1 Beyerlin, Ulrich, Rio Konferenz 1992: Beginn einer neuen globalen Umweltrechtsordnung?, 54 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 124, 131 (1994).Google Scholar

2 Bothe, Michael, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – an Unprecedented Multilevel Regulatory Challenge, 63 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 239, 245 (2003).Google Scholar

3 Brunnée, Jutta, The Kyoto Protocol: A Testing Ground for Compliance Theories?, 63 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 255 (2003).Google Scholar

4 On the concept of “composite administration,” see von Bogdandy, Armin & Dann, Philipp, International Composite Administration, in this issue.Google Scholar

5 Sebastian Oberthür & Hermann E. Ott, The Kyoto Protocol – Internationale Klimapolitik für das 21. Jahrhundert 27 (2000).Google Scholar

6 Examples include the Clean Air Act (1990) of the US and its amendments, as well as the South Coast Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), also foreseeing pollution trading. See Smith, Micheal S., Murky Precedent Meets Hazy Air: The Compact Clause and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, 34 Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 387–416 (2007); Pascal Bader, Europäische Treibhauspolitik mit handelbaren Emissionsrechten 56–97 (1999).Google Scholar

7 Frederick, Kenneth D. & Major, David C., Climate Change and Water Resources, 37 Climatic Change 7–23 (1997).Google Scholar

8 Bothe (note 2), at 239.Google Scholar

9 For an economic assessment see Yohe, Gary & Schlesinger, Michael, The Economic Geography of the Impacts of Climate Change, 2 Journal of Economic Geography 311–341 (2002).Google Scholar

10 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 29; Farhana Yamin & Joanna Depledge, The International Climate Change Regime 22 (2004).Google Scholar

11 Dawson, Victoria, Environmental Dispute Resolution: Developing Mechanisims for Effective Transnational Enforcement of International Environmental Standards, Berkeley Electronic Press Paper 1, 2 (2004); Dimas, Stavros, Climate Change: The Reality, the Risks and the Response, 13 Irish Journal of European Law 5, 6–8 (2006).Google Scholar

12 M. J. Mace, Chris Hendriks & Coenraads, Roger, Regulatory Challenges to the Implementation of Carbon Capture and Geological Storage Eithin the European Union under EU and International Law, 1 International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 253 (2007); Dennis Leaf, Hans J. H. Verolme & Hunt, William F., Overview of Regulatory/Policy/Economic Issues Related to Carbon Dioxide, 29 Environment International 303, 305 (2003).Google Scholar

13 Barbara Pflüglmayer, Vom Kyoto-Protokoll zum Emissionshandel – Entwicklung und ausgewählte Rechtsfragen 5 (2004); Marta D'Auria, Emissions Trading and Polycentric Negotiation, 6 Global Jurist Advances 1 (2006).Google Scholar

14 Bodansky, Daniel, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: A Commentary, 18 Yale Journal of International Law 461–474 (1993).Google Scholar

15 Art. 2 UNFCCC.Google Scholar

16 Bothe (note 2), at 240.Google Scholar

17 Art. 17 UNFCCC allows for the adoption of protocols by the Conference of the Parties by consensus; the Conference of the Parties is open only to the Parties of the Convention.Google Scholar

18 By decision 1/CP.3. So far the Kyoto Protocol has received 170 ratifications (18 April 2007). For the reasons behind the resistance of one of the most substantial GHG emitter, the United States, see Sunstein, Cass R., Of Montreal and Kyoto: A Tale of Two Protocols, 31 Harvard Environmental Law Review 1–65 (2007).Google Scholar

19 D'Auria (note 13), at 4; Ottinger, Richard L. & Jayne, Mindy, Global Climate Change Kyoto Protocol Implementation: Legal Frameworks for Implementing Clean Energy Solutions, 18 Pace Environmental Law Review (Pace Envtl. L. Rev.) 19–86 (2000-2001).Google Scholar

20 Art. 10 KP.Google Scholar

21 Art. 4(2)(g) UNFCCC.Google Scholar

22 This denotation stems from the country lists in Annex I and Annex II of the UNFCCC. Both Annexes list developed States (as well as those, with economies in transition, EIT). Annex II contains those Annex I countries that further undertake to financially assist developing countries in combating climate change. Thus, while all Annex II countries are Annex I countries well, the reverse is not true.Google Scholar

