United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (New York, 9 May 1992; in force 21 March 1994) (‘UNFCCC’).
Decision 1/CP.17, Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, 15 March 2012), paragraphs 2 and 4.
I have discussed this in detail in A New Chapter in the UN Climate Change Negotiations? First Steps under the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action’, 3:2 Climate Law (2012), 181. , ‘
For an overview of legal arguments in this regard, see Make Your Own Special Song Even If Nobody Else Sings Along: International Aviation Emissions and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme’, 2:4 Climate Law (2011), 535. , ‘
EU Climate Change Unilateralism’, 23:2 European Journal of International Law (2012), 469. and , ‘
In Defense of Multilateralism (Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy, 2003), found at: <http://www.yale.edu/gegdialogue/docs/dialogue/oct03/papers/Powell.pdf>. ,
Introduction’, in: I. William Zartman and S. Touval (eds), The Extents and Limits of Multilateralism (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 1, at 3. and , ‘
This insight is based on Multilateralism and the Emergence of “Minilateralism” in EU Peacekeeping Operations’, 8:2 Romanian Journal of International Affairs (2008), 5, at 7. For an example of such an approach, , ‘see Diverging Trade Strategies in Latin America: An Analytical Framework (University of Berkeley Center for Latin American Studies, 2003), found at <http://www.clas.berkeley.edu/Publications/workingpapers/AggarwalEspach/index.html>. and ,
Minilateralism: The Magic Number to Get Real International Action’, Foreign Policy (July/August 2009), 5. , ‘
Exclusive Minilateralism: An Emerging Discourse within International Climate Change Governance?’, 8:3 Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies (2011), 1, at 1, 12 and 20. , ‘
See 9 above, at 7. , n. See also 11 above, at 22ff. , n.
Unilateralism and Environmental Protection: Issues of Perception and Reality Issues’, 11:2 European Journal of International Law (2000), 315. , ‘
Ibid., at 316.
Ibid., at 318.
Ibid., at 326. The conditionalities were based on the Byrd-Hagel resolution adopted by the US Congress in 1997, indicating, inter alia, that the United States ‘should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement’ under the UNFCCC, which would mandate new developed country commitments ‘unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period’. See the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, 105th Congress, 1st Session, S. Res. 98, 25 July 1997, paragraphs 1 and 1(a).
For a detailed discussion, see The WTO Dispute Settlement System: Challenges of the Environment, Legitimacy and Fragmentation (Kluwer Law International, 2011), at 82–90. ,
Transnationalism, Unilateralism and International Law’, 1:1 Transnational Environmental Law (2011), 31, at 39. and , ‘
I have developed this argument in detail in Exploring the Landscape of Climate Law and Scholarship: Two Emerging Trends’, in: E.J. Hollo , K. Kulovesi and M. Mehling (eds), Climate Change and the Law (Springer, 2012). , ‘
My thinking in this regard has been inspired by Bilateralism at the Service of Community Interests? Non-judicial Enforcement of Global Public Goods in the Context of Global Environmental Law’, 23:3 European Journal of International Law (2012, forthcoming). , ‘
UNFCCC, n. 1 above, Articles 1.5, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9. See also The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures (Cambridge University Press, 2004), at 77. There are, however, some limitations concerning greenhouse gases controlled by the Montreal Protocol. and ,
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto, 10 December 1997; in force 16 February 2005), Annex A. The five main categories are: energy; industrial processes; solvents and other product use; agriculture; and waste.
For recently agreed rules applicable in the post-2012 period, see Decision 2/CMP.6, Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry (UN Doc. FCCC/CMP/2010/12/Add.1, 15 March 2011); and Decision 2/CMP.7, Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry (UN Doc. FCCC/CMP/2011/10/Add.1, 15 March 2012).
We have reviewed this discussion in Long-term Climate Policy: International Legal Aspects of a Sector Based Approach’, 6:3 Climate Policy (2006), 313, at 315–318. and , ‘
International Sectoral Agreements in a Post-2012 Climate Framework (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, May 2007), at 5–6. ,
Submissions on sectoral approaches have been made, inter alia, under the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention since 2008. These are available at the relevant section of the UNFCCC website: <http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg-lca/items/4578.php>.
See 24 above, at 319–320 and 322. and , n.
Decision 2/CP.17, Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, 15 March 2012), paragraph 74.
Ibid., paragraphs 75 and 78.
