Saturday, November 28, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
- Franz Matscher, La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, hier, aujourd’hui et demain, au lendemain de son cinquantième anniversaire – Regards d’un ancien juge de la Cour
- Alec Stone Sweet, Sur la constitutionnalisation de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme : cinquante ans après son installation, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme conçue comme une Cour constitutionnelle
- Roger Magloire Koussetogue Koude, Pertinence et défauts de pertinence des récusations de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme
- Laurence Potvin-Solis, La liaison entre le principe de non-discrimination et les libertés et droits fondamentaux des personnes dans les jurisprudences européennes
- Céline Romainville, Contentieux irakien et extraterritorialité : de la nécessité de dépasser Bankovic
- Aurélien Antoine, Responsabilité de l’Etat et déportation des Juifs. Réflexions à partir de l’avis d’Assemblée du Conseil d’Etat de France
- Nicolas Bernard, Le droit au logement dans la Charte sociale révisée : à propos de la condamnation de la France par le Comité européen des droits sociaux
- Gauthier de Beco, L’expulsion des étrangers mineurs délinquants : une lueur de clarté dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
- Baptiste Nicaud, La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme face à la caricature de presse
- Jo-Anne Wemmers, Where Do They Belong? Giving Victims a Place in the Criminal Justice Process
- Flavia Zorzi Giustiniani, The Responsibility of Accomplices in the Case-Law of the Ad Hoc Tribunals
- Mark Wasef, Procedural Rules in International Litigation: Admissibility of Transcript of Interview of Accused Against Co-accused
- Riccardo Montana, Prosecutors and the Definition of the Crime Problem in Italy: Balancing the Impact of Moral Panics
- Robert Badinter, Avant-propos
- Rosalyn Higgins, Message d’hommage
- Mohammed Bedjaoui, L’égalité des États dans le procès international, un mythe?
- Oliver Corten, Réflexions sur l’applicabilité de l’uti possidetis dans un conflit sécessionniste: le cas du Kosovo
- Yves Daudet, L’attentat terroriste contre Rafik Hariri et la création du Tribunal spécial pour le Liban
- Eric David, Le différend insulaire Malaisie/Singapour
- Mathias Forteau, Le juge CIRDI envisagé du point de vue de son office: juge interne, juge international, ou l’un et l’autre à la fois?
- Philippe Gautier, Mesures conservatoires, préjudice irréparable et protection de l’environnement
- Marcelo G. Kohen, L’uti possidetis iuris et les espaces maritimes
- Pierre Lambert, L’avocat devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
- Elihu Lauterpacht, The Role of the International Judge
- Alain Pellet, Remarques sur l’(in)efficacité de la Cour internationale de justice et d’autres jurictions internationales
- Jean Salmon, Les immunités diplomatiques dans la tourmente
- Nico Schrijver, The status of the precautionary principle in international law and its application and interpretation in international litigation
- Malcolm N. Shaw, Settling Territorial Disputes
- Jean-Marc Sorel, Les premiers pas des Juridictions Internationales: Maladresse, péché de jeunesse ou affirmation?
- Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Les décisions du Conseil de sécurité en procès
- Christian Tomuschat, Le Tribunal administratif de la Banque africaine de développement
- Tullio Treves, Les mesures conservatoires au Tribunal du droit de la mer et à la Cour internationale de justice: contribution au dialogue entre cours et tribunaux internationaux
- Rüdiger Wolfrum, The Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf: Procedural Considerations
Thursday, November 26, 2009
The collapse of the Doha Round hangs heavily over an already troubled world economy. Some have concluded that this failure is simply the result of a lack of political will and a pre-occupation with issues such as terrorism. But as Kent Jones reveals in The Doha Blues, the World Trade Organization needs serious structural changes, not just political backbone. He shows for instance that the WTO--now with 153 members--has become increasingly unwieldy in terms of concluding trade agreements and he suggests that countries organize around specific platform positions, a strategy that would make the "holy grail" of consensus once again possible. Jones also argues for financial support for poorer countries so that they can participate effectively in negotiations and he contends that the principle of the "single undertaking" (that "there is no agreement until everything is agreed") has become a serious and perhaps crippling constraint, and must be modified. Jones is a leading authority on trade policy and his book illuminates the real stumbling blocks to trade liberalization and highlights the way around them.
