Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
In the field of environmental law, be it on the domestic or the international level, it is especially difficult to develop effective regulatory systems and systems for sanctions to enforce obligations. The legal solutions employed under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, as well as the Kyoto Protocol, constitute a fascinating attempt to address these problems, providing “a huge testing ground for the legal instruments of environmental policy, at the international as well as on the lower levels,” mirroring “enormous creativity in the design of regulatory approaches.” Even though the Kyoto Protocol, “if fully implemented, will not … avert or even slow climate change,” it serves as a fine example of emerging international composite administrations, where multiple actors participate in transnational institutions of a multilevel system, serving the common goal of mitigating climate change. The climate change regime's unique regard to flexibility in fulfillment is particularly prominent. This is complemented by especially stringent and complex compliance mechanisms, which have no parallel in other international forms of cooperation. A further significant characteristic of the system is the high degree of legitimacy enjoyed by its institutional organization, its procedures and procedural outcomes. Thus, the international cooperation under the framework of the Kyoto Protocol is a landmark: it achieves not only flexibility but also a high degree of legitimacy and represents a more mature example of the exercise of public authority by international institutions.
1 Beyerlin, Ulrich, Rio Konferenz 1992: Beginn einer neuen globalen Umweltrechtsordnung?, 54 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 124, 131 (1994).Google Scholar
2 Bothe, Michael, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – an Unprecedented Multilevel Regulatory Challenge, 63 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 239, 245 (2003).Google Scholar
3 Brunnée, Jutta, The Kyoto Protocol: A Testing Ground for Compliance Theories?, 63 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 255 (2003).Google Scholar
4 On the concept of “composite administration,” see von Bogdandy, Armin & Dann, Philipp, International Composite Administration, in this issue.Google Scholar
5 Sebastian Oberthür & Hermann E. Ott, The Kyoto Protocol – Internationale Klimapolitik für das 21. Jahrhundert 27 (2000).Google Scholar
6 Examples include the Clean Air Act (1990) of the US and its amendments, as well as the South Coast Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), also foreseeing pollution trading. See Smith, Micheal S., Murky Precedent Meets Hazy Air: The Compact Clause and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, 34 Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 387–416 (2007); Pascal Bader, Europäische Treibhauspolitik mit handelbaren Emissionsrechten 56–97 (1999).Google Scholar
7 Frederick, Kenneth D. & Major, David C., Climate Change and Water Resources, 37 Climatic Change 7–23 (1997).Google Scholar
8 Bothe (note 2), at 239.Google Scholar
9 For an economic assessment see Yohe, Gary & Schlesinger, Michael, The Economic Geography of the Impacts of Climate Change, 2 Journal of Economic Geography 311–341 (2002).Google Scholar
10 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 29; Farhana Yamin & Joanna Depledge, The International Climate Change Regime 22 (2004).Google Scholar
11 Dawson, Victoria, Environmental Dispute Resolution: Developing Mechanisims for Effective Transnational Enforcement of International Environmental Standards, Berkeley Electronic Press Paper 1, 2 (2004); Dimas, Stavros, Climate Change: The Reality, the Risks and the Response, 13 Irish Journal of European Law 5, 6–8 (2006).Google Scholar
12 M. J. Mace, Chris Hendriks & Coenraads, Roger, Regulatory Challenges to the Implementation of Carbon Capture and Geological Storage Eithin the European Union under EU and International Law, 1 International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 253 (2007); Dennis Leaf, Hans J. H. Verolme & Hunt, William F., Overview of Regulatory/Policy/Economic Issues Related to Carbon Dioxide, 29 Environment International 303, 305 (2003).Google Scholar
13 Barbara Pflüglmayer, Vom Kyoto-Protokoll zum Emissionshandel – Entwicklung und ausgewählte Rechtsfragen 5 (2004); Marta D'Auria, Emissions Trading and Polycentric Negotiation, 6 Global Jurist Advances 1 (2006).Google Scholar
14 Bodansky, Daniel, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: A Commentary, 18 Yale Journal of International Law 461–474 (1993).Google Scholar
15 Art. 2 UNFCCC.Google Scholar
16 Bothe (note 2), at 240.Google Scholar
17 Art. 17 UNFCCC allows for the adoption of protocols by the Conference of the Parties by consensus; the Conference of the Parties is open only to the Parties of the Convention.Google Scholar