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), Issues related to Agriculture, Draft Conclusions Proposed by the Chair (FCCC/SBSTA/2012/L.19, 25 May 2012).
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Environmental Report 2010: Aviation and Climate Change (ICAO, 2010), found at: <www.icao.int/icao/en/env2010/environmentreport%202010.pdf>, at 31.
International Maritime Organization (IMO), Second IMO GHG Study 2009 (IMO, 2009), found at: <http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=27795&filename=GHGStudyFINAL.pdf>, at 1.
UNEP, The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2°C or 1.5°C? (UNEP, 2010), at 10.
Ibid., at 12–13.
UNEP, Bridging the Emissions Gap: A UNEP Synthesis Report (UNEP, 2011), at 8.
International Aviation Emissions to 2025: Can Emissions be Stabilised without Restricting Demand? (Australian National University Center for Climate Change Law and Policy, 2008), found at: <http://law.anu.edu.au/CCLP/WP1_2008%20_International_aviation_emissions_to_2025.pdf>, at 8. The paper includes estimates from various studies. and ,
See ICAO, n. 31 above, at 32.
Controlling Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2010), at 156. ,
See IMO, n. 32 above, at 1.
See 21 above, at 83; and and , n. Institutional Interaction to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Transport’, 3:3 Climate Policy (2003), 191. , ‘
See 21 above, at 84–85. See also, Decision 2/CP.3, Methodological Issues related to the Kyoto Protocol (UN Doc. FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1, 25 March 1998), paragraph 4. and , n.
I have discussed these proposals in more detail in 5 above, at 539. , n.
Consolidated Statement of Continuing ICAO Policies and Practices related to Environmental Protection, Appendix K: ICAO Programme of Action on International Aviation and Climate Change, ICAO Assembly Resolution A36–22 (2007).
Declaration by the High-level Meeting on International Aviation and Climate Change, International Civil Aviation Organization, HLM-ENV/09 (2009).
Consolidated Statement of Continuing ICAO Policies and Practices related to Environmental Protection – Climate Change, ICAO Assembly Resolution A37–19 (2010), paragraphs 4–6.
Ibid., paragraphs 7–8.
Ibid., paragraphs 13–18 and Annex.
Ibid., paragraph 24.
Ibid., paragraph 10.
UNFCCC, Information Relevant to Emissions from Fuel Used for International Aviation and Maritime Transport: Note by the International Maritime Organization to the Thirty-fifth Session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (UN Doc. FCCC/SBSTA/2011/MISC.9, 15 November 2011), at 17 (‘Note by the IMO’).
Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1997 to Amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto: Inclusion of Regulations on Energy Efficiency for Ships in MARPOL Annex V (MEPC Resolution 203(62), 15 July 2011), Annex 19.
See Note by the IMO, n. 52 above, at 19.
IMO, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, found at: <http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/pollutionprevention/airpollution/pages/ghg-emissions.aspx>.
Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading within the Community and Amending Council Directive 96/61/EC,  OJ L275/32.
Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC,  OJ L140/16.
Regulation 443/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 Setting Emission Performance Standards for New Passenger Cars as Part of the Community's Integrated Approach to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Light-duty Vehicle, Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC,  OJ L140/1.
For an overview and case studies, see E. Morgera , K. Kulovesi and A. Gobena (eds.), Case Studies on Bioenergy Policy and Law: Options for Sustainability (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2009).
World Trade Organization, Activities of the WTO and the Challenge of Climate Change, found at: <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/climate_challenge_e.htm>.
For discussion in the climate change context, see Heating Up International Trade Law: Challenges and Opportunities Posed by Efforts to Combat Climate Change’, 2:1 Carbon and Climate Law Review (2008), 7, at 8–10. For an overview of legal arguments in the debate on production methods and processes, , ‘see The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: A Map of World Trade Organization Law of Domestic Regulation of Goods’, 36:5 Journal of World Trade (2002), 856. and , ‘
See, e.g., et al., Trade and Climate Change: A Report by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Trade Organization (WTO Secretariat, 2009), 98ff; Reconciling Trade and Climate: How the WTO Can Help Address Climate Change (Edward Elgar, 2010), 122ff; and , Do Border Measures have a Role in Climate Policy?’, 11:5 Climate Policy (2011), 1185; , ‘ The Legal Interface between Carbon Border Measures and Trade Rules’, 11:5 Climate Policy (2011), 1202; , ‘ A Border Adjustment for the EU ETS: Reconciling WTO Rules and Capacity to Tackle Carbon Leakage’, 11:5 Climate Policy (2011), 1212. and , ‘
Directive 2008/101 of the European Parliament and of the European Council Amending Directive 2003/87 so as to Include Aviation Activities in the Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading within the Community,  OJ L8/3 (‘Directive 2008/101/EC’).
