¹ Fisher, E., Lange, B., Scotford, E. & Carlarne, C., ‘Maturity and Methodology: Starting a Debate about Environmental Law Scholarship’ (2009) 21(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 213–50 at 228–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Commonwealth v. Tasmania (Tasmanian Dam Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1.

³ This ultimately resulted in the edited collection Harding, R. & Fisher, E. (eds.), Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (Federation Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

⁴ United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (unced), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 15, available at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163&l=en.

⁵ For a discussion of this, see Fisher, E. & Harding, R., ‘The Precautionary Principle in Australia: From Aspiration to Practice?’, in O’Riordan, T., Cameron, J. & Jordan, A. (eds.), Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle (Cameron May, 2001), pp. 215–33.Google Scholar

⁶ J. Segal, ‘An Industry Perspective on the Precautionary Principle’, in Harding & Fisher, n. 3 above, pp. 73–82.

⁷ Fisher, E., Risk, Expertise and Judicial Review: Scope of Review and Decision-Making under Scientific Uncertainty (Thesis in Law submitted for a D.Phil Degree, Oxford University, 1998).Google Scholar

⁸ Renn, O., Dreyer, M., Klinke, A., Losert, C., Stirling, A., van Zwanenberg, P., Muller-Herold, U., Morosini, M. & Fisher, E., The Application of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union: Regulatory Strategies and Research Needs to Compose and Specify a European Policy on the Application of the Precautionary Principle (PrecauPri) (Centre for Technology Assessment, 2003).Google Scholar

⁹ Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of 18 Dec. 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (reach) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency [2006] OJ L396/1.

¹⁰ Fisher, E., “The Perfect Storm” of reach: Charting Regulatory Controversy in the Age of Information, Sustainable Development, and Globalization’ (2008) 11(4) Journal of Risk Research, pp. 541–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Fisher, E., Pascual, P. & Wagner, W., ‘Understanding Environmental Models in Their Legal and Regulatory Context’ (2010) 22(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 251–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Fisher, E., Risk Regulation and Administrative Constitutionalism (Hart Publishing, 2007).Google ScholarPubMed

¹³ Fisher, E., ‘Administrative Law, Pluralism and the Legal Construction of Merits Review in Australian Environmental Courts and Tribunals’, in Pearson, L. & Harlow, C. (eds.), Administrative Law in a Changing State: Essays in Honour of Mark Aronson (Hart Publishing, 2008), pp. 325–48.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Fisher, E., ‘Beyond the Science/Democracy Dichotomy: The World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement and Administrative Constitutionalism’, in Joerges, C. & Petersmann, E.-U. (eds.), Transnational Trade Governance and Social Regulation: Tensions and Interdependencies (Hart Publishing, 2006), pp. 327–49.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Lee, R. & Stokes, E., ‘Environmental Governance: Reconnecting the Global and Local’ (2009) 36(1) Journal of Law and Society, pp. 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which introduced a special issue on the global and local in environmental law.

¹⁶ Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Lakatos, I., ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Science (Cambridge University Press, 1974), pp. 91–196.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Yang, T. & Percival, R., ‘The Emergence of Global Environmental Law’ (2009) 36 Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 615–64.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Busch, P.-O., Jörgens, H. & Tews, K., ‘The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Instruments: The Making of a New International Environmental Regime’ (2005) 598(1) Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, pp. 146–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Wiener, J., ‘Something Borrowed for Something Blue: Legal Transplants and the Evolution of Global Environmental Law’ (2001) 27 Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 1295–371.Google Scholar

²⁰ Heyvaert, V., ‘Levelling Down, Levelling Up, and Governing Across: Three Responses to Hybridization in International Law’ (2009) 20(3) European Journal of International Law, pp. 647–74Google Scholar; and Schepel, H., The Constitution of Private Governance (Hart Publishing, 2005).Google Scholar

²¹ Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

²² Case C-459/03, Commission v. Ireland [2006] ECR I-4635.

²³ E. Hey, ‘Global Environmental Law’ (2009) unpublished essay, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1511188.

²⁴ See Bogojevic’s discussion of the ‘global gaze’ in Bogojevic, S., ‘Ending the Honeymoon: Deconstructing Emissions Trading Discourses’ (2009) 21(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 443–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ de Sadeleer, N., Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules (Oxford University Press, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Lee & Stokes, n. 15 above, at pp. 2 and 7.

²⁷ Fisher, Lange, Scotford & Carlarne, n. 1 above, at pp. 245–6.

²⁸ Kelemen, D., Eurolegalism: The Transformation of Law and Regulation in the European Union (Harvard University Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ Carlarne, C., ‘Good Climate Governance: Only a Fragmented System of International Law Away?’ (2008) 30(4) Law & Policy, pp. 450–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Stephens, T., International Courts and Environmental Protection (Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; and Scott, J. & Sturm, S., ‘Courts as Catalysts: Rethinking the Judicial Role in New Governance’ (2007) 13(3) Columbia Journal of European Law, pp. 565–92.Google Scholar

³¹ Lee & Stokes, n. 15 above.

