State and NonState Actors in the Climate Change Regime

166 Pages·2002·9.12 MB·English

State and NonState Actors in the Climate
Change Regime:
The Power of Legitimacy among Actors
in International Environmental Institutions
Asher Alkoby
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirernents
for the degree of Master of Laws
Graduate Department of Faculty of Law
University of Toronto
O Copyright by Asher Alkoby 2001
1*1 National Library Bibliothèque nationale
of Canada du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et
Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques
395 Weiiington Street 395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A ON4 OtlawaON K 1 A W
Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pemettant à la
National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distribute or seU reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
copies of this thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
paper or electronic formats. la fonne de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du
copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
may be printed or othenvise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son
permission. autorisation.
Abstract
State and Nonetate Actors in the Clirnate Change Regime:
The Power of Legitimacy among Actors
in International Environmental Instituti ons
Asher Alkoby
Master of Laws Degree
Faculty of Law
University of Toronto
2001
Non-state actors have become increasingly involved in the formulation,
implementation and enforcement of international environmental law, but their
influence is not yet reflected in the design of environmental regimes. This thesis
outlines a normative framework for the emerging global civil society, based on a
horizontal understanding of legitimacy in international lawmaking. mer cnticizing
the case liberal scholars make in favour of non-state actors participation in
international lawmaking, which is based on notions of vertical legitimacy, 1 suggest
an alternative understanding of legitimacy between and among state and non-state
actors, drawing upon social constructivism, "international society" theories, and the
jurisprudential insights provided by the "interactional theory" of international law.
While the institutional design of the climate change regime represents a shifi away
fiom a formalistic conception of international law, a state-centric view of
international law continues to constrain the creativeness of its institutional design, and
threatens to impede its successful implementation.
Acknowledgements
This thesis was written under the supervision of Professor Jutta Brunnée, to whom 1
am gratefid for her guidance, patience, encouragement and inspiration. 1 would also
like to thank the FacuIty of Law at the University of Toronto for its assistance, and to
Professor David Dyzenhaus, for taking the t h e t o review the thesis.
1 thank my devoted editor and tiiend Sarah, for the off and online support, to my
beloved Ronit, for the long-distance moral (and other) support, and to al1 my fnends
and family, especially my mother, and my sister Judith, for al1 their love and fielp.
Table of Contents
. ............................................................................................
l Introduction 1
.
Il Participation of Non-State Actors in lnternational Environmental
............................................................................................
Institutions 13
.............................................
.
1 Defining Non-Governmental Organizations 13
. ........................
2 The Involvement of NGOs in International Environmental
..................................................................................................
Institutions 16
.
III The Liberal Case for Non-State Actor Participation in International
................... .........................................
Environmental Institutions 21
. ...................................................................
1 Benefits of NGO Participation 21
.........................................................................
1.1 Instrumental Benefits 21
............................................................................
1.2
Democratic Benefits 23
............
.
2 Democratic Liberalism. Legitimacy and the 'Domestic Analogy' 25
................... ................................
2.1 The Domestic Analogy Debate 29
... .................. .........................................
2.2 Franck's Legitimacy Tbeory 33
..............
2.3 Otber Liberal Theories: Fernando Teson and Harold Koh 42
2.4 The Liberal Case: Summing Up. ........................................................ 45
. ................... .. ............................
3 The Problems with NGO Participation 46
. ............................................................
4 Participation of For-Profit Entities 50
.
IV The Constructivist Case for Non-State Actor Participation in
...........................................
International Environmental Institutions 55
. ................................... ........
1 Social Constructivism and Global Politics 55
. ..................
2 Constructivism. international Society and the Public Sphere 63
. .................................
3 Constructivist Understanding of International Law 77
. .
V Participation of Non-State Actors in The Climate Change Regime 86
. ..........................................
1 The Evolution of the CIimate Cbange Regime 88
.................................................
1.1
Building an Epistemie Community 88
.............. ........... ..........................
1.2 Developing Shared Understandings 91
......................
1.3 The Kyoto Protocol: Development and Key Elerneats 99
. ..........................................
2 Non-State Actors in the Lawmaking Process 105
.......................................
2.1
Non-GovernmentaI Organîzations 105
............ ...... ..........................
