Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T01:11:01.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evolution of Transnational Environmental Law: Four Cases in Historical Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2012

Peter H. Sand
Peter H. Sand*
Affiliation:
Institute of International Law, University of Munich, Germany. Email: peterhsand@t-online.de.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay places transnational environmental law in an epistemological context. Starting from the general concept of ‘transnational law’ and the specific environmental dimension of ‘international administrative law’, four case histories are presented to illustrate the integrant approach of transnational environmental law. The cases – all arising in the 1970s – deal with transboundary problems of aircraft noise, ocean dumping, river pollution, and marine protected areas. In addition to traditional aspects of public international law in the environmental field, they typically interface with questions of administrative law, private international law, criminal law, and human rights law. The essay advocates a new focus on mechanisms for participation by civil society in the operation and implementation of transnational environmental law.

Keywords

Transnational LawPublic ParticipationAircraft NoiseOcean DumpingRiver PollutionMarine Protected Areas

Information

Type
Commentary
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , April 2012 , pp. 183 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

1. INTRODUCTION

The concept of ‘transnational law’ is generally associated with Judge Philip Jessup’s seminal Storrs Lectures at Yale Law School in 1955, and his famous definition of ‘all law which regulates actions or events that transcend national frontiers. Both public and private international law are included, as are other rules that do not wholly fit into such standard categories’.Footnote 1 Subsequently embedded in a Harvard casebook classic, Steiner and Vagts’ Transnational Legal Problems,Footnote 2 the word was to become a household term for generations of law students,Footnote 3 and has long received universal coinage – to the point where transnational law is even said to be ‘eclipsing’ or ‘marginalizing’ classical public international law,Footnote 4 while transnational governance networks begin to expand and transform the traditional architecture of international relations.Footnote 5

It is less well known that the label ‘transnational’ had already been suggested much earlier by a Viennese law professor, in the fifth edition of his treatise on private international law,Footnote 6 for the purpose of distinguishing rules regarding conflict of laws from the broader field of rules common to different states for historical reasons or by virtue of treaties harmonizing and transplanting legal concepts internationally. Gustav Walker’s use of the word came close indeed to modern usage of ‘transnational’ terminology in international economic law (lex mercatoria).Footnote 7

Curiously enough, international environmental law – which only emerged as a distinct discipline in the 1970s and 1980sFootnote 8 – has long been confined to the orthodox category of public international law, viewed as ‘law among nations’. Rather typically, perhaps, the term ‘international law’ in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration’s famous Principle 21 (later restated in Principle 2 of the 1992 Rio Declaration) was rendered as ‘law of nations’ (Völkerrecht) in the semi-official German translation;Footnote 9 and, to this date, German-language treatises on international environmental law continue to be titled ‘environmental law of nations’ (Umweltvölkerrecht).Footnote 10 In substance, the same approach seems to prevail throughout most contemporary literature on international environmental law in other languages as well: the subject is invariably defined using the traditional epistemology of ‘sources of law’ from Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (icj Statute); and the case law discussed tends to be limited to litigation among statesFootnote 11 – expressly excluding issues of private international law, regardless of their manifest and growing significance in trans-frontier relations and regulation.Footnote 12 The divide between ‘public’ and ‘private’ international law in this field has indeed been likened to ‘a Berlin Wall or an Iron Curtain’.Footnote 13

Yet, one of the earliest academic studies of what today would unquestionably qualify as ‘environmental law’ was published in 1922 by a renowned scholar in private international law: volume 2(ii) of Karl Neumeyer’s treatise on so-called ‘international administrative law’.Footnote 14 Neumeyer had begun his work on the topic before the First World War in MunichFootnote 15 and published a preview in the French Revue Générale de Droit International Public in 1911;Footnote 16 the final ‘general part’ appeared 26 years later in Switzerland,Footnote 17 at a time when the Nazi authorities had already prohibited him from publishing in Germany. Chapter 8 of Neumeyer’s treatise deals with the transboundary aspects of natural resources and natural products, discussing them in four sections: water and hydropower; mineral resources; agricultural and forest resources; hunting and fishery resources. It includes comparative analysis not only of the applicable international treaties and intergovernmental case law, but also of state practice regarding the legal status of individuals, groups and corporations in trans-frontier disputes, ranging from administrative to civil and criminal cases.

Karl Neumeyer tragically did not live to see his vision and pioneering work generally accepted. He was of Jewish ancestry; and when the Nazi regime took over in Germany, he was at first forced into retirement in 1934, and ultimately into suicide in 1941.Footnote 18 His innovative concept of international administrative law survived, however, and resurfaced in recent years as ‘global administrative law’Footnote 19 – with an offshoot labelled ‘international administrative law for the environment’.Footnote 20 There can be little doubt that this new branch of administrative law is an essential component of what is now being staked out as ‘transnational environmental law’.

2. CASE HISTORIES

It is worth recalling that, in reality, transboundary legal regulation of environmental issues was never limited to the procrustean catalogue of ‘sources of law’ enumerated in Article 38 of the icj Statute. Even the legendary Trail Smelter case in the 1930s – curtain-raiser of every treatise on international environmental law – started out as a straightforward problem of private international law.Footnote 21 The claims were for pollution damage to privately owned agricultural lands in the United States (us) state of Washington, from a privately owned smelter across the border in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Yet the Canadian courts, under an ancient ruling by the British House of Lords,Footnote 22 would have refused to take jurisdiction over a case involving land situated abroad, while the us courts would have refused to permit smoke easements by a foreign corporation.Footnote 23 It was only because of this unfortunate deadlock between Canadian and American rules on conflict of laws that the case eventually wound up in an intergovernmental arbitral tribunal.Footnote 24

Lo and behold, the next major trans-frontier air pollution dispute, with rather similar factual circumstances arising on the French-German border in the 1950s, was settled through private international law remedies: in Poro v. Houillères du Bassin de Lorraine (hbl), the claims were for pollution damage to privately owned horticultural and recreational land in Germany from a state-owned power station across the Saar River in France. The German civil court of appeals in Saarbrücken awarded damages in tort on the basis of the French Civil Code.Footnote 25 The case was thus decided at the level of an ordinary domestic court, even though the underlying pollution problem eventually had to be resolved by bilateral intergovernmental negotiations.Footnote 26 The lesson, then, is simple: most transnational environmental fact situations require a multilevel regulatory approach,Footnote 27 because their ‘public’ international law features tend to be inextricably mixed with equally relevant aspects of international and comparative private law, commercial law, administrative law, human rights, and even criminal law.

The point is best illustrated by four exemplary transboundary environment cases that arose in the 1970s – over aircraft noise, ocean dumping, river pollution, and marine protected areas, respectively.