³² Scott, J., ‘From Brussels with Love: The Transatlantic Travels of European Law and the Chemistry of Regulatory Attraction’ (2009) 57(4) American Journal of Comparative Law, pp. 897–942Google Scholar; and Heyvaert, V., ‘Governing Climate Change: Towards a New Paradigm for Risk Regulation’ (2011) 74 The Modern Law Review, pp. 817–44.Google Scholar

³³ Yang & Percival, n. 17 above.

³⁴ Fisher, E., ‘Unpacking the Toolbox: Or Why the Public/Private Divide Is Important in EC Environmental Law’, in Freedland, M. & Auby, J.-B. (eds.), The Public Law/Private Law Divide: Une entente assez cordiale? (Hart Publishing, 2006), pp. 215–42.Google Scholar

³⁵ Bodansky, D., ‘Customary (and Not So Customary) International Environmental Law’ (1995) 3(1) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, pp. 105–19.Google Scholar

³⁶ Jessup, P., Transnational Law (Yale University Press, 1956).Google Scholar

³⁷ Koh, H., ‘Transnational Legal Process’ (1996) 75 Nebraska Law Review, pp. 181–208, at 184.Google Scholar

³⁸ Kingsbury, B., ‘Global Environmental Governance as Administration: Implications for International Law’, in Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 63–84.Google Scholar

³⁹ Fisher, Lange, Scotford & Carlarne, n. 1 above.

⁴⁰ Evetts, J., Mieg, H. & Felt, U., ‘Professionalisation, Scientific Expertise, and Elitism: A Sociological Perspective’, in Ericsson, K., et al. . (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 105–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ M. Chi, ‘Two Approaches to the Study of Experts’ Characteristics’, in Ericsson, et al., ibid., pp. 21–30.

⁴² Collins, H. & Evans, R., Rethinking Expertise (University of Chicago Press, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ Ibid.

⁴⁴ Collins, H., ‘Language and Practice’ (2011) 41 Social Studies of Science, pp. 271–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁴⁵ Fisher, Lange, Scotford & Carlarne, n. 1 above, at pp. 239–43.

⁴⁶ Fisher, n. 12 above.

⁴⁷ Cf. Purdy, J., ‘The Politics of Nature: Climate Change, Environmental Law, and Democracy’ (2010) 119 Yale Law Journal, pp. 1122–209Google Scholar; Godden, L. & Peel, J., Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Heng, L.L., ‘A Fine City in a Garden: Environmental Law and Governance in Singapore’ (2008) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 68–117Google Scholar; and Wood, S., Tanner, G. & Richardson, B., ‘What Ever Happened to Canadian Environmental Law?’ (2010) 37 Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 981–1040.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Teubner, G., ‘Breaking Frames: The Global Interplay of Legal and Social Systems’ (1997) 45(1) American Journal of Comparative Law, pp. 149–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁹ Fisher, E., ‘Risk Regulatory Concepts and the Law’, in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (ed.), Risk and Regulatory Policy: Improving the Governance of Risk (OECD, 2010)Google Scholar; and Bogojevic, n. 24 above.

⁵⁰ Zumbasen, P., ‘Transnational Law’, in Smits, J.M. (ed.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (Edward Elgar, 2006), pp. 738–54, at 739.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Galligan, D., Law in Modern Society (Clarendon Press, 2007), at Chapter 10.Google Scholar

⁵² Shapiro, M., Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis (University of Chicago Press, 1981).Google Scholar

⁵³ Scotford, E., ‘Mapping the Article 174(2) EC Case Law: A First Step to Analysing Community Environmental Law Principles’, in Etty, T.F.M. & Somsen, J. (2008) The Yearbook of European Environmental Law, Vol. 8, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Bogojevic, n. 24 above.

⁵⁵ Collins, n. 44 above.

⁵⁶ Dryzek, J., The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Bammer, G. & Smithson, M. (eds.), Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Earthscan, 2008).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Fisher, Pascual & Wagner, n. 11 above.

⁵⁹ Heinzerling, L., ‘The Environment’, in Cane, P. & Tushnet, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies (Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 701–24.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Jasanoff, S., Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton University Press, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ Heyvaert, n. 32 above.

⁶² Jasanoff, S., ‘The Idiom of Co-Production’, in Jasanoff, S. (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (Routledge, 2006), pp. 1–12, at 2–3.Google Scholar

⁶³ Winickoff, D., Jasanoff, S., Busch, L., Grove White, R. & Wynne, B., ‘Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk and Democracy in World Trade Law’ (2005) 30 Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 81–123, at 94.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Fisher, n. 14 above.

⁶⁵ Wynne, B., ‘Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002)’ (2003) 33(3) Social Studies of Science, pp. 401–17Google Scholar; and Jasanoff, S., ‘Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, “The Third Wave of Science Studies”’ (2003) 33(3) Social Studies of Science, pp. 389–400.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Abbott, A., The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (University of Chicago Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Sennett, R., The Craftsman (Allen Lane, 2008)Google Scholar; Haas, P. (ed.), Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Co-ordination (MIT Press, 1992)Google Scholar; and Evans, R., ‘The Sociology of Expertise: The Distribution of Social Fluency’ (2008) 2 Sociology Compass, pp. 281–98.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Collins, n. 44 above.

⁶⁸ Plater, Z., ‘Environmental Law and the Three Economies: Navigating a Sprawling Field of Study, Practice, and Societal Governance in which Everything is Connected to Everything Else’ (1999) 23 Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 359–92.Google Scholar