18 By decision 1/CP.3. So far the Kyoto Protocol has received 170 ratifications (18 April 2007). For the reasons behind the resistance of one of the most substantial GHG emitter, the United States, see Sunstein, Cass R., Of Montreal and Kyoto: A Tale of Two Protocols, 31 Harvard Environmental Law Review 1–65 (2007).Google Scholar
19 D'Auria (note 13), at 4; Ottinger, Richard L. & Jayne, Mindy, Global Climate Change Kyoto Protocol Implementation: Legal Frameworks for Implementing Clean Energy Solutions, 18 Pace Environmental Law Review (Pace Envtl. L. Rev.) 19–86 (2000-2001).Google Scholar
20 Art. 10 KP.Google Scholar
21 Art. 4(2)(g) UNFCCC.Google Scholar
22 This denotation stems from the country lists in Annex I and Annex II of the UNFCCC. Both Annexes list developed States (as well as those, with economies in transition, EIT). Annex II contains those Annex I countries that further undertake to financially assist developing countries in combating climate change. Thus, while all Annex II countries are Annex I countries well, the reverse is not true.Google Scholar
23 D'Auria (note 13), at 6.Google Scholar
24 Id. at 1, 7.Google Scholar
25 See Bodansky (note 14), at 502.Google Scholar
26 Oberthür & Ott, (note 5), at 142.Google Scholar
27 Art. 2 KP.Google Scholar
28 See Annex A KP.Google Scholar
29 See Annex B KP.Google Scholar
30 The KP's base units for emission allowances are the so-called Assigned Amount Units (AAUs). Further ‘emission credits’ are generated privately, such as the Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) and Removal Units (RMUs), depending on the nature of the mechanism under which the unit is generated or transferred; each equivalent to one metric ton of CO2. Matthieu Wemaere & Charlotte Streck, Legal Ownership and Nature of Kyoto Units and EU Allowances, in Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work 5, 43 (David Freestone & Charlotte Streck eds., 2005).Google Scholar
31 Art. 4 KP. The possibility of joint fulfillment enables Member States of the EU to construct a regional system of burden-sharing in achieving KP commitments while at the same time avoiding distortions of competition in the internal market. Ludwig Krämer, Grundlagen aus europäischer Sicht – Rechtsfragen betreffend den Emissionshandel mit Treibhausgasen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, in Klimaschutz durch Emissionshandel 1–45 (Hans-Werner Rengeling ed., 2001). See 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.Google Scholar
32 David G. Victor, The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Stop Global Warming 3 (2001).Google Scholar
33 Namely: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) as well as two groups of gases: hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). In reality, not emissions, but much rather the “right to emit specified substances of a certain quantity over a defined period of time” is traded. Rutger de Witt Wijnen, Emissions Trading under Art. 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, in Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work 403 (David Freestone & Charlotte Streck eds., 2005).Google Scholar
34 Art. 6 KP.Google Scholar
35 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 260.Google Scholar
36 Jakob Werksman, The Negotiation of a Kyoto Compliance System, in Implementing the Climate Change Regime 17, 19 (Olav Schram Stokke, Jon Hovi & Geir Ulfstein eds., 2005).Google Scholar
37 “[W]hat emerged … from these negotiations is a remarkable compliance system drawing on precedent from, and yet unique to, international law.” Id. at 17, 19.Google Scholar
38 Art. 20 UNFCCC and Art. 24(1) KP on the accession of regional economic integration organisations.Google Scholar
39 D'Auria (note 13), at 1.Google Scholar
40 “Emissions trading may be viewed as ‘regulation lite’ by critics because it frequently involves controls and allocations that are designed not to frighten the horses of the incumbents. That, ‘lite’ quality, however, may be welcomed by many governments on the grounds that, at least on the world stage, we face global warming issues of such urgency that the best regulatory method for controlling greenhouse gases is the one that has the best chance of implementation.” Robert Baldwin, Regulation Lite: The Rise of Emissions Trading, 3 LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 27 (2008).Google Scholar
41 An important aspect of this multilevel system of climate management is the mutually reinforcing empowerment of the international administrative entity and the national governments. Together, they gain control over the regulatory field of GHG emissions with each level acquiring a new role: international institutions gain regulatory power and national governments, though bound by international prescriptions, also gain regulatory and implementation powers over subjects potentially transcending their respective boundaries. Through this new system of administration new competences open up for all participating levels and the efficiency of each level as well as the overall project is enhanced. D'Auria (note 13), at 2.Google Scholar