2.1. The Salzburg Airport Case: Territoriality and the Domestic Fiction

In Township of Freilassing and Max Aicher v. Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport and State-Owned Enterprises,Footnote 28 the Austrian Administrative High Court denied standing to foreign individuals and municipalities in a lawsuit involving harmful environmental impacts of an airport expansion project which affected residential areas across the border in Germany, on grounds which mirror the court’s equally restrictive reasoning in a 1913 precedent involving boundary waters on the Austro-Hungarian frontier. The decision was upheld by the Austrian Constitutional Court.Footnote 29 In essence, it perpetuated the well-established principle of ‘territoriality’ in matters of transnational administrative law, first formulated in 1913 by the court’s predecessor (the Imperial and Royal Administrative High Court), which denied standing under Austrian water law to neighbouring Hungarian municipalities on the other side of the Leitha River.Footnote 30

Even though the rigid territoriality of the Salzburg Airport case has been criticized as ‘hostile to international law’,Footnote 31 it has been reiterated by the court in subsequent decisions;Footnote 32 and it is probably fair to say that it still reflects the mainstream conservative jurisprudence of national administrative courts in other European countries today. This is notwithstanding repeated calls for non-discriminatory treatment of foreign pollution victims across frontiers,Footnote 33 and the growing significance of decentralized environmental linkages among local government units under the 1980 European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities.Footnote 34 Yet, when the German Federal Administrative Court in 1986 granted a neighbouring Dutch resident leave to appeal against the operating permit for a new nuclear power plant on the border,Footnote 35 it was criticized in the literature for abandoning the territoriality principle.Footnote 36 The appeal, including recourse to the Federal Constitutional Court, was ultimately dismissed, and the Emsland plant went into operation in 1988 – although it is now scheduled to close down in 2022, following Germany’s decision in 2011 to phase out all nuclear power production. There have since been more restrictive decisions regarding the participation rights of foreign neighbours in the Dutch–German frontier region, in proceedings involving permits for airport operations (2008) and wind power installations (2011).Footnote 37

In the case of Salzburg Airport, the problem of standing was eventually bypassed by a bilateral intergovernmental agreement ratified in 1974,Footnote 38 which introduced special transnational compensation arrangements. In the event of damage arising on German territory from the construction or operation of the Austrian airport, claimants were given recourse to the ordinary German courts, with the German government substituted for the Austrian government as defendant, followed by subsequent intergovernmental reimbursement for any claims settled, so that for the purposes of German legal provisions to be applied, ’the airport of Salzburg is deemed to be situated on German territory’.Footnote 39

The substitution/compensation scheme so introduced is not a novelty: it has long been practised for the transnational settlement of noise and sonic boom damage caused by foreign military aircraft in Europe, under the 1951 nato Status of Forces Agreement (sofa), which equates allied military aircraft to national aircraft for procedural purposes.Footnote 40 It is indeed reminiscent of a strategy already employed in the 1909 us-Canadian Boundary Waters Treaty, to the effect

that any interference with or diversion from their natural channel of such waters on either side of the boundary, resulting in an injury on the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to the same rights and entitle the injured parties to the same legal remedies as if such injury took place in the country where such diversion or interference occurs.Footnote 41

In other words, a simple legal fiction (pretending that some foreign territory is part of domestic territory) serves to circumvent the irritant territoriality principle.

2.2. The Scarlino Red Slicks Case: Exploring the Spectrum of Remedies

In Italian Republic, Prud’hommie des Marins Pêcheurs de Bastia et al. v. Cefis, Montecatini Edison (Montedison) S.p.a. et al.,Footnote 42 an association of professional fishermen from the French island of Corsica was permitted to join in criminal proceedings before an Italian magistrate’s court in Livorno against the managers of a leading Italian chemical corporation which had been dumping toxic titanium dioxide wastes from two company-owned tankers (the Scarlino i and Scarlino ii) since 1972, causing visible ‘red slicks’ in the Mediterranean sea off Corsica. In 1974, the defendants were sentenced to three months and 20 days in prison (suspended on probation). Following new legislation, however, the decision was reversed on appeal, and all defendants were acquitted in 1976.Footnote 43 The Bastia Fishermen’s Union then brought an action in tort against the Italian corporation before the local courts in Corsica, which on appeal went up to the French Supreme Court,Footnote 44 resulting in an award of damages totalling 680,000 francs in 1985.Footnote 45 Attempts by the defendant company to counter the pluralism of lawsuits by raising procedural exceptions of lis pendens were ultimately unsuccessful.Footnote 46 While a related verdict by the Italian Court of Accounts against the coastguard officials who had authorized the waste discharges was eventually quashed by the Italian Supreme Court in 1989,Footnote 47 the latter did confirm the fiduciary right (and duty) of the government to claim compensation for damage to the marine environment as part of the national heritage,Footnote 48 thereby adding a further administrative law dimension to the arsenal of remedies available.

Meanwhile, the Italian government – concerned over transnational competitive disadvantages – had prompted the European Commission in 1975 to propose a new Directive on disposal of wastes from the titanium dioxide industry, aiming at a 90% reduction of waste discharges in all European Union (eu) Member States.Footnote 49 Simultaneously, as a result of a French–Italian diplomatic compromise, the Dumping ProtocolFootnote 50 to the 1976 Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against PollutionFootnote 51 added to its blacklist of prohibited substances ‘acid and alkaline compounds of such composition and in such quantity that they may seriously impair the quality of sea water’ – including, if not naming, titanium dioxide wastes.Footnote 52

The net environmental outcome of the Scarlino case is that the chemical plant concerned, in Scarlino/Tuscany, continues to produce titanium dioxide pigments, but toxic wastes are now reprocessed on land instead of being dumped at sea. That positive outcome was brought about essentially by a combination of economic impacts on the business sector affected, through a plurality of transnational remedies rather than because of any formal international legal responsibility. The plant, which now goes by the name of Tioxide S.r.l. Europe, was acquired by Imperial Chemical Industries (uk) in 1990 and by Huntsman Corporation (us) in 1999. Current annual production is estimated at 80,000 tonnes, according to us Securities and Exchange Commission (sec) 10-k forms filed for 2010.Footnote 53 The plant is a certified facility under iso 14001 environmental standardsFootnote 54 and submits annual environmental performance reports under the global chemical industry's ‘Responsible Care’ programme.Footnote 55

2.3. The Rhinesalt Case: Multilevel Strategies Applied

In Bier Handelskwekerij et al. v. Mines de Potasse d’Alsace,Footnote 56 a group of Dutch horticulturalists downstream in the Rhine estuary teamed up with the Reinwater Foundation, an international environmental non-governmental organization (ngo),Footnote 57 to bring an action against a (partly state-owned) French mining company located upstream in Alsace. The company dumped large quantities of potash (potassium/kali) mining wastes in the Rhine river, thereby raising water salinity to harmful levels. Repeated attempts to resolve the issue through the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine against Pollution (icpr) proved unsuccessful.Footnote 58 In 1976, the Rotterdam Court of Appeals referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ecj) in Luxembourg for a preliminary ruling pursuant to (now) Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (tfeu, formerly Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community) on the question of jurisdiction. The ecj held that under Article 5(3) of the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (eex Convention)Footnote 59 the plaintiffs had an option to bring their suit either in the courts at the place where the pollution damage occurred (the Netherlands) or at the place where the act causing the pollution occurred (France).Footnote 60