2.2
The Involvement of For-Profit Entities 108
. .................
3 Non-State Actors and the Application of the Kyoto Protocol 113
..................................
3.1 Operationalizing the Kyoto Mechanisms 114
.........................
3.2 Dispute Resolution Procedures Relating to the Kyoto
.......................................................................................
Mechanisms 126
...............
3.3 Dispute Resolution Procedures Relating to Compliance 130
...................
3.4 Kyoto's Application Pbase: Concluding Observations 134
. ............... ......................................
VI1 Appendix: List of Abbreviations 143
. ................... ................... ............................................
VIII Bibliography 144
1. Introduction
The traditional conception of international law is that of a system regulating the
relations between sovereign states. The Peace of Westphalia established this
international legal order based on independent, equal, and temtorially defined states,
which did not assign importance to entities within or outside the states.' Persons, in
corporate as well as in human form, had no forma1 status in international law.* The
focus of this paper is the shifi away fiom this state-centric paradigm, evidenced by the
rise of global civil society in international environmental lamaking processes among
~thers.~
Anthony D'Amato made the following prediction over a decade ago:
"[Ilf the nineteenth century was characterized by State v. State, and the
twentieth century by individuai v. State, the twenty-first century rnight see
international law becoming addressed to the claims of individuai v.
individual. Transboundary international legal claims involving individuals
only, but invoking public international law, might be the direction in which
we are headed.'A
'
See E.B. Weiss, "The Rise or the Fall of International Law?" (2000) 69 Fordham L. Rev. 345, at 346.
W. R. Slomanson, Fundamental Perspectives on international Luw, (Balmot: Wadswoth fi'hornas
Learning, 2000), at 17 1. Contemporary writings in international law assume a more inclusive approach
in defining the international system (see for example R. Higgins, Problems and Process: International
Law und How We Use It, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), at 48-55), but structurally, international law
remains constrained by the statist paradigm. See M. Janis, "International Law?" (1991) 32 Harv. Int'l
L.J.363.
The term "global civil society" usually dendes interest groups, NGOs and other non-profit entities.
See D. Otto, "Nongovernmental Organizations in United Nations System: The Emerging Role of
international Civil Society" (19%) 18 Human Rights Q. 107 [hcreinafter "Civil SocietyV'Ja, t note 2.
For the reasons that will be discussed throughout this paper, I will use a more inclusive definition,
containing not only non-profit NGOs but also to profit-seeking entities, including business-NGOs (who
promote the commercial interests of their constituencies) and multinational corporations. See below,
sections II. 1, 111.4, and V.2.
' A.A. D'Amato, International Law: Process and Prospect (Irvington, NY: Transnational Publishers,
1987), at 199.
By contrast, 1 argue that while the international political and economic system is
indeed changing in the ways descnbed by D'Amato, international law is not
foIIowing suit as yet. Nongovemmental organizations (NGOs), business corporations
and other non-state entities have become increasingly involved in the formulation,
implementation and enforcement of international noms, but their influence, which is
primarily achieved by informal means, is not yet fully reflected in the design of
international environrnental institutions. My aim in this thesis is to outline a
normative hmework for the emerging global civil society, based on a horizontal
understanding of legitimacy in international lawmaking. International environrnental
institutions, 1 argue, will become more legitimate, and thus more efficient, if the
noms they produce will be generated in a continuous, mutually generative process of
-
interaction between al1 relevant actors both lawgivers and the subjects of the
-
regulation at the international level.
The explosion of non-state actor activity in recent years is attnbuted to three
economic and political factors, commonly termed "globalization,"5 which have led to
the decline of the modem sovereign stateS6 First, the collapse of the bipolar
international political structure in the pst-Cold War era has shifted the concern of
States fiom security issues to matters of global commons.' States increasingly
cooperate to solve shared problems, which can only be addressed by collective action.
See W.H.R einicke & J.M.W itte, "lnterdependence., Globalization and Sovereignty: The Role of
Non-Binding International Legal Accords" in Cornmitment and Cornpliance: The Role of Non-Biding
N o m i n the International Legal System (Dinah Shelton ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
fhereinafter "Cornmitment and Compliance'l at 75. The authors make a distinction between
interdependence (between public entities) and "globalization" (which is the intadependtnce of private
entities). lnterdependence can be understood as a precursor for globalization, without king identical to
it. (ibid. at 77-78).
