ORCID Profile
0000-0002-2093-5896
Current Organisation
University of Tasmania
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
In Research Link Australia (RLA), "Research Topics" refer to ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes. These topics are either sourced from ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes listed in researchers' related grants or generated by a large language model (LLM) based on their publications.
International Law (excl. International Trade Law) | Law | International Relations | Australian History (excl. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History) | Environmental and Natural Resources Law |
International Organisations | Environmental Services | Climate Change Adaptation Measures | Expanding Knowledge in Law and Legal Studies | Environmental Policy, Legislation and Standards not elsewhere classified | Public Services Policy Advice and Analysis | Expanding Knowledge in History and Archaeology
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 22-12-2009
DOI: 10.1002/WCC.10
Abstract: The Asia‐Pacific Partnership (APP) for Clean Development and Climate, a multilateral agreement between Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea (Korea) and the United States of America, is a nonbinding memorandum of understanding directed at international cooperation on development, energy, environment and climate change issues involving business and industry voluntary action on technology transfer, and research and development. It has been hailed as a new model for an international climate agreement and as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol. However, APP implementation has had challenges. As an opposing model to that of Kyoto, it is in contravention of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC's) principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and a contributor to the crumbling of climate governance. Cooperation rather than competition ideally should be the future for the relationship between the APP and the UNFCCC/Kyoto. Business and industry are involved in implementation of the Kyoto mechanisms under the UN climate regime currently and for that reason, synchronicity between the APP and Kyoto agreements would be ideal. For ex le, APP nations could be involved in joint ‘regional’ emissions trading as the United States, Canada, Australia, Korea, and Japan all are in the process of establishing national schemes. However, for the APP to be a complement to Kyoto and not a barrier to its effectiveness, many hurdles need to be overcome including equity issues, additionality questions, capacity building concerns, trade barriers, intellectual property issues, adequacy of funding, assessment of APP emissions reductions, and renewal of US interest in UN climate regime participation. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 22-09-2021
DOI: 10.1111/FAF.12511
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 03-2016
DOI: 10.1093/JEL/EQW003
Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing
Date: 27-11-2015
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 10-2006
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 05-06-2019
DOI: 10.1093/JEL/EQZ015
Abstract: Conflicts of interest (COIs) have the capacity to undermine the integrity and legitimacy of decision-making in international legal fora. The issue of COIs has recently become a contentious issue within the international negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Despite an emerging debate on COIs, key issues regarding engagement with certain non-state actors, and the reforms that could be implemented in response, remain to be systematically addressed. This article therefore examines best practice for addressing COIs in international fora to see how this might inform management of the issue within the UNFCCC. We find that protecting the integrity and legitimacy of the UNFCCC will likely require its Conference of the Parties to clearly define COIs and to adopt a process for their management. This reform will bring the UNFCCC into line with best practices in global governance and improve prospects for more effective international law on climate change.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 02-07-2016
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 21-09-2022
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 02-07-2017
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 12-09-2019
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 12-08-2014
DOI: 10.1111/REEL.12075
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 11-2014
DOI: 10.1111/REEL.12097
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 30-06-2009
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 05-2012
Publisher: University of Technology, Sydney (UTS)
Date: 04-12-2011
Abstract: Over the past five years there have been a series of significant international climate change agreements involving only elite state actors. The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, APEC Sydney Leaders Declaration and US Major Economies Process all displayed a shift towards a model of international climate change governance involving a small group of economically powerful states, to the exclusion of less powerful states and environmental NGOs. The modest result from the UNFCCC COP 15 meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 and subsequent UNFCCC meetings has strengthened calls for international climate governance to be pared down to smaller decision making forums of key states only. This article argues that these developments evidence an emerging discourse of ‘exclusive minilateralism’ in international climate policy that is challenging the inclusive multilateral discourse that has formed the bedrock of international climate change governance since the inception of UN climate regime in the early 1990s. The exclusive minilateralism discourse offers a significant challenge to both the cosmopolitan and discursive democratic aspirations of international climate change governance. One response to the exclusive minilateral discourse is to reform the UNFCCC consensus-based decision making rule to provide the COP with greater ease of decision making on key issues relating to mitigation and adaptation. Another response is to more formally include the exclusive minilateralism discourse within the UNFCCC COP process. This could be achieved by forming a small peak body of states and key NGO groups to act as an influential advisor to the COP process on key issues requiring expedition and resolution.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 04-2017
DOI: 10.1111/REEL.12193
Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing
Date: 09-2016
Publisher: Brill
Date: 07-06-2017
DOI: 10.1163/24519391-00201006
Abstract: Recent territorial disputes in the South China Sea ( scs ) have been viewed as a proxy for wider geopolitical tension between the United States and China. Realist commentators therefore argue that power will be the key driver of outcomes and the likely role of international law is peripheral. Mainstream international law scholarship is ill-equipped to respond to such criticism as it largely marginalises the relationship between law and power. However, some leading historical figures in International Law and International Relations have long argued that an ‘associational balance of power’ between States is an essential pre-condition for the effective operation of international law. We argue that re-enlivening this focus on ‘associational balance of power’ offers new insights into the possibilities for international law in the scs . We therefore recommend an interdisciplinary research program across the fields of International Law and Strategic Studies aimed at facilitating rule-based resolution of disputes in the scs .