Lawsuits then proceeded in both countries. Alongside the action for civil tort damages in the Netherlands – which went up to the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), and eventually led to an out-of-court settlement for a total of 3.75 million guilders in 1988Footnote 61 – an action for injunctive relief was brought before the Tribunal Administratif in Strasbourg by several of the pollution victims (including the City of Amsterdam, the Province of North Holland, and several water supply agencies) against the French government’s waste discharge permit.Footnote 62 Annulment of the permit was granted by the tribunal in 1983, and confirmed by the French Council of State (Conseil d’État) in 1986.Footnote 63 In a related action for punitive damages against the potash mining company, launched before the ordinary local court in Mulhouse/Alsace and ultimately decided by the Paris Cour d’Appel, the claimants were awarded damages totalling 2 million francs in 1990.Footnote 64

Meanwhile, diplomatic negotiations between the four riparian countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) had produced the 1976 Bonn Convention concerning the Protection of the Rhine against Pollution by Chlorides,Footnote 65 which provided for the joint financing of potash waste disposal measures upstream in Alsace.Footnote 66 After considerable local opposition in France, the Convention finally entered into force in 1985, followed in 1991 by an Additional Protocol for joint funding of pollution abatement measures downstream in the Netherlands.Footnote 67 It took further arbitration proceedings between the Dutch and French governments in the Permanent Court of Arbitration to settle, in 2004, the question of intergovernmental reimbursements under the Protocol.Footnote 68 By that time, the Alsatian potash deposits were already depleted and the mine had closed down. The remaining issues of chloride pollution from other sources are being dealt with by the icpr, which now administers both the 1976 Bonn Convention and the new 1999 Bern Convention for the Protection of the Rhine,Footnote 69 under the overall regional framework of the 1992unece Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes.Footnote 70 All riparian countries except Switzerland and Liechtenstein are additionally bound by eu Directive 2000/60/ec establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy (Water Framework Directive).Footnote 71

2.4. The Chagos Archipelago Case: Environment versus Human Rights?

The case of Chagos Islanders v. United Kingdom, currently pending in the European Court of Human Rights (ecthr),Footnote 72 is about a small indigenous community of approximately 1,500 people who were expelled from their native islands in the Indian Ocean between 1968 and 1973 to make way for a British-American military base.Footnote 73 Consequently, according to the United Kingdom (uk) Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’ (biot) – which, for this purpose, had been ‘excised’ from the former crown colony of MauritiusFootnote 74 ‘by reason of the absence of any permanent population’ – was no longer subject to the trusteeship obligations regarding non self-governing territories under Article 73 of the United Nations (un) Charter.Footnote 75 By the same token, most of the human rights and environmental treaties ratified by the uk are considered to be inapplicable to the archipelago because they were deliberately not extended to the biot,Footnote 76 thus turning the territory into a new international legal ‘black hole’.Footnote 77

Military construction and operation of the base on the main island of Diego Garcia – which played a major strategic role in both Gulf Wars and in the bombing of Afghanistan until 2006 – resulted in serious environmental damage to the coral reefs. The Diego Garcia base boasts the world’s longest slipform-paved airport runway built on crushed coral (3.6 km); in the course of military construction works in the 1980s, a total of more than 3.8 million m3 of ‘coral fill’ was ‘harvested’.Footnote 78 The damage to the reef was irreparable.Footnote 79 Nonetheless, the British government has since designated the Diego Garcia lagoon – dynamited and deep-dredged to accommodate the us Navy 5th Fleet’s nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, and ammunition supply vessels – as part of an internationally protected ‘nature reserve’ under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance.Footnote 80

Starting in the 1990s, the exiled islanders instituted lawsuits in American federal courts and in the British High Court, claiming compensation and annulment of the colonial ordinances that had denied them the right of return to their homeland.Footnote 81 After their claims were dismissed by the us courts in 2006-07,Footnote 82 and by the uk House of Lords’ Appellate Committee in 2008,Footnote 83 they turned to the ecthr in Strasbourg, where their case is currently pending. In April 2010, however, the British government proclaimed the entire 200-mile zone of the biot (544,000 km2 – more than double the size of the uk) to be a ‘marine protected area’,Footnote 84 thereby expecting to ‘put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents’,Footnote 85 while ostensibly preserving global biological diversity.Footnote 86 While this unilateral act raises new questions of compatibility with the un Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos),Footnote 87 refuelling a long-standing sovereignty dispute with both Mauritius and the Maldives,Footnote 88 the central issue remains its manifest disregard for basic human rights of the Chagos islanders,Footnote 89 and their continuing exclusion from a decision process that critics have characterized as outright ‘eco-imperialism’,Footnote 90 or colonial ‘fortress conservation’.Footnote 91 The standard ‘environmental’ pretext for denying the islanders a right of return has thus been the allegation that sea-level rise caused by global warming would soon make the islands uninhabitable,Footnote 92 a claim disproved by recent data for this particular area.Footnote 93

3. A CHANGE OF PERSPECTIVE: THE BACK OF THE MIRROR

One common feature of this string of case histories is the crucial role of civil society in triggering, shaping, and eventually resolving the transnational environmental disputes discussed – an epistemic dimension which the tunnel vision of public international lawyers, and their ‘obsession with territory’,Footnote 94 has long ignored. Borrowing a metaphor from ethologist Konrad Lorenz, it is ‘the back of the mirror’Footnote 95 (that is, in a legal context the social reality of people interacting with governments and other people beyond boundaries)Footnote 96 that is essential for an understanding of complex transnational relationships in this field.