6 R. Falk, "Towards Obsolescence: Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization" (1 995) 17 Harv. Int'l L.
R. 34.
See J.O. McGinnis, "The Decline of the Western Nation State and the Rise of the Regimc of
International Federalism" (1 996) Cardozo L. Rev. 903, at 904-909.
There is no better example of global interdependence than the shared interest in
protecting the environment. Transboundary environmental degradation affects al1 of
us, whether it is depletion of the ozone layer, climate change, species extinction, or
desertification. Second, the increasing interdependence of financial markets makes
the production of goods in different locations mund the globe increasingly viable.
Matenals can be processed in one country, parts made in a different country, and their
assembly in yet another country.' Third, the growing fragmentation within states is
resulting in the formation of new cross-border social ties. Nationalism is in decline
and groups and individuals within states operate and find their affiliation beyond
national borders. This fragmentation presents a difficult challenge: "[wjhile states are
relinquishing elements of sovereignty to transnational non-state actors, the strong
sense of community that bound the citizens of the state together does not extend to the
transnational groups. New community bonds need to be forged.'"
Most importantly, the catalyst for al1 three developments, and for the proliferntion of
non-state actors in the global playing field, is the information revolution and the
corresponding improvements in communication, which allow for the emergence of
transnational networks based on common agendas.'' Under these conditions of
interdependent interactions, the international system can no longer maintain clear
boundaries between domestic and international law."
Weiss, supra note 1, at 348.
Weiss, ibid. at 348-349.
'O M.E. Keck & K. Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders - Advocacy NenuorAs in International Polirics
(lthaca and London: Connell University Press, 1998).
" See Weiss, supra note 1, at 354-357. See also J.K. Garnble & C. Ku, "International Law - New
Actors and New Technologies: Center Stage for NGOs?" (2000) 3 1 Law & Pol' y Int'l Bus. 22 1.
There is a growing body of litetahire on the participation of non-state actors in
international law, with attempts to provide a normative framework for their
involvement in international institutions.'* But a comprehensive theoretical enquiry,
examining the character of the international system, and addressing issues such as the
evolution of noms at the international level; the way in which they influence actors'
behaviour; and the potential effects of creating (or empowenng) multiple sources of
legal influence, is still lacking. My aim is to help lay the groundwork for such a
theoretical enquiry.
Thomas Franck has argued that international law has reached its pst-ontological
era." Lawyers no longer need to defend the very existence of international law, he
daims, and the question to be asked is not whether international law is lm,b ut rather
-
is it effective, enforceable, understooà, and most importantly is it fair.14 It may be
true that the very existence of international law can no longer be ignored, considering
the levels of maturity and complexity it has reached, but many international relations
(IR) theorists would still dismiss it as irrelevant. The fact is, that the two most
influential IR theories remain hostile towards international law. ~eorealists,'l~ik e
12 See e.g. K. Raustiala, "The 'Participatory Revolution' in International Environmental Law" (1997)
21 Haw. Envtl. L. Rev. 537 [hereinafier "Participatory Revolution"]; K. Newroî, "Legal Consequences
of Globalization: The Status of Non-Govemmental Organization unda International Law" (1999) 6
Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 579; R. Wolfe, "Rendering unto Caesar: How Lcgal Pluralism and Regime
Theory Help in Understanding 'Multiple Centres of Power"' in Who is Afmid of the Sme? Canada in
a World of Multiple Centres ofPower (G. Smith & D. Wolfish eds.) (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, forthcoming 2001). (hereinafler "Legal Pluralism"]. In hwnan rights law sec J. Mertus,
"Considering Non-state Actors in the New Millennium: Towards Expanded Participation in Norm
$meration and Norm Application" (2000). 32 N.Y.U J. Int'l L. k Pol'y. 537.
T. M. Franck, Fairness in international Law and insrirutions (Oxford: Clanndon Press, 1995)
[hereinafier "Fuimess"], at 6.
'"' Ibid-
K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Random Hwse, 1979); J.M. Grieco,
"Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the New- Liberal Institutionalism"
(1988) 42 Int'l Org. 485.