ role as one where they discover and declare the law by applying it at face value to the legal issues that have arisen within the case, thereby achieving effectiveness through what is said to be direct and clear application of the law. This sits rather uneasily with the identification of customary international law (CIL), which is by its very nature unwritten and established by identifying evidence of state practice and opinio juris. The aim of this chapter is to examine instances of judicial activism in the decision-making of international courts and tribunals during the determination and application of CIL and how that allows for either judicial effectiveness or ambiguity.

The uncertain character of customary international law (CIL) has been discussed time and time again among academics and practitioners. To most of them, the uncertain character of CIL entails a twofold defect: first, uncertainty is perceived with respect to the identification of the rule, since we may not know whether there is a valid legal rule; and second, uncertainty is perceived with respect to the content of the rule, since we may not know the precise meaning of the rule. Yet, what seems to be missing from the entire discussion is the mechanism by which CIL functions. Although a number of theories have been formulated, there are no persuasive answers that would explain when and how changes in CIL occur. In other words, the dynamics of CIL, as the driving force behind its evolution remain essentially unexplored. Providing answers to these questions requires an in-depth understanding not only of the structure of CIL but also of the processes that occur in and out of CIL during its operation as a social system. This chapter uses complexity science to describe the functioning of CIL and explore CIL’s construction as a social system.

This chapter addresses the suggestion that for a special regime to exist, community members must have a shared repertoire. In the context of international law, to claim that a group of international law specialists have a shared repertoire is to assert that they consider the use of certain rhetorical tools appropriate. As Chapter 5 argues, the existence of such a presupposition can be inferred from, amongst others, the use by specialists of distinct concepts, a distinct terminology, a distinct method, and distinct theories.

The interpretation of unwritten norms is fraught with difficulty, as the boundaries between the existence of a norm and the determination of its content can become blurred. Interpreters may return to the evidence of the norm’s existence in order to determine its content or it may be that interpretation itself is part of the constitutive process of unwritten norms. This confusion is exacerbated by a lack of established methods and procedures for the interpretation of unwritten international law, which includes not only custom but also general principles of law. While it is commonplace to speak of custom and general principles under the umbrella of ‘general international law’, it is unclear whether questions of interpretation are to be approached in the same manner for both categories of norms or whether custom and general principles may assist in the interpretation of one another. The central objective of this chapter is to examine the interactions between these two categories of norms in the context of interpretation. More specifically, it considers whether general principles of law may play a role in the interpretation of customary rules.

This chapter explores how the interpretation of customary international law (CIL) can be shaped by the underlying premises and political values of a system. The argument it develops focuses on how investor–state arbitration has interpreted the CIL law rule establishing that the actions of state-owned enterprises will be attributed to the controlling state, as expressed in Article 8 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

This chapter advanced the analytical framework of the book, which revolves around the role of the state in governing large-scale decarbonization through collaborative climate governance with interactions of non-state and sub-state actors, networks and multi-stakeholder partnerships in the various governance relations. We provide a coherent framework rooted in theoretical and conceptual debates on the multitude of relations between the state and non-state actors in the governance of climate change. By connecting these governance relations to three evaluative themes of the politics of decarbonization (justice, effectiveness, and legitimacy), we theorize how the state shapes decarbonization processes in a landscape of non-state and sub-state climate action. The chapter situates the book’s contributions to the wider scholarship and highlights the theoretical debates that the empirical chapters will revisit.

This chapter analyzes the regional and sectoral differences in how cities and municipalities engage in climate change networks. Over the past 20 years, an increasing number of cities, regions, companies, investors, and other non-state and subnational actors have voluntarily committed to reducing their GHG emissions. Such actions could help reduce the implementation gap. Along with the increase in commitments and the growing number of venues through which non-state actors can cooperate in order to govern climate change, it is necessary to track and evaluate such efforts. This chapter assesses the voluntary commitments made by Swedish municipalities, regions and multistakeholder partnerships to decarbonize by reducing GHG emissions. It finds large differences in which cities and municipalities that engage in networks. Large and urban municipalities in the south and along the eastern coast are well represented, whereas more rural municipalities along the Norwegian border are less represented in the data. The findings are discussed in terms of climate justice, highlighting the importance of having everyone onboard to create acceptance and reduce inequality in the transformation toward decarbonization.