The first international provisions for the mutual granting of non-discriminatory treatment to foreign plaintiffs in judicial and administrative proceedings for environmental matters are found in Articles 3 (foreign individuals) and 4 (foreign designated authorities) of the 1974 Nordic Environmental Protection Convention,Footnote 97 followed by several recommendations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (oecd),Footnote 98 a growing number of multilateral environmental agreements,Footnote 99 and the un International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities.Footnote 100 The transnational procedural and institutional pattern so emerging may indeed be said to move closer to Karl Neumeyer’s vision of a harmonized system based on mutual/reciprocal recognition of administrative decision-making for the environment.Footnote 101

International mechanisms to integrate non-state actors in the operation and effective implementation of environmental law have made their appearance since the 1980s: following the introduction of a control procedure for national application of the eu environmental DirectivesFootnote 102 and the establishment of a ‘complaints registry’ in Brussels for that purpose,Footnote 103 more than half of the infringement proceedings initiated against Member States since 1982 were based not on the European Commission’s own compliance monitoring but on citizen complaints.Footnote 104 In 1993, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (naaec) empowered natural and legal persons and ngos to lodge complaints to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (cec) that a Member State ‘is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law’.Footnote 105 At the level of multilateral financial institutions, the Inspection Panel established by the World Bank in 1993 initiated a review process which entitled ‘project-affected people’ to hold the organization accountable for compliance with its own legal ‘safeguards’ for development projects.Footnote 106 This model of a transnational quasi-judicial mechanism, with a distinct focus on environmental rules,Footnote 107 has since spread to several regional development banks.Footnote 108

A momentous ‘participatory revolution’ in this fieldFootnote 109 was ushered in by the 1998 unece Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention),Footnote 110 which resulted in the establishment of a ‘Compliance Committee’ in 2002.Footnote 111 To be sure, the Aarhus mechanism is not entirely new, building in part on the non-compliance procedures created in the context of the ozone layer regime since 1990,Footnote 112 which were later transplanted into several other environmental treaty regimes.Footnote 113 Sometimes referred to as ‘non-adversarial’ or ‘non-confrontational’Footnote 114 – even though they definitely contain a ‘confrontational’ element of compulsion, since they may be triggered without the consent of the offending partyFootnote 115 – these procedures effectively bypass the (notoriously ineffective) traditional treaty procedure of state-versus-state dispute settlement,Footnote 116 and instead allow collective scrutiny of treaty implementation by all Member States, through periodic reviews by the Conference of Contracting Parties or a special committee delegated for this purpose by the Conference.Footnote 117

The innovations now injected into this process by the Aarhus compliance regime are both procedural and institutional: Articles 3(9) and 15 of the Convention empower ‘the public’ – individuals and groups as defined in Article 2(4)–(5), without discrimination as to citizenship, nationality or domicile – to submit complaints about governmental non-compliance with the Convention.Footnote 118 These submissions are then reviewed by a board composed of nine independent experts, including members nominated by ngos.Footnote 119 The mechanism thus opens a new (manifestly confrontational/adversarial) relationship between governments and representatives of civil society, who can hold Member States – and since 2005, also the eu – ‘transnationally’ accountable for their national implementation of the treaty.Footnote 120 In this regard, the Aarhus regime may indeed be said to have revolutionized the participation of non-state actors in the operation of a multilateral environmental agreement.

As it stands, territorial application of the Aarhus Convention remains restricted to metropolitan Europe. Even though, according to its Article 19(3), the Convention is open to all un Member States, all current members are European countries (Canada and the us, though both automatically eligible for membership in their capacity as original unece members, have not signed or ratified to date). Moreover, European governments have notoriously been reluctant to extend the Convention to their non-metropolitan overseas territories. In the Chagos Archipelago case, the uk Foreign and Commonwealth Office thus takes the position that the Convention ‘has no practical relevance to the British Indian Ocean Territory’, since ‘biot has no permanent residents’Footnote 121 (the Chagos Islanders having been expelled 40 years ago).

Yet, there have been a number of calls for ‘globalizing’ Aarhus, building on Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,Footnote 122 most recently in the context of preparations for the 2012un Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20).Footnote 123 Non-governmental networks such as the ‘Access Initiative’Footnote 124 have long promoted common global standards for public participation in environment-related civil and administrative proceedings.Footnote 125 In 2010, the Governing Council of the un Environment Programme (unep) adopted a set of ‘guidelines for the development of national legislation on access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters’.Footnote 126 Chances are, therefore, that the new instruments emerging from these initiatives may not be limited to traditional treaty law, but will reflect new patterns of transnational environmental law-making, vindicating Sir Francis Bacon’s premonitory advice:

And he that will not apply New Remedies, must expect New Evils: For Time is the greatest Innovator.Footnote 127

References

1 Jessup, P., Transnational Law (Yale University Press, 1956), at p. 2.Google Scholar

2 Steiner, H.J. & Vagts, D.F., Transnational Legal Problems (1st edn, Foundation Press, 1968), p. xi.Google Scholar

3 Steiner, H.J., ‘Constructing and Developing Transnational Law: The Contribution of Detlev Vagts’, in Bekker, P.H.E. et al. . (eds.), Making Transnational Law Work in the Global Economy: Essays in Honour of Detlev Vagts (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 10–16, at 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 D. Kalderimis, ‘Is Transnational Law Eclipsing International Law?’, ibid., pp. 93–107, at 101.

5 See Hale, T.N. & Held, D. (eds.), Handbook of Transnational Governance: Institutions and Innovations (Polity Press, 2011)Google Scholar; see also Slaughter, A.M. & Hale, T.N., ‘Transgovernmental Networks and Multilevel Governance’, in Enderlein, H. et al. . (eds.), Handbook on Multi-Level Governance (Edward Elgar, 2010), pp. 358–69.Google Scholar

6 Walker, G., Internationales Privatrecht (Österreichische Staatsdruckerei, 1934), p. 13.Google Scholar

7 See Gaillard, E., ‘Transnational Law: A Legal System or a Method of Decision Making?’, in Berger, K.P. (ed.), The Practice of Transnational Law (Kluwer Law International, 2001), pp. 53–65.Google Scholar

8 See Editorial, , ‘Developments in the Law: International Environmental Law’ (1991) 104 Harvard Law Review, pp. 1484–639, at 1489.Google Scholar

9 Declaration on the Human Environment, Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm (Sweden), 5–16 June 1972, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 vol. I (1973), p. 5 (German translation in (1972) 20 Vereinte Nationen, p. 109).

10 See, e.g., Beyerlin, U., Umweltvölkerrecht (Beck Verlag, 2000)Google Scholar; Epiney, A. & Scheyli, M., Umweltvölkerrecht (Stämpfli Verlag, 2000)Google Scholar; and, for an early critique, Stoll, P.T. & Schillhorn, K., ‘Das völkerrechtliche Instrumentarium und transnationale Anstösse im Recht der natürlichen Lebenswelt’ (1998) 20 Natur und Recht, pp. 625–32.Google Scholar

11 See, e.g., Romano, C.P.R., The Peaceful Settlement of International Environmental Disputes: A Pragmatic Approach (Kluwer Law International, 2000), at p. 14.Google Scholar

12 Notable exceptions are McCaffrey, S.C., Private Remedies for Transfrontier Environmental Disturbances (IUCN, 1975)Google Scholar; and Siehr, K., ‘Grenzüberschreitender Umweltschutz: europäische Erfahrungen mit einem weltweiten Problem’ (1981) 45 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, pp. 377–98.Google Scholar

13 McCaffrey, S.C., ‘Liability for Transfrontier Environmental Harm: The Relationship between Public and Private International Law’, in von Bar, C. (ed.), Internationales Umwelthaftungsrecht, vol. I (Carl Heymanns Verlag, 1995), pp. 81–104, at 83.Google Scholar

14 Neumeyer, K., Internationales Verwaltungsrecht, vol. 2 (Schweitzer Verlag, 1922).Google Scholar

15 Neumeyer, K., Internationales Verwaltungsrecht, vol. 1 (Schweitzer Verlag, 1910)Google Scholar; see Walker, n. 6 above, at p. 15.