42 “Informational cross-linkage.” See von Bogdandy, Armin & Dann, Philipp, International Composite Administration, in this issue.Google Scholar
43 Gupta, Joyeeta, The Role of Non-State Actors in International Environmental Affairs, 62 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 459, 467 (2003).Google Scholar
44 D'Auria (note 13), at 17.Google Scholar
45 Yamin, Farhana, The Kyoto Protocol: Origings, Assessment and Future Challenges, 7 Review of European communty and International Environmental Law (RECIEL) 113, 114 (1998).Google Scholar
46 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 58–61. Perhaps the most prominent example is the world-wide Climate Action Network International integrating over 300 NGOs concerned with climate change.Google Scholar
47 For example, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) face great risks of inundation induced by climate change and are therefore assiduous negotiators endorsing emissions reductions within the climate change regime.Google Scholar
48 Often referred to as the Group of 77; Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 55–58.Google Scholar
49 Such as those participating in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) or the informal alliance JUSSCANNZ, an acronym which stands for Japan, the US, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway and New Zealand. Iceland, Mexico, the Republic of Korea and other invited States, all of which are either great consumers and/or producers of fossil fuels, may also attend meetings.Google Scholar
50 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 39.Google Scholar
51 Art. 24 UNFCCC, Art. 26 Kyoto.Google Scholar
52 As Baldwin puts it, emissions trading yields political advantages: “Trading mechanisms offer a means of introducing controls but also of avoiding major opposition from entrenched incumbents.” Baldwin (note 40), at 7.Google Scholar
53 Decision 6/CP.6, Institutional linkage of the Convention secretariat to the United Nations.Google Scholar
54 GEF, established under the auspices of the World Bank with the participation of the UNEP as well as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) serves as an interim financial mechanism of the Convention; Decisions 10/CP.1 and 3/CP.4.Google Scholar
55 Art. 13(8) KP.Google Scholar
56 Memorandum of Understanding on the determination of funding necessary and available for the implementation of the Convention, Decisions 1/SBI 4 and 12/CP.3.Google Scholar
57 Acquaviva, Guido, Subjects of International Law: A Power-Based Analysis, 38 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 345, 383 (2005); Michael Hempel, Die Völkerrechtssubjektivität internationaler nichtstaatlicher Organisationen 57–60 (1999).Google Scholar
58 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 305–306.Google Scholar
59 Id. at 309.Google Scholar
60 Art. 13(1) KP.Google Scholar
61 Art. 13(4) KP.Google Scholar
62 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 310.Google Scholar
63 Art. 13(4)(d),(h) KP.Google Scholar
64 Art. 13(4)(j) KP.Google Scholar
65 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 312.Google Scholar
66 Art. 13(2) KP.Google Scholar
67 “Institutional cross-linkage” in the form of observational participation, see Armin von Bogdandy & Philipp Dann, International Composite Administration, in this issue.Google Scholar
68 Art. 13(8) KP.Google Scholar
69 Art. 13(6)-(7) KP.Google Scholar
70 Art. 20(3) and Art. 21(4) KP (amendment of the Protocol and its Annexes as well as the adoption of Annexes).Google Scholar
71 Pursuant to Art. 14(1) KP “the secretariat established by … the Convention shall serve as the secretariat of this Protocol.” Note, that by Decision 6/CP.6 the Secretariat has been institutionally and financially linked to the UN.Google Scholar
72 Decision 27/CMP.1, (Procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol).Google Scholar
73 Werksman (note 36), at 19.Google Scholar
74 Ulfstein, Geir & Werksman, Jakob, The Kyoto Compliance System: Towards Hard Enforcement, in Implementing the Climate Change Regime 39, 43 (Olav Schram Stokke, Jon Hovi & Geir Ulfstein eds., 2005).Google Scholar
75 UNFCCC guidelines for the technical review of greenhouse gas inventories from Parties included in Annex I to the Convention.Google Scholar
76 Decision 23/CP.7, (Guidelines for review under Art. 8 of the Kyoto Protocol).Google Scholar
77 Art. 8(3) KP.Google Scholar
78 Decision 22/CMP.1, paras. 31–35.Google Scholar
79 Decision 22/CMP.1, para. 22.Google Scholar
80 Ulfstein & Werksman (note 74), at 43.Google Scholar
81 Also established under Arts. 9 and 10 UNFCCC.Google Scholar
