Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Economic arguments played a significant role in the decision by the Reagan Administration to lead the international effort to protect the stratospheric ozone layer from depletion caused by certain otherwise useful industrial chemicals. During the period prior to the signing of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987, it was recognized within the Administration that ethical considerations (involving the valuation of risk and intergenerational equity) were essential components of the economic analysis. Adoption of a principle of intergenerational neutrality had the consequence that any reasonable comparison of the benefits of ozone layer protection to the costs of regulatory control overwhelmingly favored regulation.

From an EU point of view, most international environmental agreements are mixed. This means that both the European Community (EC) and its member states are party to the agreement. As the participation of the EC in international negotiations and agreements is properly arranged by the Treaty establishing the European Community, but the EU member states’ participation is not legally organized on the EU level, the internal decision-making process regarding mixed agreements is rather complicated. Insights into this process are needed to understand the representation and the role of the European Union in international environmental negotiations. This article clarifies the legal framework of the EU decision-making process regarding such negotiations.

Only recently securitization research is exploring which mechanisms are used to securitize the water discourse and how securitization affects decision-making processes. In this context, legal texts convey messages and shape public actions, but have been rarely considered in the analysis of water securitization. Moreover, security is usually meant as the absence of violent conflict, while discourse securitization can exist also where there are only vaguely defined threats to the society. This may be the case of water scarcity associated with drought. This paper undertakes a policy frame analysis of nine exceptional laws passed in Spain during the 2005–2008 drought, to address the following questions: To what extent and how can the water discourse in legal texts be securitized? and What are the consequences of that securitization? The analysis shows that securitization is achieved using both linguistic and institutional mechanisms. Dry spells are presented as exceptional situations and using alarmist terms, even if drought is inherent to Spain’s Mediterranean climate. The sense of urgency is used to fast-track the approval of measures that could be part of ordinary water planning. The securitization of the water discourse contributes to consolidate an existing water paradigm, which, in the case of Spain, is based on State-subsidized, technical and legal measures addressing water scarcity (real or exaggerated). It is an example of a “creeping” securitization of the water discourse, meant as the dramatization of otherwise natural circumstances to spur projects and investments conceived for other purposes.

The prolific literature on the relationship between the trade and environmental regimes suffers from three shortcomings. First, it myopically focuses on multilateral institutions, while the vast majority of trade and environmental agreements are bilateral. Second, when studies consider preferential trade agreements’ (PTAs) environmental provisions, they are often limited to USA and EU agreements. Third, it examines how the trade and environmental regimes negatively affect each other, leaving aside their potential synergies. Conversely, this article assesses the potential contribution of PTAs to international environmental law. Several PTAs include a full-fledged chapter devoted to environmental protection and contain detailed commitments on various environmental issue areas. One possible scenario is that countries that are dissatisfied with traditional settings for environmental lawmaking engage in a process of “regime shifting” toward PTAs to move forward on their environmental agenda. The alternative is that PTAs’ environmental provisions are the result of “tactical linkages” and merely duplicate extant obligations from international environmental law to serve political goals. We shed light on this question by building on two datasets of 690 PTAs and 2343 environmental treaties. We investigate four potential contributions of PTAs to environmental law: the diffusion of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), the diffusion of existing environmental rules, the design of new environmental rules, and the legal prevalence of MEAs. The article concludes that the contribution of PTAs to the strengthening of states’ commitments under international environmental law is very modest on the four dimensions examined.

“Access and allocation” is one of the five analytical problems identified as key for analysing earth system governance in the first Earth System Governance Science and Implementation Plan officially published in 2009. Ten years later and with a new Science and Implementation Plan in place, it is time to take stock. Therefore, this paper addresses the question: What does a decadal review of the Earth System Governance literature tell us about how to conceptualize and define access and allocation, what ethical norms and epistemologies underlie access and allocation research, and what does Earth System Governance scholarship reveal about the interplay between access and allocation and other norms? We find that: (a) there is a relatively small body of the Earth System Governance literature on access and allocation, albeit growing; (b) this literature is largely empirical and dispersed across a variety of topics; and (c) there is a diversity of ethical norms and principles emphasized in Earth System Governance scholarship, but the dynamics between different forms of access and related implications for allocation are relatively underexplored. In light of these findings and with a new Earth System Governance Science and Implementation Plan in place, this paper highlights key areas for further research and development.

Using a simple rational choice model as a heuristic device, this paper explores the lobbying behaviour of environmental and business organisations in the field of climate policy and discusses why their lobbying behaviour differs. I find that environmental organisations lobby less than what would be considered rational according to the simple rational choice model, and argue that this might largely be explained by tight budget constraints. I also find that business organisations lobby more than what would be considered rational according to the model, and argue that this might be explained if one applies a long-term perspective on rational lobbying in the policy field rather than a short-term perspective on single policy decisions. Moreover, I find that the type of lobbying differs. While environmental organisations focus on single policy decisions, business organisations also invest in general lobbying. The analysis is based on interviews with interest organisations lobbying in the field of climate policy at the European Union (EU) level.

The emergence and continued expansion of one of the most dangerous causes of biodiversity loss and habitat alteration such as invasive species at some Ramsar wetlands of the Southern Pannonia raise a series of questions of both an environmental as well as a legal character relevant to these fragile ecosystems. The Ramsar Convention provides a set of general instructions and guidelines, but it does not establish an adequate mechanism of sanctions that could be imposed on states or individuals who violate its provisions. Fully aware of the importance of wetlands and their wildlife for a healthy living environment and human welfare, the authors of this paper describe the present conditions of invasive plant species at some Ramsar Sites and briefly analyze the current legal framework for the implementation of the Ramsar Convention. Finally, the authors propose innovative normative solutions that would improve the protection of wetlands and contribute to the suppression and prevention of the presence of invasive species not only in this region, but also worldwide.

Historically, burden sharing of mitigation in the climate regime was operationalized as a binary division of the world between the Annex I group of industrialized countries with emission reduction targets and the non-Annex I (developing) countries without them. The 2015 Paris Agreement arguably ended such division by introducing a bottom-up system of self-differentiated emission reduction commitments through countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions. This paradigmatic regime shift creates the opportunity to research to what extent it has been accompanied by a similar change in member states’ negotiation positions and policymaking. I explore whether key developing countries’ discourses regarding burden sharing of mitigation have changed pre- and post-Paris and how this relates to their own mitigation contributions. Has the Paris Agreement led to a new way of thinking regarding burden sharing? Do countries in favour of abolishing the Annex I–non-Annex I divide also propose more ambitious climate policies? I rely on text analysis of written position papers submitted to the negotiations, focusing on members of two coalitions at opposite extremes of developing countries’ positions: the Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean, a group of progressive countries arguing for more comprehensive climate agreements; and the Like-Minded Developing Countries, a coalition that aims to uphold the regime’s differentiation between developed and developing countries.