16 Neumeyer, K., ‘Le droit administratif international’ (1911) 18 Revue Générale de Droit International Public, p. 492–99.Google Scholar

17 Neumeyer, K., Internationales Verwaltungsrecht, vol. 4 (Verlag für Recht und Gesellschaft, 1936).Google Scholar

18 See Vogel, K., ‘Karl Neumeyer: In den Tod getrieben’, in Landau, P. & Nehlsen, H. (eds.), Grosse jüdische Gelehrte an der Münchener Juristischen Fakultät (Aktiv Verlag, 2001), pp. 97–111.Google Scholar

19 See Kingsbury, B. et al. ., ‘The Emergence of Global Administrative Law’ (2005) 68 Law and Contemporary Problems, pp. 15–61.Google Scholar

20 Durner, W., ‘Internationales Umweltverwaltungsrecht’, and M. Rossi, ‘Europäisiertes internationales Umweltverwaltungsrecht’, in Möllers, C. et al. . (eds.), Internationales Verwaltungsrecht: Eine Analyse anhand von Referenzgebieten (Mohr Siebeck Verlag, 2007), pp. 121–64 and 165–80.Google Scholar

21 Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada) (1941) 3 UN Reports on International Arbitration Awards 1911, (1941) 35 American Journal of International Law, p. 684.

22 British South Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambique [1893] AC 602.

23 See Read, J.E., ‘The Trail Smelter Dispute’ (1963) 1 Canadian Yearbook of International Law, pp. 213–39, at 223.Google Scholar

24 See Knox, J.J., ‘The Flawed Trail Smelter Procedure: The Wrong Tribunal, the Wrong Parties, and the Wrong Law’, in Bratspies, R.M. & Miller, R.A. (eds.), Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 66–78.Google Scholar For a recent follow up case decided in a US federal court, see Pakootas v. Teck COMINCO Metal Ltd., US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (3 July 2006), 452 F. 3rd 1066; van de Kerkhof, M., ‘The Trail Smelter Case Re-examined: Examining the Development of National Procedural Mechanisms to Resolve a Trail Smelter Type Dispute’ (2011) 27 Merkourios: Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, pp. 68–83.Google Scholar

25 Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken, 22 Oct. 1957, (1958) 11 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, p. 752 (English summary in Sand, P.H., Transnational Environmental Law: Lessons in Global Change (Kluwer Law International, 1999), at pp. 89–90).Google Scholar

26 Annex 8, Art. 8, Franco-German Treaty for the Settlement of the Question of the Saar, Luxemburg, 27 Oct. 1956, 1053 UNTS 3; and the Implementation Protocol, Paris (France), 20 Dec. 1961, 1053 UNTS 511.

27 Winter, G. (ed.), Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change: Perspectives from Science, Sociology and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; S. Wälti, ‘Multi-Level Environmental Governance’, in Enderlein, n. 5 above, pp. 411–22.

28 Verwaltungsgerichtshof 30 May 1969, (1969) 24 Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verwaltungsgerichtshofs, p. 264 (English summary in Sand, n. 25 above, at pp. 90–2).

29 Verfassungsgerichtshof 10 Oct. 1969, (1969) 34 Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofs 681.

30 Kaiserlicher und Königlicher Verwaltungsgerichtshof 1 March 1913, (1913) 7 Niemeyer’s Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, p. 56 (English translation in (1913) 7 American Journal of International Law, p. 653).

31 Schreuer, C.H., ‘Zur verwaltungs- und völkerrechtlichen Problematik des Salzburger Flughafenfalles’ (1971) 26 Oesterreichische Juristenzeitung, pp. 542–45, at 544 (völkerrechtsfeindlich).Google Scholar

32 See, e.g. Verwaltungsgerichtshof 29 Jan. 1991 (English summary by G. Loibl in (1993) 44 Austrian Journal of Public and International Law, p. 243) (denying standing to a foreign environmental agency in hearings for hydropower development on the Austro-Slovenian border).

33 See the OECD recommendations at n. 98 below.

34 Council of Europe, Madrid (Spain), 21 May 1980, 1272 UNTS 61; see U. Beyerlin, ‘Dezentrale grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit als transnationales Rechtsphänomen’ (1989) 27 Archiv des Völkerrechts, pp. 286–327.

35 Bundesverwaltungsgericht 17 Dec. 1986, (1988) 48 Heidelberg Journal of International Law, p. 42.

36 Rauschning, D., ‘Klagebefugnis von Auslandsbewohnern gegen eine inländische Atomanlagengenehmigung’ (1987) 25 Archiv des Völkerrechts, pp. 312–32.Google Scholar

37 Bundesverwaltungsgericht 16 Oct. 2008, (2009) 34 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, p. 452; and Oberverwaltungsgericht Lüneburg 1 Aug. 2011, (2011) 36 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, p. 1073.

38 Agreement concerning the Effects on the Territory of the Federal Republic of Germany of Construction and Operation of the Salzburg Airport, Vienna (Austria), 19 Dec. 1967, 945 UNTS 87; see Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., ‘À propos des nuisances dues aux aéroports limitrophes: le cas de Salzbourg et le traité austro-allemand du 19 décembre 1967’ (1973) 19 Annuaire Français de Droit International, pp. 890–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Art. 2 of the German Ratification Act of 9 Jan. 1974, [1974] Bundesgesetzblatt II, p. 13.

40 Art. VIII(5), Status of Forces Agreement, London (UK), 19 June 1951, 199 UNTS 67; see Kiss, A.C. & Lambrechts, C.C., ‘Les dommages causés au sol par les vols supersoniques’ (1970) 16 Annuaire Français de Droit International, pp. 769–81, at 771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Art. II, Treaty relating to the Boundary Waters and Questions Arising along the Boundary between the United States and Canada, Washington, DC (US), 11 Jan. 1909, (1910) 36 Statutes at Large 2448 (emphasis added).

42 Pretura di Livorno 27 Apr. 1974 (English summary in (1977) 3 Italian Yearbook of International Law, p. 294, and in Sand, n. 25 above, at pp. 92–4); see Kiss, A.C., ‘Un cas de pollution internationale: l’affaire des boues rouges’ (1975) 102 Journal du Droit International, pp. 207–48, at 237.Google Scholar

43 Tribunale di Livorno 7 July 1976, (1976) 128 Giurisprudenza Italiana, p. 624 (English translation in (1997) 3 Italian Yearbook of International Law, p. 298).