The measurement of human rights has long been debated within the various academic disciplines that focus on human rights, as well as within the larger international community of practitioners working in the field of human rights. Written by leading experts in the field, this is the most up-to-date and comprehensive book on how to measure human rights.
The Editorial Committee of Japanese Yearbook of International Law (JYIL) invites “Articles or Notes” or “Book Reviews.”
JYIL welcomes the submission of articles and notes (within 5000 to 15000 words, not including footnotes) that address public and private international law, comparative law, or Japanese domestic law having international implications. Book Reviews should be around 750 to 1500 words on works on public or private international law, comparative law, or Japanese domestic law. All articles, notes and book reviews are peer-reviewed by experts in the field.
The Japanese Yearbook of International Law is a renewed academic journal (Vol. 51, 2008) in continuity with Japanese Annual of International Law (JAIL) first published in 1958. While maintaining the 50 year tradition of JAIL, JYIL will consist of the following sections: articles and notes on both general and Japan-related issues, digests pertaining to current Japanese practices in international law, digests relating to major judicial decisions by Japanese courts in the fields of international law, and book reviews, as well as related documents including recent treaties and legislations.
Although submissions are accepted on an occasional basis, the deadline of submissions for the current year issue will be the end of January, and submissions received after that date will be considered as submissions for subsequent issues. JYIL is to be published in February.
For further information, please visit our HP or contact the Editorial Committee (below).
Professor of International Law
Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, University of Tokyo
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Iraq war rekindled debate - a debate now further inflamed in discussions of Iran and North Korea - about the legal use of force to disarm an adversary state believed to pose a threat of catastrophic attack, including with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Colliding with this debate is the stark fact that intelligence about hostile states’ WMD capabilities is and will remain limited and uncertain. This Article examines the following question: How should international legal rules on the use of force handle this intelligence gap? In answering that question, this Article advances two arguments. First, it argues that amid such intelligence uncertainty, a “reasonable necessity” approach to international self-defense doctrine, based on objective standards, is superior to the two main competing schools of thought: the “traditional view,” which holds strictly that only the U.N. Security Council may authorize legal force against WMD proliferates absent an imminent and specific threat of attack, and the “unilateralist” school, which holds that states retain a broader right of preemptive self-defense. Second, it argues that a reasonable necessity approach - and its reliance on objective standards - helps focus analysis on key evidentiary issues that have so far eluded serious study in scholarship on the legal use of force and that are relevant to ongoing debates about alleged WMD proliferation by Iran, North Korea and other states.
Under international law, official-capacity suits brought against a foreign state’s officers are treated as suits against the state itself and thus as subject to the state’s immunity, even in suits alleging human rights abuses. This immunity regime differs from the immunity regime that applies in the United States in suits brought against state and federal officials for violations of federal law. Despite the federal government’s sovereign immunity and the immunity of state governments under Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, courts often allow suits against federal and state officers for their official actions. This essay attempts to explain why the immunity rules differ between the two regimes. We begin by showing that the differential treatment of foreign and domestic officer suits has deep roots in British and American common law. We then show that Congress has not acted to alter this common law backdrop, and we explain the significance of this fact. Finally, we discuss functional reasons for the long-time differential treatment of suits against domestic and foreign officials.
Vacancy Reference: 3011965
Job Title: Lectureship in Law
Job Function: Academic
Job Type: Full Time
Live Date: 03-Nov-2009
Expiry Date: 04-Dec-2009
Salary Scale: £36,532 - £43,622
Internal job: No. Anybody can apply for this position.
Further Information: Further Information
Conditions Of Employment: View Conditions of Employment
Law: Lectureship in Law
Applications are invited for a Lectureship (UE08) in the School of Law from candidates with research interests in either or both of international commercial arbitration and international trade law. Applications would also be welcome from candidates with an interest in international investment law. Candidates may have either a private law or public international law background. The successful candidate will be expected to contribute to the teaching programme, particularly at post graduate level, and to undertake post graduate supervision. He or she will contribute to the development of new initiatives in teaching, research, and continuing professional development ("cpd"), including those which will connect the School of Law with others in the College of Humanities and Social Science. Applications from individuals with demonstrable experience and achievement in their specialist area, as reflected in a growing personal research portfolio, will be particularly welcome. In addition, applicants are invited to explore how their research interests complement the existing strengths of the School of Law in cognate areas such as commercial law, EU law and international law.