23 D'Auria (note 13), at 6.Google Scholar

24 Id. at 1, 7.Google Scholar

25 See Bodansky (note 14), at 502.Google Scholar

26 Oberthür & Ott, (note 5), at 142.Google Scholar

27 Art. 2 KP.Google Scholar

28 See Annex A KP.Google Scholar

29 See Annex B KP.Google Scholar

30 The KP's base units for emission allowances are the so-called Assigned Amount Units (AAUs). Further ‘emission credits’ are generated privately, such as the Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) and Removal Units (RMUs), depending on the nature of the mechanism under which the unit is generated or transferred; each equivalent to one metric ton of CO2. Matthieu Wemaere & Charlotte Streck, Legal Ownership and Nature of Kyoto Units and EU Allowances, in Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work 5, 43 (David Freestone & Charlotte Streck eds., 2005).Google Scholar

31 Art. 4 KP. The possibility of joint fulfillment enables Member States of the EU to construct a regional system of burden-sharing in achieving KP commitments while at the same time avoiding distortions of competition in the internal market. Ludwig Krämer, Grundlagen aus europäischer Sicht – Rechtsfragen betreffend den Emissionshandel mit Treibhausgasen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, in Klimaschutz durch Emissionshandel 1–45 (Hans-Werner Rengeling ed., 2001). See Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003, establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC.Google Scholar

32 David G. Victor, The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Stop Global Warming 3 (2001).Google Scholar

33 Namely: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) as well as two groups of gases: hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). In reality, not emissions, but much rather the “right to emit specified substances of a certain quantity over a defined period of time” is traded. Rutger de Witt Wijnen, Emissions Trading under Art. 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, in Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work 403 (David Freestone & Charlotte Streck eds., 2005).Google Scholar

34 Art. 6 KP.Google Scholar

35 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 260.Google Scholar

36 Jakob Werksman, The Negotiation of a Kyoto Compliance System, in Implementing the Climate Change Regime 17, 19 (Olav Schram Stokke, Jon Hovi & Geir Ulfstein eds., 2005).Google Scholar

37 “[W]hat emerged … from these negotiations is a remarkable compliance system drawing on precedent from, and yet unique to, international law.” Id. at 17, 19.Google Scholar

38 Art. 20 UNFCCC and Art. 24(1) KP on the accession of regional economic integration organisations.Google Scholar

39 D'Auria (note 13), at 1.Google Scholar

40 “Emissions trading may be viewed as ‘regulation lite’ by critics because it frequently involves controls and allocations that are designed not to frighten the horses of the incumbents. That, ‘lite’ quality, however, may be welcomed by many governments on the grounds that, at least on the world stage, we face global warming issues of such urgency that the best regulatory method for controlling greenhouse gases is the one that has the best chance of implementation.” Robert Baldwin, Regulation Lite: The Rise of Emissions Trading, 3 LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 27 (2008).Google Scholar

41 An important aspect of this multilevel system of climate management is the mutually reinforcing empowerment of the international administrative entity and the national governments. Together, they gain control over the regulatory field of GHG emissions with each level acquiring a new role: international institutions gain regulatory power and national governments, though bound by international prescriptions, also gain regulatory and implementation powers over subjects potentially transcending their respective boundaries. Through this new system of administration new competences open up for all participating levels and the efficiency of each level as well as the overall project is enhanced. D'Auria (note 13), at 2.Google Scholar

42 “Informational cross-linkage.” See von Bogdandy, Armin & Dann, Philipp, International Composite Administration, in this issue.Google Scholar

43 Gupta, Joyeeta, The Role of Non-State Actors in International Environmental Affairs, 62 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 459, 467 (2003).Google Scholar

44 D'Auria (note 13), at 17.Google Scholar

45 Yamin, Farhana, The Kyoto Protocol: Origings, Assessment and Future Challenges, 7 Review of European communty and International Environmental Law (RECIEL) 113, 114 (1998).Google Scholar

46 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 58–61. Perhaps the most prominent example is the world-wide Climate Action Network International integrating over 300 NGOs concerned with climate change.Google Scholar

47 For example, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) face great risks of inundation induced by climate change and are therefore assiduous negotiators endorsing emissions reductions within the climate change regime.Google Scholar

48 Often referred to as the Group of 77; Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 55–58.Google Scholar

49 Such as those participating in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) or the informal alliance JUSSCANNZ, an acronym which stands for Japan, the US, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway and New Zealand. Iceland, Mexico, the Republic of Korea and other invited States, all of which are either great consumers and/or producers of fossil fuels, may also attend meetings.Google Scholar