82 Non-Paper on Principles, Modalities, Rules and Guidelines for an International Emissions Trading Regime, 3 June 1998, available at: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/24427/umbrellagroup.pdf. According to Pflüglmayer, the price of emission allowances will not be determined by the market, but much rather by way of political agreement. Pflüglmayer, (note 13), at 5.Google Scholar
83 Non-Paper on Principles, Modalities, Rules and Guidelines for an International Emissions Trading Regime, 3 June 1998, available at: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/24427/umbrellagroup.pdf.Google Scholar
84 “Low cost abaters will be incentivised to reduce pollution levels and sell permits to higher cost abaters with the effect that the set level of emissions is achieved by lowest cost methods.” Baldwin (note 40), at 6.Google Scholar
85 Patrick Low, Trade and the Environment: What Worries the Developing Countries?, 23 Environmental Law (Envtl L.) 708 (1993).Google Scholar
86 Interestingly, Art. 17 KP foresees the elaboration of the rules of ETS by the COP, the institution of the Convention and not the COP/MOP: “The Conference of the Parties shall define the relevant principles, modalities, rules and guidelines, in particular for verification, reporting and accountability for emissions trading.” However, Decision 18/CP.7 transferred decision-making power relating to the ETS's “modalities, rules and guidelines” to the COP/MOP. There is thus a ‘mix’ of Convention and Kyoto bodies in charge of defining the rules of ETS.Google Scholar
87 Fanny Missfeldt, Flexible Mechanisms: Which Path to Take afer Kyoto?, 7 Review of European communty and International Environmental Law (RECIEL) 128, 129 (1998).Google Scholar
88 Steinar Andresen & Lars H. Gulbrandsen, The Role of Green NGOs in Promoting Climate Compliance, in Implementing the Climate Change Regime 169, 173 (Olav Schram Stokke, Jon Hovi & Geir Ulfstein eds., 2005).Google Scholar
89 Draft Standard Electronic Format for Reporting Kyoto Units recommended for adoption by Decision 17/CP.10 para 1.Google Scholar
90 The eligibility criteria are set forth in Decision 18/CP.7, para 2.Google Scholar
91 Annex B of the KP itself contains the data necessary for the quantification of the emission allowances assigned to each Annex I State. Accounting takes place in compliance with Decision 13/CMP.1, (Modalities for the accounting of assigned amounts under Art. 7(4) of the Kyoto Protocol).Google Scholar
92 Art. 5(1) KP; Decision 20/CMP.1, IPCC Good practice guidance and adjustments under Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Kyoto Protocol.Google Scholar
93 In compliance with the guidelines set out in Decision 17/CP.8 and detailed in: Reporting on Climate Change – User Manual for the Guidelines on National Communications from Non-Annex I Parties.Google Scholar
94 Art. 12 UNFCCC; Decision 3/CP.5, incorporating Guidelines for the preparation of national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention, Part I: UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories.Google Scholar
95 Decision 15/CMP.1, (Guidelines for the preparation of the information required under Art. 7 of the Kyoto Protocol), Art. 7(1)-(2) KP.Google Scholar
96 Art. 8(1) KP.Google Scholar
97 Decision 22/CMP.1, (Guidelines for review under Art. 8 of the Kyoto Protocol), paras. 5 and 6.Google Scholar
98 Section 153 of Decision 22/CMP.1.Google Scholar
99 Draft status report, draft individual inventory review report, draft review report on the national registry or draft national communication review report depending on the scope of review.Google Scholar
100 Decision 22/CMP.1, para. 7.Google Scholar
101 Decision 22/CMP.1, paras. 64, 83.Google Scholar
102 Decision 24/CP.7, (Procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol), Section VI. paras.1 and 3; 2/CMP.1, (Principles, nature and scope of the mechanisms pursuant to Arts. 6, 12 and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol).Google Scholar
103 Id. at Section VII. Paras. 6–7 and Section X. para. 1(a).Google Scholar
104 Id. at Section IX. para. 2 and Section X. para. 1(b)-(c).Google Scholar
105 Id. at Section X. para. 1(d).Google Scholar
106 Decision 18/CP.7, para 8.Google Scholar
107 Amounting to 90% of the AAUs of the respective seller Party or 100% of five times its most recently reviewed inventory – whichever is lowest, Decision 18/CP.7. para. 6.Google Scholar
108 Decision 24/CP.7, Section XV. para. 5.Google Scholar
109 Namely those enshrined in Arts. 6, 12 and 17 KP, Decision 24/CP.7, Section XV. para. 4.Google Scholar
110 Decision 22/CMP.1, Arts. 159–160.Google Scholar
111 Decision 24/CP.7, (Procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol), Section X. paras. 1–4; Decision 27/CMP.1.Google Scholar
112 Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts, February 2007, at 23.Google Scholar