The position is available from 1st February 2010. Appointment will be on an open-ended basis.
Salary Scale: £36,532 - £43,622
Deadline for the Submission of Abstracts: 22 January 2010
The 4th Biennial Conference of the European Society of International Law will take place in Cambridge, England on 2-4 September 2010, with the overarching theme International Law 1989-2010: A Performance Appraisal. The conference will be hosted by the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law and full details, including information on the programme, accommodation and travel will be available on this website.
The main conference programme will include two Plenary Sessions, eight Fora and twelve Agorae. Speakers have been invited for the plenary sessions and the Fora; Agora speakers will be selected on the basis of abstracts submitted in response to this call for papers.
A number of Interest Group Sessions will be held prior to the main conference. Some Interest Groups will issue their own calls for papers, details of which will be announced separately on this website.
The working languages of the Conference are English and French.
The purpose of the Agorae is to share cutting-edge research in specific areas of international law, to stimulate debate and to foster contacts between the participants. Papers presented in individual Agorae may focus on any aspect of the particular branch of international law stipulated by the Agora title but a connection to both the Agora theme and the overall conference theme must be evident. Three or four papers will be selected per Agora. Papers may be presented in English or French.
The twelve Agorae are:
Senior and junior scholars (including PhD Candidates) are invited to respond to this call for papers. Scholars from any part of the world and of any nationality are eligible to apply. All papers presented in the Agorae will be selected through a competitive process from abstracts received in response to this call for papers. Only one abstract per author will be considered. Abstracts should be no more than 500 words in length and must be submitted using the online submission procedure (see below).
The following criteria will be used to aid the selection of papers:
quality of the research
originality of the work
links to the conference and agora theme
geographical representation of the speakers
Papers delivered at the conference must be unpublished, in an advanced stage of completion and ready to be included in the conference proceedings.
Agora speakers will have their conference registration fee waived if they are ESIL members. (Enquiries regarding ESIL membership should be made to ESIL directly - visit http://www.esil-sedi.eu/english/membership.html for more information).
A limited number of bursaries will be available for Agora speakers to cover the cost of accommodation in Cripp's Court, Selwyn College and to make a contribution towards travelling expenses. Priority will be given to graduate students of European universities who are unable to obtain support through other means and to scholars from Eastern and Central Europe for whom financial support is a sine qua non to participate.
Those wishing to apply for one of the bursaries must ensure they complete the relevant section of the online submission form, where a statement in support of the bursary of no more than 150 words will need to be made. In addition to this statement, PhD Candidates wishing to apply for a bursary must arrange for a letter of recommendation to be sent by their Supervisor to the Conference Administrator at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, 5 Cranmer Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BL, UK to arrive no later than the submission deadline.
Unfortunately, the conference organisers are not in a position to provide travel and accommodation support to all selected Agora speakers.
The deadline for the submission of abstracts is 22 January 2010;
Successful authors will be informed by 22 March 2010;
The deadline for the submission of Papers from accepted abstracts is 5 July 2010;
Papers are presented at the ESIL Conference, 2-4 September 2010;
The deadline for the submission of final papers to be included in the conference proceedings is 4 October 2010.
Submission of Abstracts
Abstracts MUST be submitted using the online submission form available on this website. Abstracts must be no more than 500 words in length and only one abstract per author will be permitted. Abstracts sent by email will not be considered. Abstracts received after the deadline will not be considered.
Authors wishing to respond to this call for papers should have the following information ready before starting the online submission process:
(1) contact and institution details, including full postal address and telephone number;
(2) email address;
(3) if applying for a bursary, the text of a supporting statement;
(4) the title and text of the abstract being submitted;
(5) a paragraph on the context in which the research is being conducted and how it fits with the conference themes;
(6) curriculum vitae and publications details.