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 16-04-2022
DOI: 10.1007/S10784-022-09572-9
Abstract: As Patricia Birnie cautiously and prophetically put it in the inaugural issue of this journal (INEA 1, January 2001, p. 74), “we do not know whether States and the tentative regimes they have so far established can withstand the pressures of globalization of trade and degradation and over-exploitation generated by advances in technologies for locating, fertilizing, harvesting, processing and modifying natural resources and bio ersity. This is truly terra incognita in which such seeds of destruction may already be implanted.” Among the 600 or so papers and reviews published in INEA from 2001 to 2020, more than 70 deal wholly or partly with legal aspects of environmental problems and the international dimensions of environmental justice. While the main focus of INEA has been on issues of public international (inter-state) law , there have also been important inputs drawn from comparative legal analysis (of national legislation and judicial decisions) and from “transnational administrative law” that influence the effectiveness of multilateral treaties and their associated international institutions. Novel concepts and practices emerging from the environmental field (such as recourse to a range of “soft law” principles flexible delegated standard-setting in the face of global change and equitable differentiation of compliance duties) have inspired developments in related areas of contemporary international law-making and law-applying. At the same time, the very proliferation of multilateral and bilateral environmental instruments raised new questions and expressions of alarm over “treaty congestion” and “fragmentation” within the international law system. It is not the intention of this paper to explore the general interaction of international environmental law with neighboring disciplines such as international economic law or human rights law, but simply to record the “seismographic” impact of INEA on legal-intellectual discourse over these past two decades. To some extent, the role of the Journal in identifying both new prospects and new risks in this field could indeed be likened to that of a “canary in the coal-mine.” The lessons so learnt may thus offer new insights to help in averting the destruction which Birnie visualized, and to advance inter-generationally and intra- generationally shared values of environmental justice.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 09-11-2017
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 18-12-2017
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 31-10-2020
DOI: 10.1111/GCB.15392
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-04-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2020
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-04-2019
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 02-01-2020
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Date: 02-02-2012
Abstract: This collection of essays examines the development and application of environmental laws and the relationship between public laws and international law. Notions of good governance, transparency and fairness in decision-making are analysed within the area of the law perceived as having the greatest potential to address today's global environmental concerns. International trends, such as free trade and environmental markets, are also observed to be infiltrating national laws. Together, the essays illustrate the idea that in the context of environmental problems being dynamic and environmental changes appearing suddenly, laws become difficult to design and effect. Typically, they are also devised within a conflicted setting. It is in this changeable and discordant context that environmental discourses such as precaution, justice, risk, equity, security, citizenship and markets contribute to legal responses, present legal opportunities or hinder progress.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 27-07-2019
DOI: 10.1093/JEL/EQY018
Publisher: MIT Press - Journals
Date: 08-2013
DOI: 10.1162/GLEP_A_00183
Abstract: Studies grounded in regime theory have examined the effectiveness of “minilateral” climate change forums that have emerged outside of the UN climate process. However, there are no detailed studies of the legitimacy of these forums or of the impacts of their legitimacy on effectiveness and governance potential. Adopting the lens of legitimacy, we analyze the reasons for the formation of minilateral climate change forums and their recent role in global climate governance. We use Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and Vihma's analytical framework for international institutions to examine three minilateral climate forums: the Asia-Pacific Partnership, the Major Economies Meetings, and the G8 climate process. These forums have significant deficits in their source-based, process-based, and outcome-based legitimacy, particularly when compared to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. If assessed purely on grounds of effectiveness, the minilateral forums might be easily dismissed as peripheral to the UN climate process. However, they play important roles by providing sites for powerful countries to shape the assumptions and expectations of global climate governance. Thus, the observed institutional fragmentation allows key states to use minilateral forums to shape the architecture of global climate governance.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 08-2018
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 10-01-2019
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 14-11-2017