113 Id. at 15.Google Scholar
114 Decision 24/CP. 8, Annex, para. 25.Google Scholar
115 Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts, February 2007, at 13.Google Scholar
116 Decision 13/CMP.1, (Modalities for the accounting of assigned amounts under Art. 7(4) of the Kyoto Protocol).Google Scholar
117 Decision 16/CP.10, (Issues relating to registry systems under Art. 7(4) of the Kyoto Protocol), paras. 4–5.Google Scholar
118 Decision 17/CP. 10, (Standard electronic format for reporting Kyoto Protocol units).Google Scholar
119 Decision 22/CMP.1, paras. 84–91.Google Scholar
120 Id. at paras. 110–120.Google Scholar
121 Id. at para. 94.Google Scholar
122 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 254.Google Scholar
123 de Witt Wijnen (note 33), at 412.Google Scholar
124 Id. at 405; the emission units allocated to the Parties may be “regarded as a mixture of a sovereign rights … and a public property right of an Annex I Government. … Allowances can also create property rights or quasi property rights with private entities holding allowances allocated under a domestic scheme‥… [Allowances] represent a hybrid between a purely public and a purely private right, which has been described as a ‘regulatory’ right. As such, they find themselves between an administrative grant and private property.” Wemaere, Matthieu & Streck, Charlotte, Legal Ownership and Nature of Kyoto Units and EU Allowances, in Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work 35, 42 (David Freestone & Charlotte Streck eds., 2005).Google Scholar
125 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 254. It is important to note that transactions between private traders within the national registry are irrelevant from the point of view of the KP, as they do not lead to allowance transfers between eligible State Parties. de Witt Wijnen (note 33), at 410.Google Scholar
126 Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts, February 2007, at 10.Google Scholar
127 Jürgen Lefevere, Linking Emissions Trading Schemes: The EU ETS and the ‘Linking Directive', in Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work 511 (David Freestone & Charlotte Streck eds., 2005).Google Scholar
128 See EU ‘Linking Directive': Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 amending Directive 2003/87/EC, establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol's project mechanisms.Google Scholar
129 Decision 27/CMP. 1, Section XIII., Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts, February 2007, at 26.Google Scholar
130 Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts, February 2007, at 63.Google Scholar
131 Decision 24/CP.7, Section XI. paras. 1–4.Google Scholar
132 Jochen von Bernstoff, in this issue.Google Scholar
133 Id. Google Scholar
134 Art. 3 and 7 of the KP.Google Scholar
135 Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Reference Manual, in accordance with Art. 5(2) KP, available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs6.htm. Such ‘manuals', ‘specifications', etc. are often incorporated into COP/MOP Decisions by reference. Jochen von Bernstorff, in this issue.Google Scholar
136 On such implementation support, von Bogdandy, Armin & Dann, Philipp, International Composite Administration, in this issue.Google Scholar
137 Decision 24/CP.7, Section IX. para. 11.Google Scholar
138 Olav Schram Stokke, Jon Hovi & Ulfstein, Geir, Introduction and Main Findings, in Implementing the Climate Change Regime 1, 11 (Olav Schram Stokke, Jon Hovi & Geir Ulfstein eds., 2005).Google Scholar
139 Esty, Daniel C., Good Governance at the Supranational Scale: Globalizing Administrative Law, 115 Yale Law Journal 1490, 1510 (2006).Google Scholar
140 Sebastian Oberthür & Hermann E. Ott (note 5), at 260.Google Scholar
141 Decision 27/CMP.1, (Procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol), Section XV.Google Scholar
142 Id. at Section VIII. paras. 3–4.Google Scholar
143 Id. at Section VIII. para. 7.Google Scholar
144 Stokke, Hovi & Ulfstein (note 138), at 11.Google Scholar
145 Id. Google Scholar
146 Nico Krisch, Benedict Kingsbury & Stewart, Richard B., The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 Law and Contemporary problems 15, 19 (2005).Google Scholar
147 See Jochen von Bernstorff, in this issue; Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, in this issue.Google Scholar
148 Krisch, Kingsbury & Stewart, (note 146), at 26.Google Scholar
149 Stokke, Hovi & Ulfstein, (note 138), at 1.Google Scholar
150 Esty (note 139), at 1495.Google Scholar
151 Gupta (note 43), at 467–468.Google Scholar
152 See von Bogdandy, Armin, On Principles of International Public Authority, in this issue.Google Scholar
153 Art. 10(c),(d),(e) KP.Google Scholar
154 Art. 13(i) KP.Google Scholar
155 Decision 24/CP.7, Section VIII. para. 7.Google Scholar
156 Krisch, Kingsbury & Stewart, (note 146), at 17.Google Scholar