50 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 39.Google Scholar

51 Art. 24 UNFCCC, Art. 26 Kyoto.Google Scholar

52 As Baldwin puts it, emissions trading yields political advantages: “Trading mechanisms offer a means of introducing controls but also of avoiding major opposition from entrenched incumbents.” Baldwin (note 40), at 7.Google Scholar

53 Decision 6/CP.6, Institutional linkage of the Convention secretariat to the United Nations.Google Scholar

54 GEF, established under the auspices of the World Bank with the participation of the UNEP as well as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) serves as an interim financial mechanism of the Convention; Decisions 10/CP.1 and 3/CP.4.Google Scholar

55 Art. 13(8) KP.Google Scholar

56 Memorandum of Understanding on the determination of funding necessary and available for the implementation of the Convention, Decisions 1/SBI 4 and 12/CP.3.Google Scholar

57 Acquaviva, Guido, Subjects of International Law: A Power-Based Analysis, 38 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 345, 383 (2005); Michael Hempel, Die Völkerrechtssubjektivität internationaler nichtstaatlicher Organisationen 57–60 (1999).Google Scholar

58 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 305–306.Google Scholar

59 Id. at 309.Google Scholar

60 Art. 13(1) KP.Google Scholar

61 Art. 13(4) KP.Google Scholar

62 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 310.Google Scholar

63 Art. 13(4)(d),(h) KP.Google Scholar

64 Art. 13(4)(j) KP.Google Scholar

65 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 312.Google Scholar

66 Art. 13(2) KP.Google Scholar

67 “Institutional cross-linkage” in the form of observational participation, see Armin von Bogdandy & Philipp Dann, International Composite Administration, in this issue.Google Scholar

68 Art. 13(8) KP.Google Scholar

69 Art. 13(6)-(7) KP.Google Scholar

70 Art. 20(3) and Art. 21(4) KP (amendment of the Protocol and its Annexes as well as the adoption of Annexes).Google Scholar

71 Pursuant to Art. 14(1) KP “the secretariat established by … the Convention shall serve as the secretariat of this Protocol.” Note, that by Decision 6/CP.6 the Secretariat has been institutionally and financially linked to the UN.Google Scholar

72 Decision 27/CMP.1, (Procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol).Google Scholar

73 Werksman (note 36), at 19.Google Scholar

74 Ulfstein, Geir & Werksman, Jakob, The Kyoto Compliance System: Towards Hard Enforcement, in Implementing the Climate Change Regime 39, 43 (Olav Schram Stokke, Jon Hovi & Geir Ulfstein eds., 2005).Google Scholar

75 UNFCCC guidelines for the technical review of greenhouse gas inventories from Parties included in Annex I to the Convention.Google Scholar

76 Decision 23/CP.7, (Guidelines for review under Art. 8 of the Kyoto Protocol).Google Scholar

77 Art. 8(3) KP.Google Scholar

78 Decision 22/CMP.1, paras. 31–35.Google Scholar

79 Decision 22/CMP.1, para. 22.Google Scholar

80 Ulfstein & Werksman (note 74), at 43.Google Scholar

81 Also established under Arts. 9 and 10 UNFCCC.Google Scholar

82 Non-Paper on Principles, Modalities, Rules and Guidelines for an International Emissions Trading Regime, 3 June 1998, available at: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/24427/umbrellagroup.pdf. According to Pflüglmayer, the price of emission allowances will not be determined by the market, but much rather by way of political agreement. Pflüglmayer, (note 13), at 5.Google Scholar

83 Non-Paper on Principles, Modalities, Rules and Guidelines for an International Emissions Trading Regime, 3 June 1998, available at: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/24427/umbrellagroup.pdf.Google Scholar

84 “Low cost abaters will be incentivised to reduce pollution levels and sell permits to higher cost abaters with the effect that the set level of emissions is achieved by lowest cost methods.” Baldwin (note 40), at 6.Google Scholar

85 Patrick Low, Trade and the Environment: What Worries the Developing Countries?, 23 Environmental Law (Envtl L.) 708 (1993).Google Scholar

86 Interestingly, Art. 17 KP foresees the elaboration of the rules of ETS by the COP, the institution of the Convention and not the COP/MOP: “The Conference of the Parties shall define the relevant principles, modalities, rules and guidelines, in particular for verification, reporting and accountability for emissions trading.” However, Decision 18/CP.7 transferred decision-making power relating to the ETS's “modalities, rules and guidelines” to the COP/MOP. There is thus a ‘mix’ of Convention and Kyoto bodies in charge of defining the rules of ETS.Google Scholar