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 12-09-2019
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 25-03-2022
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-04-2015
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 07-04-2019
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 02-01-2021
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 09-2014
DOI: 10.1017/S1744552314000159
Abstract: This paper shows how international law scholarship might adopt a constructivist interdisciplinary research design to better engage with the political and social context of legal rules and institutions. In 2005 the Asia-Pacific Partnership was launched by the United States and Australia as a climate change institution outside the UN climate process. Controversially, the Member States claimed the Asia-Pacific Partnership was complementary to the UN climate process. This paper investigates the veracity of this claim by analysing the normative compatibility of the Partnership and the UN climate process. The paper adopts Dryzek's discourse theory to analyse the shared ideas and assumptions underlying both institutions. This analysis indicates that the Asia-Pacific Partnership embodied a deep market-liberal discourse that is in significant tension with the more interventionist and equity-based principles underpinning the UN climate process. This market-liberal discourse is important for understanding recent developments in global climate governance.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 11-2016
DOI: 10.1111/REEL.12180
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 26-11-2019
Publisher: Brill
Date: 26-08-2015
DOI: 10.1163/18786561-00501007
Abstract: Solar Radiation Management ( srm ) geoengineering poses a significant risk of transboundary and global atmospheric harm. How might international law regulate the future use of srm ? We explore how the ‘no-harm rule’ from customary international law might contribute to the international governance of future attempts at srm . The no-harm rule imposes a legal duty on states to prevent significant damage across borders and in the global commons. Existing geoengineering literature assumes that, as the international law system lacks a mandatory enforcement mechanism, the no-harm rule will play little or no role in the governance of srm . We challenge this assumption by focusing on the possibilities of compliance with the no-harm rule through bolstering its legitimacy and sense of legal obligation. We explain how Brunnée and Toope’s theory of ‘interactional international law’ might provide a useful lens for developing the no-harm rule in this way to independently respond to the risks posed by srm .
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.1017/S0032247420000388
Abstract: Marine plastic pollution is increasing prominence in current discussions on the governance of the world’s oceans. The Southern Ocean is geographically remote but is still significantly impacted by plastic pollution. Plastic pollution in the Southern Ocean can derive from a variety of sources, including waste from research stations and fishing operations within the Treaty Area and, through transport by ocean currents and wind-generated water movements, from outside the Treaty Area. While there is a growing academic literature on marine plastic pollution in Antarctic, there is less attention to date on the response of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) to this issue. This paper analyses how the ATS has engaged with the issue of plastic waste in general, and marine plastic pollution more particularly, from the entry into force of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty in 1998–2019. Our results indicate that from 2017 the ATS has shown increased attention towards addressing locally sourced marine plastic pollution. A significant problem, however, remains with the respect to marine plastic pollution originating from outside Antarctic Treaty Area that requires a governance response from outside the ATS.
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 04-12-2018
DOI: 10.1017/S2047102518000286
Abstract: Resilience thinking – an approach for understanding and managing change – is increasingly central to climate change adaptation law and policy. Yet the influence of adaptation law and policy on the distribution of climate impacts is often overlooked in studies of socio-ecological resilience to climate change. This article demonstrates how environmental justice scholarship helps to address this gap in the literature relating to adaptation law and resilience. Drawing on existing literature, the article identifies four principles to promote resilience and justice through climate adaptation laws. Climate adaptation laws must (i) prepare for, and respond to, change (ii) address the distributive effects of climate change and adaptation (iii) promote participation in adaptation processes and (iv) cross sectors and scales. Each criterion can be implemented in part through existing legal processes, but might also be further supported by incremental law reform. Developing both resilience and justice dimensions will enhance the effectiveness of adaptation laws in addressing climate impacts.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 30-05-2018
Start Date: 03-2019
End Date: 06-2024
Amount: $466,000.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 10-2018
End Date: 12-2019
Amount: $191,340.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 04-2021
End Date: 04-2024
Amount: $246,805.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded Activity