Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:59:15.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rules vs. Standards in International Environmental Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Daniel Bodansky
Daniel Bodansky*
Affiliation:
Woodruff of International Law, University of Georgia School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
New Directions in International Environmental Law
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 98 , 2004 , pp. 275 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Goldstein, Judith, Kahler, Miles, Keohane, Robert O. & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Legalization and World Politics, 54 Int’l Org. 385–703 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Kaplow, Louis, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 Duke L. J. 557 (1992-1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously 22-28 (1977).

4 The effectiveness factor could cut in either direction. Presumably, states prefer norms that they believe will be effective if their primary concern is compliance by others and prefer norms that will be less effective if their primary concern is preserving their own freedom of action.

5 Thomas M. Franck, The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations 50-66 (1990).

6 Abram & Antonia H. Chayes, The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements (1995).

7 Abbott, Kenneth W. and Snidai, Duncan, Hard and Soft Law in International Governance, 54 Int’l Org. 421, 427 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Korobkin, Russell B., Behavioral Analysis and Legal Form: Rules vs. Standards Revisited, 79 Or. L. Rev. 23 (2000)Google Scholar. This is presumably why the basic norms of international humanitarian law take the form of broad standards—for example, proportionality and necessity—rather than precise rules.

9 Abbott & Snidai, supra note 7.

10 Ratner, Steven, Precommitment Theory and International Law: Starting a Conversation, 81 Tex. L. Rev. 2055 (2003)Google Scholar.

11 Sunstein, Cass R., Problems with Rules, 83 Cal. L. Rev. 953, 964 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.