Beyond the national resource privilege: towards an International Court of the Environment

Schuppert, Fabian

doi:10.1017/s1752971913000262

Cited by 57 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The impact of international risk-reducing norms is nevertheless limited by several factors, including the fragmented nature of international law (Klabbers, 2004); conflictive interpretations of these norms (see Gardiner, 2006 on the "precautionary principle"); state and corporate interests (see e.g., Biermann, 1996 on the notion of "common heritage"); and the absence of an effective international legal architecture, such as a global environmental court (Schuppert, 2014).…”

Section: International Norm Evolution Is Slow But Can Take Off Rapidlymentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Governance Dimensions of Globally Networked Risks: The State of the Art in Social Science Research

Galaz¹,

Tallberg²,

Boin³

et al. 2017

Risk Hazard & Crisis Pub Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global risks are now increasingly being perceived as networked, and likely to result in large‐scale, propagating failures and crises that transgress national boundaries and societal sectors. These so called “globally networked risks” pose fundamental challenges to global governance institutions. A growing literature explores the nature of these globally networked or “systemic” risks. While this research has taught us much about the anatomy of these risks, it has consistently failed to integrate insights from the wider social sciences. This is problematic since the prescriptions that result from these efforts flow from naїve assumptions about the way real‐world state and non‐state actors behave in the international arena. This leaves serious gaps in our understanding of whether networked environmental risks at all can be governed. The following essay brings together decades of research by different disciplines in the social sciences, and identifies five multi‐disciplinary key insights that can inform global approaches to governing these. These insights include the influence of international institutions; the dynamics and effect of international norms and legal mechanisms; the need for international institutions to cope with transboundary and cross‐sectoral crises; the role of innovation as a strategy to handle unpredictable global risks; and the necessity to address legitimacy issues.

show abstract

Section: International Norm Evolution Is Slow But Can Take Off Rapidlymentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Governance Dimensions of Globally Networked Risks: The State of the Art in Social Science Research

Galaz¹,

Tallberg²,

Boin³

et al. 2017

Risk Hazard & Crisis Pub Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the national resource privilege is normatively controversial, this paper cannot and will not engage in a debate about the privilege's validity, since this would lead too far and it has already been done elsewhere (Armstrong 2015b;Schuppert 2014).…”

Section: The Standard Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Sink Conservation and Global Justice: Benefitting, Free Riding and Non-compliance

Schuppert

2015

Res Publica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is often assumed that in order to avoid the most severe consequences of global anthropogenic climate change we have to preserve our existing carbon sinks, such as for instance tropical forests. Global carbon sink conservation raises a host of normative issues, though, since it is debatable who should pay the costs of carbon sink conservation, who has the duty to protect which sinks, and how far the duty to conserve one's carbon sinks actually extends, especially if it conflicts with other duties one might have. According to some, forested states like Ecuador have a duty to preserve their tropical forests while the rich states of the global North have a duty of fairness to compensate states like Ecuador for the costs they incur. My aim in this paper is to critically analyse this standard line of argument and to criticise its validity both internally (i.e. with regard to its normative conclusion based on its premises) and externally (i.e. with regard to the argument's underlying assumptions and its lack of contextualisation). As I will argue, the duty to conserve one's forests is only a particular instantiation of a wider, more general duty to contribute towards global climate justice for which the context in which one operates (e.g. whether other agents are complying with their duties of global climate justice or not) matters significantly.

show abstract

“…This article, in distinction, focuses on natural resources under individual states’ jurisdiction . They merit consideration of their own due to different legal, political, and possibly moral norms applicable to them, but they have received relatively little attention so far . The article proceeds in three steps: first, the principle of sovereign's territorial jurisdiction over natural resources is briefly introduced; Second, five normative‐moral arguments in legal and political theory are reviewed that justify the rights of sovereigns over natural resources.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sovereignty over natural resources and its implications for climate justice

Banai

2016

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current international system, sovereign states hold extensive rights over the natural resources in their territories. How are sovereign rights in natural resources justified? What are the implications of these rights for the demands of climate justice, which pertain to the use and management of natural resourcesfor example, rainforests? This article reviews five theories of territorial rights, in contemporary political and legal philosophy, and the justifications that they provide for territorial jurisdiction over natural resources. It is argued that insofar as the philosophical-normative perspectives justify sovereigns' jurisdiction over natural resources within their borders, they also give rise to limits on the legitimate and permissible exercise of the jurisdictional prerogative. This theoretical proposition is then illustrated in the case of international climate-justice obligations of rain-forest-rich countries.

show abstract

Beyond the national resource privilege: towards an International Court of the Environment

Cited by 57 publications

References 51 publications

Global Governance Dimensions of Globally Networked Risks: The State of the Art in Social Science Research

Global Governance Dimensions of Globally Networked Risks: The State of the Art in Social Science Research

Carbon Sink Conservation and Global Justice: Benefitting, Free Riding and Non-compliance

Sovereignty over natural resources and its implications for climate justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About