This chapter examines the advisory procedure ascribed to some non-compliance mechanisms of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). Given its entirely facilitative nature, this chapter argues that the advisory procedure is an efficient implementation/compliance technique while preventing environmental harm and disputes between States. To that aim, this chapter presents three sections. First, the chapter presents a brief comparative overview of the nature of non-compliance mechanisms across MEAs. Second, it examines the architecture of the UNECE Water Convention’s advisory procedure and studies its practice in the recent Cijevna/Cem River advisory procedure (Montenegro/Albania). Third, it identifies areas of opportunity for adopting a similar advisory procedure to help improve the implementation of other existing and future multilateral agreements, such as the BBNJ Agreement, the Global Treaty on Plastics Pollution or the Pandemic Treaty.

Many multilateral environmental treaties have established committees that monitor compliance and/or facilitate implementation. These committees can be triggered in a number of ways, e.g., when a State party seizes the committee concerning another State party’s compliance or implementation. This type of trigger resembles the most traditional judicial proceedings, as it opposes two States, and has the potential to lead to decisions of non-compliance. It is perceived to be more confrontational than facilitative. State-to-State triggers therefore sit in between judicial and non-judicial procedures, and between facilitation on the one hand and enforcement on the other. State-to-State triggers have only been used a handful of times. This chapter explores why such triggers have been sparsely used. It first explains how State-to-State triggers were established and describes the instacnes in which they have been used. It then identifies and discusses two main challenges faced by State-to-State triggers: challenges related to the perception and behaviour of States vis-à-vis such triggers, and challenges related to institutional design and procedural mechanisms of State-to-State procedures.

Non-Compliance Procedures are designed to facilitate the compliance of States parties with obligations deriving from Multilateral Environmental Agreements but may trigger harsher means to elicit compliance such as suspension of a party’s rights. The chapter will analyse the classical NCPs such as those in the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and the Kyoto Protocol. It will then analyse the new type of NCPs, established in the Paris Agreement and the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. This chapter will analyse whether compliance is better ensured by more facilitative rather than coercive methods, together with NCPs’ legitimacy, including with reference to the powers of Conferences or Meetings of the Parties which mostly decide on non-compliance.

Law can influence conservation translocations in two basic ways: it can play a supportive and/or a restrictive role. Regarding the first role, legislation can provide support, a mandate, and/or an obligation to consider or perform a translocation. This may involve both general obligations to conserve or restore certain species or ecosystems, as well as specific obligations concerning species reintroductions or other types of translocation. Regarding the second role, legislation can impose limitations on translocation possibilities and/or make translocations conditional on meeting certain requirements. Such limitations and conditions may follow from legislation on native species protection, area protection, invasive non-native species, disease, trade, animal welfare, and several other areas of law. Requirements of both types may flow from international and national law. The legal requirements that will apply to any projected conservation translocation will depend on the countries, areas, and species involved, and there may be significant differences between one project and the next. The applicable requirements may be easy to meet for some projects, and be prohibitive for others. It is crucial that a careful analysis of applicable domestic legislation is carried out in the early stages of any contemplated conservation translocation. Practitioners should also make themselves aware of the relevant international legislation to provide them with the wider legal context of their work, and to help them influence the development of future legislation.

Chapter 6 discusses how environmental stewardship established itself as a fundamental norm of international society. The first section reviews the creation of secondary institutions, or environmental regimes, and how dynamics of international environmental rule-setting reinforced but also reinterpreted the underlying environmental norm. The second part focuses on indicators of changing state behaviour and identity, particularly with regard to how environmentalism affected diplomatic practices and multilateralism as a mode of international cooperation. The third part completes the story by examining the spatial dimension of environmental stewardship’s social consolidation, with a focus on how environmental ideas and practices spread worldwide and how the Global South came to not only adopt but also redefine global environmental responsibilities.

This chapter debates the consistency of the deployment of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) with international law. SRM might help to counter global warming at relatively low cost, but it could also have substantial negative environmental impacts. Jesse Reynolds, reviewing all the relevant international treaties, as well as customary international law, argues that solar geoengineering could be consistent with international law. There is even some evidence, he argues, that solar geoengineering may be required by international law. Kerryn Brent reaches the exact opposite conclusion. She argues that solar geoengineering at scale would violate the no-harm rule and is prohibited by the UNFCCC and other treaties.

This chapter debates the consistency of the deployment of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) with international law. SRM might help to counter global warming at relatively low cost, but it could also have substantial negative environmental impacts. Jesse Reynolds, reviewing all the relevant international treaties, as well as customary international law, argues that solar geoengineering could be consistent with international law. There is even some evidence, he argues, that solar geoengineering may be required by international law. Kerryn Brent reaches the exact opposite conclusion. She argues that solar geoengineering at scale would violate the no-harm rule and is prohibited by the UNFCCC and other treaties.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established under the 2030 Agenda espouse a notion of sustainable development articulated along three integrated dimensions: economic development, social development and environmental protection. When exploring relevant trade regimes, the 2030 Agenda considers exclusively the role of the WTO. In this way, significant evolutions in the international trade agenda are overlooked, in particular the growing efforts on the conclusion of trade liberalisation deals on a preferential basis. One distinctive feature of these negotiations is the emergence of a common will to reach an agreement on sustainable development issues. As a result, most recent preferential trade agreements (PTAs) usually include a chapter on trade and sustainable development (TSD) covering both the promotion of labour rights and the protection of the environment. In view of this evolution, the question arises as to whether and to what extent the PTAs contribute to the attainment of the SDGs. Against this background, this chapter offers a legal appraisal of the environmental provisions included in the TSD chapters of the latest EU PTAs. This practice is relevant, in view of the role the EU has been playing in the setting of the current network of PTAs and in the negotiations for multilateral environmental agreements.