44 Prud’hommie des Pêcheurs de Bastia c. Montedison Co. et SIBIT S.p.a., Cour de Cassation 3 Apr. 1978, (1978) Recueil Sirey-Dalloz II, p. 367.

45 Tribunal de Grande Instance (Bastia, 2ème chambre civile) 4 July 1985, (1987) 112 Foro Italiano IV, p. 499.

46 Cour de Cassation, n. 44 above.

47 Procuratura c. Maltese e Turli, Corte di Cassazione (Sezioni Unite) 25 Jan. 1989, (1990) 115 Foro Italiano I, p. 232; reversing Corte dei Conti (Sezioni Riunite) of 16 June 1984, (1985) 110 Foro Italiano III, p. 37.

48 Bianchi, A., ‘Harm to the Environment in Italian Practice: The Interaction of International and Domestic Law’, in Wetterstein, P. (ed.), Harm to the Environment: The Right to Compensation and the Assessment of Damage (Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 103–29, at 104–5.Google Scholar

49 Directive 78/176/EEC on Waste from the Titanium Dioxide Industry [1978] OJ L54/19.

50 Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, Barcelona (Spain), 16 Feb. 1976, in force 12 Feb. 1978; since amended as Protocol for the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft or Incineration at Sea, Barcelona (Spain), 10 June 1995, not yet in force, both available at: http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&catid=001001001.

51 Barcelona (Spain), 16 Feb. 1976, in force 12 Feb. 1978, 1102 UNTS 92; amended as: Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, Barcelona (Spain), 10 June 1995, in force 9 July 2004, available at: http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&catid=001001004.

52 N. 50 above, Annex I(A) para. 8 (subject to further negotiations on specific thresholds).

53 See http://www.sec.gov/answers/form10k.htm.

54 See http://www.iso.org/iso_14000_essentials.

55 See http://www.responsiblecare.org.

56 Case 21/76, Bier Co. and Reinwater Foundation v. Mines de Potasse d’Alsace [1976] ECR I-1735.

57 The Foundation had to withdraw from the case after being denied standing in an interim decision by the Rotterdam District Court on 8 Jan. 1979: see Siehr, n. 12 above, at 381.

58 The ICPR was established by the Agreement on the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine against Pollution, Bern (Switzerland), 29 Apr. 1963, in force 1 May 1965, 994 UNTS 3, as amended (see nn. 65 and 69 below); see C. Dieperink, ‘International Water Negotiations under Asymmetry: Lessons from the Rhine Chlorides Dispute Settlement’ (2011) 11 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, pp. 139–57, at 145–47.

59 Brussels (Belgium), 27 Sept. 1968, in force 1 Feb. 1973, [1972] OJ L299/32. The Convention has since been replaced by the EU Regulations ‘Brussels-I’ and ‘Rome-II’, respectively Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001, [2001] OJ L12/1; and Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007, [2007] OJ L199/40. von Hein, See J. & Wolf, C.U., ‘Transboundary Environmental Damage in the Conflict of Laws’, in Wolfrum, R. et al. . (eds.), Environmental Liability in International Law: Towards a Coherent Conception (Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2005), pp. 381–454Google Scholar; and Dickinson, A., The Rome-II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Oxford University Press, 2008, Supplement 2010).Google Scholar

60 Case 21/76, n. 56 above. Jessurun d’Oliveira, H.U., ‘La pollution du Rhin et le droit international privé’, in Hueting, R. et al. . (eds.), Rhine Pollution: Legal, Economic and Technical Aspects (Tjeenk Willink, 1978), pp. 81–127.Google Scholar

61 Bier, Strik, and Valstar Gardening Companies v. Mines Domaniales de Potasse d’Alsace S.A. (MDPA), Hoge Raad, 23 Sept. 1988 (English translation in (1990) 21 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, p. 443); see Nollkaemper, A., ‘Judicial Application of International Environmental Law in the Netherlands’ (1998) 7 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, pp. 40–6, at 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 Rest, A., ‘Internationaler Umweltschutz vor Verwaltungs-, Zivil- und Strafgerichten: Der niederländisch-französische Rheinverschmutzungsprozess’ (1985) 35 Austrian Journal of Public International Law, pp. 225–63Google Scholar, at 228–49.

63 See Romy, I., Les pollutions transfrontières des eaux: l’exemple du Rhin, moyens d’action des lésés (Payot, 1990).Google Scholar

64 See Wilhelm, A., ‘Grenzüberschreitende Umweltverschmutzung und Haftung: Der Fall “Rhein”’ (1991) 13 Natur und Recht, pp. 115–52.Google Scholar

65 Bonn (Germany), 3 Dec. 1976, in force 5 July 1985, 1404 UNTS 59.

66 Kiss, A., ‘The Protection of the Rhine against Pollution’ (1985) 25 Natural Resources Journal, pp. 613–37.Google Scholar

67 Brussels (Belgium), 25 Sept. 1991, in force 1 Nov. 1994, 1840 UNTS 423. See T. Bernauer, ‘The International Financing of Environmental Protection: Lessons from Efforts to Protect the River Rhine against Chloride Pollution’ (1995) 4 Environmental Politics, pp. 369–90.

68 Mcmahon, B. (ed.), The Rhine Chlorides Arbitration Concerning the Auditing of Accounts (Netherlands-France), PCA Award Series, vol. 4 (Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2008).Google Scholar

69 Bern (Switzerland), 12 Apr. 1999, in force 1 Jan. 2003, [2000] OJ L 289/31; Nollkaemper, A., ‘The Evolution of the Regime for the River Rhine’, in Subedi, S. (ed.), International Watercourses Law for the 21st Century: The Case of the River Ganges Basin (Ashgate, 2005), pp. 151–66.Google Scholar

70 Helsinki (Finland), 17 Mar. 1992, in force 6 Oct. 1996, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/water. See Reichert, G., Der nachhaltige Schutz grenzüberschreitender Gewässer in Europa: Die Entstehung eines völker- und europarechtlichen Umweltregimes (Duncker & Humblot, 2005).Google Scholar

71 [2000] OJ L327/1.

72 Chagos Islanders v. United Kingdom, Application No. 35622/04 (20 Feb. 2009), [2009] ECHR 410.

73 Background documents can be found in Sand, P.H., United States and Britain in Diego Garcia: The Future of a Controversial Base (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), pp. 69–121.Google Scholar See also Snoxell, D.R., ‘Anglo/American Complicity in the Removal of the Inhabitants of the Chagos Islands’ (2009) 37 Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, pp. 127–34Google Scholar; and Vine, D.S., Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base in Diego Garcia (rev’d. edn, Princeton University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

74 British Indian Ocean Territory Order, SI 1965/1920, amended by SI 1968/111. Mauritius continues to claim sovereignty over the area and, according to Art. 111 of its constitution, ‘Mauritius includes … the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia’; see Flanz, G.H. (ed.), Constitutions of the Countries of the World (Oceana, 1998), pp. 81, 95Google Scholar; and n. 89 below.

