The competency debate over small cetacean regulation at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is legal in nature, yet has been in a political stalemate for years. In this article we argue that the IWC has the competence to regulate small cetaceans and that the commercial whaling of ‘small cetaceans’ is a violation of the moratorium on commercial whaling. We present hybrid legal and scientific arguments and counter-arguments for the treaty interpretation of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and, given recent precedent, advocate that the International Court of Justice be called upon to resolve this matter.

Written as a response to the article ‘Does Size Matter? The ICRW and the Inclusion of Small Cetaceans’ by Sean Stephenson, Arne Mooers and Amir Attaran, this commentary considers how important global and regional biodiversity- or conservation-related conventions have deliberately avoided the issue area of cetacean management. One of the effects of this is that so-called ‘small cetaceans’ – approximately 70 species – are left largely unregulated. This article differs from that of Stephenson and his co-authors, who argue that the ‘only appropriate’ forum for dealing with the issue is the International Court of Justice. Instead, it is argued here that the ‘Future of the IWC’ compromise process may yet represent the best course for bringing small cetaceans under IWC management authority. Another alternative was recently suggested in a draft resolution put forward by Monaco in 2012 – and is likely to be put forward again in 2014 – which advocated involving the United Nations General Assembly in the issue. The issue is both complicated and important, and a solution is needed.

Despite widespread recognition of the threat posed by emerging zoonotic diseases (EZDs) to human and animal health and the economy, the root causes of EZDs are largely ignored by the international community. In particular, the links between wildlife health, human-induced land-use change, and EZDs have not been adequately addressed. Generally, states are not required to evaluate the health impacts of land-use decisions within their territories. Similarly, global efforts to protect wild spaces are rarely identified as a health imperative. Where initiatives have been undertaken, they remain focused largely on detecting and controlling only those wildlife diseases that are known or suspected to be a threat to human and animal health or the economy. A critique of the existing international responses leaves no doubt that a preventative approach must be adopted to address human vulnerability to EZDs.

International nature protection law has developed without a coherent plan, with disparate governance instruments each largely evolving within their own separate sphere. Yet, many other issues are closely linked to the challenges of nature degradation, such as developmental challenges, climate change, food security and food safety, disease prevention, and rural poverty. These interconnections have partly been recognized in Agenda 21 and more recently in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. This response commentary draws on and extrapolates further the conclusions of Patricia Farnese in ‘The Prevention Imperative’, published in this issue of Transnational Environmental Law, and argues for a more coherent approach and effective leadership in this area of global regulation, along with a more flexible and holistic approach to governance responses.

The question of what status the precautionary principle enjoys in international law has once again reared its head, most recently in the Indus Waters Treaty dispute between India and Pakistan before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This article assesses the current state of play in respect of the precautionary principle and its status in international law. It identifies what it terms the two camps of custom – the custom camp and the no-custom camp – which find themselves on opposing sides in the debate. The article argues that the two camps are equally guilty of misunderstanding the precautionary principle and the nature of customary international law, though for different reasons. In so doing, the article shows that one side is guilty of ‘precaution spotting’, whereas the other ignores the implications of the ‘rule v. standard’ dialectic. These two concepts help us to understand the different claims advanced by the two camps. They also alert us to the fact that it is possible to conceptualize customary international law along two separate lines of inquiry: one lending emphasis to state practice and one relying on statements and declarations of rules. In pursuing these arguments, the article compares the precautionary principle with (other) norms of customary law, such as the ‘no-harm rule’ and the rules on cross-border environmental impact assessment, and argues that customary international law is best understood if we come to accept that there are multiple ways of identifying customary international rules.

This article examines the role of environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) in Russia and the impact of tightening governmental accountability measures. Drawing on 18 interviews conducted in 2012–13 with Russian and international ENGOs, the article examines three key governance issues, namely: the collaborative relationship between the state and ENGOs, the impact of accountability measures on ENGO activities, and the relationships between ENGOs themselves. The findings reveal that ENGOs maintain a legitimate and effective role within Russian environmental governance. However, their legitimacy and success is significantly limited and threatened by increasing accountability measures and state actions. The article accordingly identifies a number of recommendations for increasing the likelihood of successful ENGO action in Russian environmental governance, including improving ENGO collaboration with the state and resolving tensions between participation and accountability.

This article describes the processes that led the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a National Inspection Plan for domestic waste water treatment systems, following intervention from European Union institutions. The discussion focuses on two issues: the role of transnational institutional settings in galvanizing innovation and regulatory reform, and the practical challenges of dealing with lower risks. It is argued that multi-level transnational regimes have considerable potential to stimulate high-level reviews of regulatory strategy. As a result, lower risks present challenges that cannot be ignored in favour of policies that focus on the most severe risks. Traditional risk regulation theories, it is contended, do not provide much assistance in selecting intervention strategies in the face of such pressures, but the example of the Irish EPA shows how regulators can address these issues.

The Southern Bluefin Tuna dispute of the late 1990s will long be remembered as one of the most important fishery disputes of all time, influencing both ocean governance and international dispute settlement. This commentary explores the legacy of that dispute with a particular emphasis on the growth and development of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna and how the regime is functioning with the addition of several new members. We will focus also on the specific challenges to the conservation and management of the southern bluefin tuna. This includes biological parameters and the legal and political landscape of global fisheries conservation generally. Finally, we will explore emerging conservation strategies to assist the recovery of this highly valuable fish species.