Please note that the online submission form does not allow files to be uploaded. Information is collected by text input (typing or copy & paste) and menu selection only.
On submission of an abstract, authors should receive an email confirming receipt of their submission and a summary of the text of their application. Authors whose papers are selected for the conference will be notified no later than 22 March 2010.
ABSTRACT SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 22 JANUARY 2010 at MIDNIGHT
- Helen V. Milner, Power, Interdependence, and Nonstate Actors in World Politics: Research Frontiers
- Randall W. Stone, Institutions, Power, and Interdependence
- Michael J. Gilligan, The Transaction Costs Approach to International Institutions
- Ronald B. Mitchell, The Influence of International Institutions: Institutional Design, Compliance, Effectiveness, and Endogeneity
- V. Page Fortna & Lisa L. Martin, Peacekeepers as Signals: The Demand for International Peacekeeping in Civil Wars
- Beth A. Simmons, Women and International Institutions: The Effects of the Women's Convention on Female Education
- Layna Mosley, Private Governance for the Public Good? Exploring Private Sector Participation in Global Financial Regulation
- Elizabeth R. DeSombre, Power, Interdependence, and Domestic Politics in International Environmental Cooperation
- Vinod K. Aggarwal, The Dynamics of Trade Liberalization
- Jonathan D. Aronson, International Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked World
- Timothy J. McKeown, The Big Influence of Big Allies: Transgovernmental Relations as a Tool of Statecraft
- J. Ann Tickner, On Taking Religious Worldviews Seriously
- Andrew Moravcsik, Robert Keohane: Political Theorist
Lecture: Lavranos on "Revisiting Article 307 EC Treaty. The Untouchable Core of Fundamental European Constitutional Law Values and Principles"
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
This work analyses fairness and equity dimensions of the climate regime. A central issue in international law and policy is how countries of the world should allocate the burden of addressing global climate change. With the link between human activities and climate change clearly established, and the first impacts of climate change being felt, there is a renewed sense of urgency in addressing the problem. Based on an overview of science and the development of the climate regime to date, this book seeks to identify the elements of a working consensus on fairness principles that could be used to solve the hitherto intractable problem of assigning responsibility for combating climate change. The book demonstrates how an analysis of fairness dimensions of climate change – grounded in practical developments and illustrated with reference to the latest developments – can add value to our understanding of current developments and future options for international climate law and policy.
The opening and expansion of global markets has created and exacerbated resource curses, the phenomenon in which natural resource abundance creates governance problems. Yet international legal scholarship has been slow to recognize the relationship between freer trade and the financing of internal conflicts. While legal academics have long debated law’s role in addressing conflict generally, few have systematically addressed the intersection of trade regulation and prevention or abatement of internal conflict.
This article looks closely at a recent regulatory effort to address the global trade in so-called blood diamonds which are a particularly destructive example of a resource curse. As many are seeking an appropriate model for resource curses generally, I develop a case study of blood diamonds and the Kimberley Process, an international commodity tracking regime. This article investigates both the scope of the Kimberley Process’s regulatory reach as well as the mechanisms by which those regulations are promulgated and enforced. This article focuses on the unique coalition of NGOs, corporations, and states and the unusual international arrangement upon which they agreed. Evidence from the evolution of that institution suggests that although designers may indeed seek to maximize their own interests - the legalization elements of that international institution such as the obligations the regime creates, the precision with which those obligations are defined, and the possible delegation of interpretive and enforcement efforts determine whether an institution can regulate effectively and when it may move beyond the designers’ original interests. In accumulating and assessing this evidence, this article contends that although skeptics may correctly identify the Kimberley Process’s initial alignment with state and corporate interests, this lightly legalized regime provides an opportunity for substantial progress on human rights. Although the Kimberley Process might appear as an attempt to whitewash state and corporate abuses, over time, the institution can, though need not necessarily, evolve over time to address both the rebel induced and state inflicted human rights violations related to the diamond trade. In so doing, this article acknowledges the importance and potential stickiness of initial design choices and that institutional evolution in favor of issue expansion and greater enforcement is merely feasible rather than inevitable. Thus, this article demonstrates some of the possibilities and limitations of looking to the Kimberley Process as a model for resource curses, and more generally for other areas in which NGOs seek to align state, corporate, and human rights interests.