75 Fox, H., ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Dependent Territories’, in Bernhardt, R. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. 4 (Elsevier, 2000), pp. 1025–29, at 1026.Google Scholar

76 Fox, ibid., at p. 1029, with regard to the 1966 UN Covenants on Human Rights (ratified by the UK in 1976). In contrast, the UN Human Rights Committee considers the Covenants to apply to the BIOT, and in 2008 urged the UK government ‘to include the territory in its next periodic report’: Report of the Committee on its 93rd Session, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6, Geneva (Switzerland), 30 July 2008, p. 6. Among the environmental treaties ratified by the UK but not extended to the BIOT – out of concern for operations on the US military base – are the 1989 Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes, Basel (Switzerland) 22 Mar. 1989, in force 5 May 1992, 173 UNTS 57, available at: http://www.basel.int; the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 June 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, 1760 UNTS 79, available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/text; the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto (Japan), 10 Dec. 1997, in force 16 Feb. 2005, 2303 UNTS 148, available at: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php; the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Stockholm (Sweden), 22 May 2001, in force 17 May 2004, 2256 UNTS 119, available at: http://www.pops.int; and the Aarhus Convention (see n. 110 below).

77 See Moor, L. & Simpson, A.W.B., ‘Ghosts of Colonialism in the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2005) 76 British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 121–93Google Scholar, at 162, 188, 193; and Sand, P.H., ‘Diego Garcia: British-American Legal Blackhole in the Indian Ocean?’ (2009) 21 Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 113–39.Google Scholar

78 Tucker, T. & Doughty, B.T., ‘Naval Facilities, Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory: Management and Administration’ (1988) 84 Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Maritime Engineering Group, pp. 191–215, at 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 Sheppard, C.R.C. & Spalding, M. (eds.), Chagos Conservation Management Plan (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2003), p. 30.Google Scholar

80 Ramsar (Iran), 2 Feb. 1971, in force 21 Dec. 1975, 996 UNTS 245, available at: http://www.ramsar.org. Diego Garcia was listed as Site No. 1077 (2UK001) on 4 July 2001.

81 Allen, S., ‘Responsibility and Redress: The Chagossian Litigation in the English Courts’, in Evers, S.J.T.M. & Kooy, M. (eds.), Eviction from the Chagos Islands: Displacement and Struggle for Identity against Two World Powers (Brill Publishers, 2011), pp. 127–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82 Olivier Bancoult et al. v. Robert S. McNamara et al., 445 Federal Reporter 3rd Series 427 (D.C. Cir. 2006), certiorari denied on 16 Jan. 2007, 127 Supreme Court Reporter 1225 (2007).

83 The Queen (on the application of Bancoult) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Bancoult 2) [2008] UKHL 61, (2008) 4 All England Law Reports 1055, (2010) 138 International Law Reports 628; critical case notes in (2009) 103 American Journal of International Law, pp. 317–24, and (2009) Public Law, pp. 260–86, 697–722.

84 British Indian Ocean Territory, Proclamation No. 1 of 2010 (Marine Protected Area) and Sch., 1 Apr. 2010; see Sand, P.H., ‘The Chagos Archipelago: Footprint of Empire, or World Heritage?’ (2010) 40 Environmental Policy and Law, pp. 232–42.Google Scholar

85 Statement by BIOT Commissioner C. Roberts (Overseas Territories Directorate, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office), as quoted in R. Mills, ‘HMG Floats Proposal for Marine Reserve Covering the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory)’, Cable EO12958 from the US Embassy in London to the State Department (15 May 2009): see ‘US Embassy Cables: Foreign Office Does Not Regret Evicting Chagos Islanders’, The Guardian (2 Dec. 2010).

86 See ‘New Protection for the Marine Life of the British Indian Ocean Territory’, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Press Statement, 1 Apr. 2010, available at: http//www.ukotcf.org/pdf/News/MPA100401FCOStatementonBIOT.pdf.

87 Montego Bay (Jamaica), 10 Dec. 1982, in force 16 Nov. 1994, 1833 UNTS 3, available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_agreements.htm.

88 See n. 76 above; Abraham, G., ‘Paradise Claimed: Disputed Sovereignty Over the Chagos Archipelago’ (2011) 128 South African Law Journal, pp. 63–99Google Scholar; and Papanicolopulu, I., ‘Submission to Arbitration of the Dispute on the Marine Protected Area around the Chagos Archipelago’ (2011) 26 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, pp. 667–78.Google Scholar

89 Allen, S., ‘International Law and the Resettlement of the (Outer) Chagos Islands’ (2008) 8 Human Rights Law Review, pp. 683–702Google Scholar; and de l’Estrac, J.C., L’an prochain à Diego Garcia … (Éditions Le Printemps, 2011).Google Scholar

90 Pearce, F., ‘Conservation at the Expense of Homes?’, New Scientist, 21 Feb. 2009Google Scholar, 10; and Sheppard, C.R.C. & Turner, J., ‘Eco-Imperialism’, letter to the editor, New Scientist, 21 Mar. 2009.Google Scholar

91 de Santo, E.M. et al. ., ‘Fortress Conservation at Sea: A Commentary on the Chagos Marine Protected Area’ (2010) 35 Marine Policy, pp. 258–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

92 R v. SoS Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Bancoult 2), n. 83 above, at para. 23 (‘looming over the whole debate was the effect of global warming which was raising the sea level’).

93 Dunne, R.P. et al. ., ‘Contemporary Sea Level in the Chagos Archipelago, Central Indian Ocean’ (2011) 82–83Global and Planetary Change, pp. 25–37.Google Scholar

94 Scelle, G., ‘Obsession du territoire’, in van Asbeck, F.M. et al. . (eds.), Symbolae Verzijl (Martinus Nijhoff, 1958), pp. 347–61.Google Scholar

95 Lorenz, K., Die Rückseite des Spiegels: Versuch einer Naturgeschichte menschlichen Erkennens (Piper, 1973), pp. 30–32, 320.Google Scholar The English translation by R. Taylor, Behind the Mirror: A Search for a Natural History of Human Knowledge (Harcourt Brace, 1978) unfortunately misplaces the nuance of the metaphor: Lorenz was not at all concerned with some wonderland behind the looking-glass, but most pragmatically with the mirror itself, and its dark reverse side (Rückseite) neglected by conventional epistemologies.

