Editorial

• Author: Harro Asselt
• Published date: 01 April 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12108
• Date: 01 April 2015

Editorial

Future scholars studying the history of international

environmental law are likely to point to the year 2015 as

an important milestone. Various developments this

year will yield insights into the effectiveness of inter-

governmental processes established to cope with global

environmental problems. One of these processes, the

United Nations (UN) process for disaster risk reduc-

tion, led to an outcome in March, when countries

adopted the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk

Reduction 2015–2030 – the successor to the 2005

Hyogo Framework for Action. This non-binding frame-

work aims to reduce deaths and economic losses from

disasters, and established seven (non-quantitative)

targets and four priority areas for action.

In September, another UN summit will be held – this

time with a view to adopting a post-2015 development

agenda, including a set of Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs). The 17 proposed SDGs, comprised of 169

more specific targets, were the result of a long and

intensive consultation process, involving a wide range

of countries as well as interactions with nongovern-

mental stakeholders. The broadly – and ambitiously –

formulated goals address a range of social, economic

and environmental issues, including ending poverty;

achieving food security; ensuring sustainable manage-

ment of water; achieving access to affordable, reliable,

sustainable and modern energy for all; taking action to

tackle climate change and its impacts; halting biodiver-

sity loss; and so on.

In December 2015, parties to the UN Framework Con-

vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are expected to

adopt a new international agreement in Paris on how to

address climate change in the post-2020 period, appli-

cable to all countries. Although negotiations have pro-

gressed since their launch in Durban in 2011, with a

negotiating text being adopted in February in Geneva,

many contentious issues – including the exact legal

form of the agreement and the extent to which devel-

oped and developing country parties will be treated dif-

ferently – remain undecided.

The developments in these areas will be important for

at least three reasons. First, they form a test case of

whether the international community is actually able

to reach agreement on new governance frameworks in

the field of international environmental law. Specifi-

cally, reaching agreement on the SDGs and the 2015

climate change agreement will be difficult, as both

processes signify how ‘environmental’ issues are

deeply intertwined with broader economic and social

challenges. The processes will thus also provide an

indication of the extent to which States are willing to

cede national sovereignty.

Second, the outcomes of the three processes will likely

offer insights into the role of ‘hard’ law in international

environmental governance. The Sendai Framework is

non-binding, and the SDGs – like their predecessors,

the Millennium Development Goals – are also likely to

be non-binding, but it still remains to be seen to what

extent a 2015 climate change agreement will be in the

form of a legally binding treaty (the language thus far

specifies that it will be ‘a protocol, another legal instru-

ment or an agreed outcome with legal force under

the Convention’). However, more important than the

precise legal form is whether the outcomes show a

certain degree of precision and obligation: Will they

contain language that somehow binds States or will

they instead contain hortatory and vague provisions

that grant States significant leeway? At present, the

latter seems more likely.

Third, the processes will show to which extent coordi-

nation is (im)possible within the UN system. The con-

sultations on the SDGs, for instance, have already

showed how difficult it was to reach agreement on a

specific goal related to climate change at a time when

the negotiations under the UNFCCC were gathering

steam. Given that the SDGs need to be agreed a few

months before Paris, this problem is likely to return.

Similarly, there will be ongoing discussion on how to

connect the framework for disaster risk reduction

(which also covers natural disasters) to the discussions

on adaptation and loss and damage under the UNFCCC

(which are primarily concerned with human-induced

disasters).

At this stage, the outcomes and impacts of all three

processes remain uncertain – and some even wonder

whether agreement is possible at all. Yet international

environmental diplomats have shown a remarkable

ability to agree on texts even in the face of major diver-

gences in positions. The question that future scholars

may rather ask themselves is: Did such agreements

matter? Only time will tell how States will implement

the agreements.

This issue of RECIEL tackles a range of emerging issues

in international and European environmental law. The

issue starts with an analysis by Nadia Sánchez Castillo

on the notion of permanent sovereignty. In an insight-

ful analysis, she argues that this notion needs to be

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 24 (1) 2015. ISSN 2050-0386 DOI: 10.1111/reel.12108

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

1