- David H. Anderson, Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea Case (Romania v. Ukraine)
- Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Administration of Justice in the World Trade Organization: Did the WTO Appellate Body Commit 'Grave Injustice'?
- Tobias Lock, The ECJ and the ECtHR: The Future Relationship between the Two European Courts
- Derek O'Brien & Sonia Morano-Foadi, The Caribbean Court of Justice and Legal Integration within CARICOM: Some Lessons from the European Community
- Sylvia Ntube Ngane, Witnesses before the International Criminal Court
- Daniel Müller & Affef Ben Mansour, Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice
Taken together, two cases before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) — Commission v. Austria and Commission v. Sweden, both decided March 3, 2009 — allowed the Court to review the compatibility of pre-accession bilateral investment treaties (BITs), concluded by member states of the European Community (EC) before their accession to the European Union, with Article 307 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (EC Treaty). While the EC Treaty does not describe in great detail the relationship between EC law and international law, Article 307(2) is an exception in that it provides that “[t]o the extent that such agreements [like BITs] are not compatible with the [EC Treaty], the Member State or States concerned shall take all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities established.” In these two decisions, the ECJ clarified the following issues: (1) What is the relationship between pre-accession treaties with subsequent EC law obligations? (2) When does an “incompatibility” within the meaning of Article 307 arise? (3) What are the obligations of the EC member states to eliminate such incompatibilities? For (1), the ECJ confirmed that, while pre-accession treaties remain in principle unaffected by subsequent EC law obligations, any incompatibilities between pre-accession treaties and EC law obligations must be eliminated in favor of EC law. For (2), the ECJ elucidated a new concept of “hypothetical incompatibility,” meaning that even a perceived — but not yet materialized — conflict between pre-accession treaties and EC law obligations is sufficient to constitute a violation of Article 307. And for (3), the ECJ confirmed, in line with its previous jurisprudence, that the obligation of EC member states to eliminate any incompatibility ultimately requires the denouncement of the pre-accession treaty, if re-negotiation or adjustment of the pre-accession treaty fails or is impossible. In both cases, the Court concluded that Austria and Sweden violated their obligations arising out of Article 307 by failing to eliminate the incompatibility between their pre-accession BITs and EC law.
- David Sloss, Introduction
- Sean D. Murphy, Does international law obligate states to open their national courts to persons for the invocation of treaty norms that protect or benefit persons?
- Donald R. Rothwell, Australia
- Gib Van Ert, Canada
- Xue Hanqin & Jin Qian, China
- Andreas Paulus, Germany
- Nihal Jayawickrama, India
- David Kretzmer, Israel
- Andre Nollkaemper, Netherlands
- Lech Garlicki, Małgorzata Masternak-Kubiak, & Krzysztof Wójtowicz, Poland
- William E. Butler, Russia
- John Dugard, South Africa
- Anthony Aust, United Kingdom
- David Sloss, United States
- Michael P. Van Alstine, The role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement: summary and conclusions
Monday, November 23, 2009
Karton: Party Autonomy and Choice of Law: Is International Arbitration Leading the Way or Marching to the Beat of its Own Drummer?
National courts have restricted party autonomy in choice of law in a variety of ways. In international arbitration, on the other hand, the march of party autonomy has been unhindered. National courts have abetted this process in the international arbitration context, even as they have maintained restrictions on party autonomy in choice of law within their own legal systems. This phenomenon, combined with the gradual loosening of restrictions on party autonomy in national legal systems, has led some to claim that international arbitration is leading the nations of the world into a global choice of law regime in which party autonomy reigns. Such triumphalists look forward to the day when party autonomy is as unrestricted in national courts as it is in arbitration.
This article argues that such a day is unlikely to arrive. The different pressures and interests that shape national court litigation on the one hand, and international arbitration on the other, are likely to generate different levels of support for party autonomy in choice of law. As a result, regardless of whether more party autonomy in choice of law is preferable in all contexts, or whether it ought to have a wider scope in arbitration than in litigation, arbitrators are likely to maintain greater deference to party autonomy than will national legislatures or courts.