96 Friedman, L., ‘Borders: On the Emerging Sociology of Transnational Law’ (1996) 32 Stanford Journal of International Law, pp. 65–90Google Scholar; and generally Rawls, J., The Law of Peoples (Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

97 Stockholm (Sweden), 19 Feb. 1974, in force 5 Oct. 1976, 1092 UNTS 279.

98 Recommendations C(74)224 on Principles Concerning Transfrontier Pollution, 14 Nov. 1974; C(76)55 on Equal Right of Access in Relation to Transfrontier Pollution, 11 May 1976; and C(77)28 on the Implementation of a Regime of Equal Right of Access and Non-Discrimination in Relation to Transfrontier Pollution, 17 May 1977.

99 E.g., Art. 2(6) of the unece Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Espoo (Finland), 25 Feb. 1991, in force 10 Sept. 1997, 1989 UNTS 309, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/eia/eia.html; Art. 9(3) of the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Helsinki (Finland), 17 March 1992, in force 6 Oct. 1996, 1936 UNTS 269; and Art. 32 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, New York, NY (US) 21 May 1997, not yet in force, (1997) 36 International Legal Materials, p. 719.

100 Art. 15 (‘Non-Discrimination’); see the Report of the International Law Commission on its 53rd Session, 23 Apr.–1 June and 2 July–10 Aug. 2001, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), at p. 427.

101 See text at nn. 14–18 above.

102 Based on Art. 258 TFEU. See Krämer, L., ‘Du contrôle de l’application des directives communautaires en matière de l’environnement’ (1988) 31 Revue du Marché Commun, pp. 22 – 40.Google Scholar

103 Website revised in Sept. 2009: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/complaints.htm.

104 See Annex 2 of EEC Information Memo P/90/5, ‘Control of the Application of Community Law on Environment: First Commission Report’, 8 Feb. 1990, Table 2 in P.H. Sand, Lessons Learned in Global Environmental Governance (World Resources Institute, 1990), at p. 32.

105 Art. 14 NAAEC (Canada-Mexico-USA, 13 Sept. 1993), (1993) 32 International Legal Materials, p. 1480. See Raustiala, K., ‘Citizen Submissions and Treaty Review in the NAAEC’, in Markell, D.L. & Knox, J.H. (eds.), Greening NAFTA: The North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (Stanford University Press, 2003), p. 256–73.Google Scholar

106 World Bank Resolution 93-10 of 22 Sept. 1993, (1993) 4 Yearbook of International Environmental Law, p. 883; Clark, D. et al. . (eds.), Demanding Accountability: Civil Society Claims and the World Bank Inspection Panel (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).Google Scholar

107 It is no coincidence that the chairperson of the Inspection Panel during its formative years (2003–2007) was a distinguished environmental lawyer, Edith Brown Weiss: see Brown Weiss, E. et al. ., ‘The World Bank Inspection Panel: Participation and Accountability’, in Kuyama, S. & Fowler, M.R. (eds.), Envisioning Reform: Enhancing UN Accountability in the Twenty-First Century (United Nations University Press, 2009), pp. 299–332.Google Scholar

108 D. Bradlow & A. Naudé-Fourie, ‘Independent Accountability Mechanisms at Regional Development Banks’, in Hale & Held, n. 5 above.

109 Term coined by Raustiala, K., ‘The “Participatory Revolution” in International Environmental Law’ (1997) 21 Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 537–86.Google Scholar

110 Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, 2161 UNTS 447, available at: http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/treaties/public-participation/aarhus-convention.html.

111 See Decision I/7 of the 1st Meeting of the Parties, UN Doc. ECE/MP.PP/2002/2/Add.8, Annex, Geneva (Switzerland), Oct. 2002.

112 Art. 8 of the Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances, Montreal (Canada), 16 Sept. 1987, in force 1 Jan. 1989, available at: http://ozone.unep.org/, and Decision II/5 of the 2nd Meeting of the Parties. Széll, P., ‘The Montreal Protocol: A New Legal Model for Compliance Control’, in Le Prestre, P.G. et al. . (eds.), Protecting the Ozone Layer: Lessons, Models, and Prospects (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998), pp. 91–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

113 See generally Treves, T. et al. . (eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms, and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (Asser Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

114 See Epiney, A., ‘The Role of NGOs in the Process of Ensuring Compliance with MEAs’, in Beyerlin, U. et al. . (eds.), Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Dialogue between Practitioners and Academia (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), pp. 319–52, at 325, 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

115 Gehring, T., ‘International Environmental Regimes: Dynamic Sectoral Legal Systems’ (1990) 1 Yearbook of International Environmental Law, pp. 35–56, at 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

116 The standard dispute settlement provisions of most multilateral environmental treaties have never been used in practice: see Romano, n. 11 above, at p. 1041.

117 Klabbers, J., ‘Compliance Procedures’, in Bodansky, D. et al. . (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 995–1009.Google Scholar

118 See Koester, V., ‘The Compliance Committee of the Aarhus Convention: An Overview of Procedures and Jurisprudence’ (2007) 37(2/3) Environmental Policy and Law, pp. 83–96.Google Scholar

119 ‘Guidance Document on the Aarhus Convention Compliance Mechanism’, p. 5, available at: http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/CC_GuidanceDocument.pdf. See Pitea, C., ‘NGOs in Non-Compliance Mechanisms under Multilateral Environmental Agreements: From Tolerance to Recognition?’, in Treves, T. (ed.), Civil Society, International Courts and Compliance Bodies (Asser Press, 2004), pp. 205–24.Google Scholar

120 On recent jurisprudence of the Committee, see Koester, V., ‘The Compliance Mechanism: Outcomes and Stocktaking’ (2011) 41 Environmental Policy and Law, pp. 196–204.Google Scholar

121 E-mail communication from the BIOT Administrator to the author (26 Nov. 2008); see also nn. 75 and 76 above. The UK ratified the Convention in 2005, without extension to overseas territories.

122 Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1, vol. I/Annex I, p. 3, (1992) 31 International Legal Materials, p. 874.

123 See European Parliament, Resolution of 29 Sept. 2011 on Developing a Common EU Position Ahead of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), provisional edn. B7-0522/2011, at paras. 82–83 (‘effective global implementation of Rio Principle 10’, ‘global convention’); and Submission by Brazil to the Preparatory Process of the Rio+20 Conference, Brasilia (Brazil), 1 Nov. 2011, at p. 33 (‘launch of negotiations on a global convention’).

124 See http://www.accessinitiative.org.

125 See Petkova, E. & Bruce, G. (eds.), Assessing Access to Information, Participation, and Justice for the Environment: A Guide (World Resources Institute, 2003).Google Scholar But see, on initial US government resistance, Sand, P.H., ‘The Right to Know: Freedom of Environmental Information in Comparative and International Law’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, pp. 1–30, at 23.Google Scholar

126 See 11th Special Session/Global Environmental Forum, Bali (Indonesia), 26 Feb. 2010, UN Doc. UNEP/GCSS.XI/4/1/Annex.

127 Bacon, See F., Essayes or Counsel, Civill and Morall (Havilland, 1625)Google Scholar: 24 (‘Of Innovations’).