Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:43:52.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conferences of the Parties to Multilateral Environmental Agreements: the New International Law-Makers?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Annecoos Wiersema
Annecoos Wiersema*
Affiliation:
Michael E. Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
New Voices: Rethinking the Sources of International Law
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 103 , 2009 , pp. 74 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2009

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 For alternative, but important, perspectives on how we should treat Cop activity under international law, see Churchill, Robin R. and Ulfstein, Geir, Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law, 94 AJIL 623 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brunnée, Jutta, Reweaving the Fabric of International Law? Patterns of Consent in Environmental Framework Agreements, in Developments of International Law in Treaty Making 101 (Wolfram, Rüdiger and Roben, Volker eds., 2005)Google Scholar; Brunnée, Jutta, Coping with Consent: Lawmaking under Multilateral Environmental Agreements, 15 Leiden J. Int’l L. 1 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Montreal Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances art. 2(9), Sept. 16, 1987, 26 ILM 1541, amended text available at <http://www.unep.org/ozone/pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf>.

3 For example, the COPs of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands have passed numerous resolutions adopted by simple majority of the parties interpreting key terms of the treaty, arguably changing the emphasis of the treaty. See Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Feb. 2 1971, T.I.A.S. No. 11, 084, 996 U.N.T.S. 245 [hereinafter Ramsar Convention]; Wiersema, Annecoos, A Train Without Tracks: Re-Thinking the Place of Law and Goals in Environmental and Natural Resources Law, 38 Envtl. L. 1239, 1291 (2008)Google Scholar.

4 See Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, Mar. 3, 1973, 27 U.S.T. 1087; Criteria for Amendment of Appendices I and II, Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP 14), 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to Cites (Nov. 7-18, 1994), amended at the 14th Conference of the Parties to Cites (Jun. 3-15, 2007).

7 Brunnée, Reweaving the Fabric, supra note 1, at 111.

6 See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency, 464 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Jonathan Verschuuren, Ramsar Soft Law is Not Soft At All, available at <http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1306982> (copy on file with author).

7 On sectoral fragmentation, see Fischer-Lescano, Andreas and Teubner, Günther, Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law, 25 Mich. J. Int’l L. 999 (2004)Google Scholar.

8 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 31, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.