- Brian C. Rathbun, It takes all types: social psychology, trust, and the international relations paradigm in our minds
- Cecelia Lynch, A neo-Weberian approach to religion in international politics
- Beate Jahn, Liberal internationalism: from ideology to empirical theory – and back again
Since 2001, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ (IFRC) “International Disaster Response Laws, Rules and Principles (IDRL)” Programme has been engaged in targeted research and consultations on the legal issues in disaster management, with a particular focus on international disaster relief. We have found that law can play a critical role in the success or failure of the efforts of communities, governments and the humanitarian community to reduce disaster risks and provide effective relief and recovery. Yet, although natural disasters have affected an average of nearly 200 million persons per year for the last twenty years, we have found remarkably little international or comparative legal scholarship on this issue.
This Working Paper Series is designed to encourage and promote critical scholarship in this area, from legal academics, students and practitioners.
Scope and methodology
The Working Paper Series will accept original papers related to law and legal issues in the management of natural disasters, with a preference for comparative analysis involving the laws of more than one country and/or international issues. Selection decisions will be made by the IDRL Programme at its sole discretion and without peer review.
Papers should be no more (and may certainly be less) than 20 pages in length (Times New Roman, 12 point, single-spaced). They may be written in English, French or Spanish and should be submitted in Microsoft Word format.
Papers accepted as part of the Working Paper Series will be “published” on the IFRC’s website (www.ifrc.org/idrl) and disseminated electronically to the IFRC’s networks of interested organizations and persons. There is no monetary compensation offered to Working Paper Series authors. Authors may re-publish papers used in this series elsewhere, so long as indication is made to their prior publication in the series.
Authors may employ any of the most commonly used legal citation styles.
To submit a draft or for further information, please contact us at: email@example.com.
Kelsall: Culture under Cross-Examination: International Justice and the Special Court for Sierra Leone
The international community created the Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute those who bore the greatest responsibility for crimes committed during the country’s devastating civil war. Tim Kelsall examines some of the challenges posed by the fact that the Court operated in a largely unfamiliar culture, in which the way local people thought about rights, agency and truth-telling sometimes differed radically from the way international lawyers think about these things. By applying an anthro-political perspective to the trials, he unveils a variety of ethical, epistemological, jurisprudential and procedural problems, arguing that although touted as a promising hybrid, the Court failed in crucial ways to adapt to the local culture concerned. Culture matters, and international justice requires a more dialogical, multicultural approach.
More and more legal scholars are turning to constitutional law to make sense of the growth of transnational and international legal orders. They often employ constitutional terminology loosely, in a bewildering variety of ways, with little effort to clarify their analytical frameworks or acknowledge the normative presuppositions embedded in their analysis. The potential of constitutional analysis as an instrument of critique of transnational legal orders is frequently lost in methodological confusion and normative controversy. An effort at clarification is necessary. We propose a functional approach to supraconstitutional analysis that applies across issue areas, accommodates variation in kinds and degrees of supraconstitutionalization, recognizes its simultaneously domestic and transnational character, and reflects its uneven incidence and impacts. We apply this framework to NAFTA to consider whether and how it superimposes a supraconstitutional legal order on member states' domestic constitutional orders. We show that the main thrust of this contemporary supraconstitutional project is to restructure state and international political forms to promote market efficiency and discipline, enable free capital movement, confer privileged rights of citizenship and representation on corporate capital, insulate key aspects of the economy from state interference, and constrain democratic decision-making.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
International environmental law is often closer to home than we know, affecting the food we eat, the products we buy, and even the air we breathe. Drawing on more than two decades of experience as a government negotiator, consultant, and academic, Daniel Bodansky brings a real-world perspective on the processes by which international environmental law develops, and influences the behavior of state and non-state actors.
In self-contained chapters that offer a clear guide to a complex field, Bodansky answers fundamental questions about how international environmental law works. What role can law play in addressing global environmental challenges such as climate change, ozone depletion, and loss of biodiversity? How do environmental problems come onto the international agenda? What are the obstacles to international cooperation, and what can international environmental law do to address them? How do international rules develop? How are they put into practice and what makes them effective?