Ibid. Articles 3c.1, 3c.2 and, Article 3s.
Ibid. Articles 3d.1 and 3d.2.
European Commission, Questions and Answers on the Benchmark for Free Allocation to Airlines and on the Inclusion of Aviation in the EU's Emission Trading System (Memo/11/631, 26 September 2011).
Directive 2008/101/EC, n. 67 above, Article 3g.
Ibid., Articles 6.2 and 16.3.3.
CJEU, Case C-366/10, The Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines, Inc, Continental Airlines, Inc, United Airlines, Inc v. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change  OJ C260/9 (‘Case C-366/10’), Reference for a Preliminary Ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 22 July 2010. For a detailed legal analysis of the arguments and the October 2011 advisory opinion by Advocate General Juliane Kokott, see 5 above, at 544ff. , n.
Case C-366/10, n. 74 above, Judgment of 21 December 2011.
For a recent discussion, see Trade and the Environment: Fundamental Issues in International Law, WTO Law and Legal Theory (Oxford University Press, 2009), at 96ff. ,
Case C-366/10, n. 74 above, Judgment of 21 December 2011, at paragraph 129.
Ibid., paragraph 128.3.
See 76 above, at 159–160, for a comprehensive overview of such scholarly positions. , n.
See 6 above, at 476. and , n.
Ibid, at 475.
These are also discussed in ibid., at 474–476.
Ibid., at 479ff.
UNFCCC, Proposals by India for Inclusion of Additional Agenda Items in the Provisional Agenda of the Seventeenth Session of the Conference of the Parties (UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2011/INF.2/Add.1, 7 October 2011), at 6.
I have discussed the climate finance aspect in more detail in 5 above, at 554–555. , n.
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, ‘Opponents of EU Aviation Carbon Law Agree on Possible Countermeasures’, 16:7 Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest (22 February 2012).
HR 2594, European Union Emissions Trading Prohibition Act 2011.
‘China “Bans” Airlines from Joining EU Carbon Scheme’, BBC News (6 February 2012), found at: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16901106>; International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, ‘India Confirms Boycott of EU Aviation Emissions Rule’, Bridges Weekly (29 March 2012), found at: <http://ictsd.org/i/trade-and-sustainable-development-agenda/129985/>.
European Commission Press Release, ‘Emissions Trading: Annual Compliance Round-up Shows Declining Emissions in 2011’, (IP/12/477 15 May 2012), found at: <http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/477>.
Directive 2008/101/EC, n. 67 above, Article 16.3.
Ibid., Articles 16.5–16.12.
Such developments have been described, e.g., in The Emergence of Global Environmental Law’, 36:3 Ecology Law Quarterly (2009), 615; and and , ‘ Global Environmental Law’, 19 Finnish Yearbook of International Law (2008), 5. ‘
See 93 above, at 616. and , n.
See 19 above. , n.
Again, my thinking in this regard has been inspired by Morgera, n. 20 above.
We have made a detailed argument to this effect in Environmental Integration and Multi-faceted International Dimensions of EU Law: Unpacking the EU's 2009 Climate and Energy Package’, 48:3 Common Market Law Review (2011), 829. , and , ‘
The quote is also from 20 above. , n.
I have discussed this in more detail in 19 above. , n.
Like many others, I have also used the notion ‘unilateral’ in the context of the scheme in 5 above. , n.
6 above, at 469 and 474. and , n. They refer to Unilateral Actions and the Transformation of the World Constitutive Process: The Special Problem of Humanitarian Intervention’, 11:3 European Journal of International Law (2000), 3. , ‘
Including 9 above. and , n.
See, e.g., 10 above. , n.
See 18 above, at 38. and , n.
Ibid., at 40.
UNFCCC, n. 1 above, Article 2; Decision 1/CP.16, The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, 15 March 2011).
See 6 above, for detailed criticism of the EU aviation scheme from the perspective of the principle of the CBDRRC. and , n.
See UNEP, n. 33 above.
Similarly, see 20 above. , n.