The role of international regimes and courts in clarifying prevention of harm in freshwater and marine environmental protection

Moynihan, Ruby; Magsig, Bjørn‐Oliver

doi:10.1007/s10784-020-09508-1

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The binding role and jurisdiction that we would expect courts to play in a domestic context is simply not there at the international level, e.g., considering that countries can voluntarily choose if the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over them. What international courts can do now is only to clarify norms (Moynihan & Magsig, 2020). The principle of national sovereignty is the underlying reason for this voluntary character of international agreements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pickering and Mitchell (2017) likewise identify both domestic factors such as the government's political orientation and public concern about climate change as well as international factors like commitment to multilateral agreements and international peer pressure in their case study on Australia's implementation of financial commitments in the climate regime. Moynihan and Magsig (2020) uniquely focus on agency of courts for the implementation of water-related IEAs, exercised by clarifying and interpreting vague norms and policies.…”

Section: Implementation Of Ieasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Agency dynamics of International Environmental Agreements: actors, contexts, and drivers

Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen

Rietig

Scobie

2022

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The structural elements of global environmental governance are notoriously difficult to change and align with the needs of a rapidly deteriorating earth system. This, however, only increases the need to focus on the role of agency in this context. This paper does so by taking stock of what we know about agency in relation to International Environmental Agreements (IEAs) and suggests directions for future research. We contribute a conceptual framework to enable the mapping of research on agency related to IEAs and advance more systematic study of agency in this context. The framework differentiates between the negotiation of IEAs, their implementation and outcomes, and includes agency-related and context-related drivers of agency in these processes. We subsequently review articles published between 2003 and 2020 in the journal International Environmental Agreements (as one of the few journals exclusively focusing on IEAs) dealing with actors’ agency and analyse how these articles address agency in the context of IEAs. We conclude firstly by identifying avenues for how further research can fill important gaps, including a need for increased transparency on the methods and theories used in articles, and more comparative research particularly on agency dynamics in implementation; and secondly by highlighting important pointers for policy-makers including the need to re-evaluate the role of national sovereignty and address the forces that counteract equality and justice. Key lessons include the need to improve global south countries' capacity to influence IEA negotiations (input legitimacy), the central role of public and peer pressure on countries to implement commitments, the impact of multilevel governance dynamics and the importance of ensuring that IEAs benefit local communities (output legitimacy).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implementation Of Ieasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agency dynamics of International Environmental Agreements: actors, contexts, and drivers

Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen

Rietig

Scobie

2022

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has led to the rise of WTO disputes, e.g. on renewable energy subsidies (Van de Graaf & Van Asselt, 2017 ) and court cases around these various issues which focus on enhancing at least elements of the legal justice narrative and holding actors accountable (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al, 2022 ; Moynihan & Magsig, 2020 ).…”

Section: Lessons Learntmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learnt from international environmental agreements for the Stockholm + 50 Conference: celebrating 20 Years of INEA

Gupta¹,

Vegelin²,

Pouw³

2022

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…INEA’s No Significant Harm Special Issue of 2020 shows that harm must be seen as: (a) ‘significant’, and (b) reflect lack of due diligence by the party causing the harm (Moynihan & Magsig, 2020 ). Yet this is difficult to (dis)prove in practice (McIntyre, 2020 ).…”

Section: Operationalizing Justice: Access and Allocation No Harm And ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Equity, justice and the SDGs: lessons learnt from two decades of INEA scholarship

Gupta

Vegelin

2022

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental justice issues have been incrementally but consistently covered within this journal in the last two decades. This article reviews theoretical and empirical approaches to justice in INEA scholarship in order to identify trends and draw lessons for the interpretation and implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for living within environmental limits. Our review traces how justice considerations were initially covered within new institutionalist scholarship on collective action and social practices, to conceptualizing justice as ‘access and allocation’, to newer notions of planetary justice. We link these trends to scholarship on diverse epistemologies and typologies of justice, including conservative, corrective, distributive and procedural justice, and examine their operationalization within the empirical domains of climate, water and sustainable development. In concluding, we draw out implications for the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. We argue that a just approach is essential to living within environmental limits, with greater synergies needed between collective action and social practice approaches. While justice can be unpacked for practical and political reasons into access and allocation, we find that (procedural) access considerations are more politically palatable in practice than a concern with allocation (distributive justice), which remains much more contested. As such, dominant approaches promote ‘conservative’ or thin market-based notions of justice. We conclude by noting that just allocation is a precondition to just access. A failure to prioritize and achieve more corrective and distributive forms of justice will, without doubt, contribute to exacerbating global ecological degradation.

show abstract

The role of international regimes and courts in clarifying prevention of harm in freshwater and marine environmental protection

Cited by 9 publications

References 12 publications

Agency dynamics of International Environmental Agreements: actors, contexts, and drivers

Agency dynamics of International Environmental Agreements: actors, contexts, and drivers

Lessons learnt from international environmental agreements for the Stockholm + 50 Conference: celebrating 20 Years of INEA

Equity, justice and the SDGs: lessons learnt from two decades of INEA scholarship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About