87 Fanny Missfeldt, Flexible Mechanisms: Which Path to Take afer Kyoto?, 7 Review of European communty and International Environmental Law (RECIEL) 128, 129 (1998).Google Scholar

88 Steinar Andresen & Lars H. Gulbrandsen, The Role of Green NGOs in Promoting Climate Compliance, in Implementing the Climate Change Regime 169, 173 (Olav Schram Stokke, Jon Hovi & Geir Ulfstein eds., 2005).Google Scholar

89 Draft Standard Electronic Format for Reporting Kyoto Units recommended for adoption by Decision 17/CP.10 para 1.Google Scholar

90 The eligibility criteria are set forth in Decision 18/CP.7, para 2.Google Scholar

91 Annex B of the KP itself contains the data necessary for the quantification of the emission allowances assigned to each Annex I State. Accounting takes place in compliance with Decision 13/CMP.1, (Modalities for the accounting of assigned amounts under Art. 7(4) of the Kyoto Protocol).Google Scholar

92 Art. 5(1) KP; Decision 20/CMP.1, IPCC Good practice guidance and adjustments under Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Kyoto Protocol.Google Scholar

93 In compliance with the guidelines set out in Decision 17/CP.8 and detailed in: Reporting on Climate Change – User Manual for the Guidelines on National Communications from Non-Annex I Parties.Google Scholar

94 Art. 12 UNFCCC; Decision 3/CP.5, incorporating Guidelines for the preparation of national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention, Part I: UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories.Google Scholar

95 Decision 15/CMP.1, (Guidelines for the preparation of the information required under Art. 7 of the Kyoto Protocol), Art. 7(1)-(2) KP.Google Scholar

96 Art. 8(1) KP.Google Scholar

97 Decision 22/CMP.1, (Guidelines for review under Art. 8 of the Kyoto Protocol), paras. 5 and 6.Google Scholar

98 Section 153 of Decision 22/CMP.1.Google Scholar

99 Draft status report, draft individual inventory review report, draft review report on the national registry or draft national communication review report depending on the scope of review.Google Scholar

100 Decision 22/CMP.1, para. 7.Google Scholar

101 Decision 22/CMP.1, paras. 64, 83.Google Scholar

102 Decision 24/CP.7, (Procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol), Section VI. paras.1 and 3; 2/CMP.1, (Principles, nature and scope of the mechanisms pursuant to Arts. 6, 12 and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol).Google Scholar

103 Id. at Section VII. Paras. 6–7 and Section X. para. 1(a).Google Scholar

104 Id. at Section IX. para. 2 and Section X. para. 1(b)-(c).Google Scholar

105 Id. at Section X. para. 1(d).Google Scholar

106 Decision 18/CP.7, para 8.Google Scholar

107 Amounting to 90% of the AAUs of the respective seller Party or 100% of five times its most recently reviewed inventory – whichever is lowest, Decision 18/CP.7. para. 6.Google Scholar

108 Decision 24/CP.7, Section XV. para. 5.Google Scholar

109 Namely those enshrined in Arts. 6, 12 and 17 KP, Decision 24/CP.7, Section XV. para. 4.Google Scholar

110 Decision 22/CMP.1, Arts. 159–160.Google Scholar

111 Decision 24/CP.7, (Procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol), Section X. paras. 1–4; Decision 27/CMP.1.Google Scholar

112 Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts, February 2007, at 23.Google Scholar

113 Id. at 15.Google Scholar

114 Decision 24/CP. 8, Annex, para. 25.Google Scholar

115 Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts, February 2007, at 13.Google Scholar

116 Decision 13/CMP.1, (Modalities for the accounting of assigned amounts under Art. 7(4) of the Kyoto Protocol).Google Scholar

117 Decision 16/CP.10, (Issues relating to registry systems under Art. 7(4) of the Kyoto Protocol), paras. 4–5.Google Scholar

118 Decision 17/CP. 10, (Standard electronic format for reporting Kyoto Protocol units).Google Scholar

119 Decision 22/CMP.1, paras. 84–91.Google Scholar

120 Id. at paras. 110–120.Google Scholar

121 Id. at para. 94.Google Scholar

122 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 254.Google Scholar

123 de Witt Wijnen (note 33), at 412.Google Scholar

124 Id. at 405; the emission units allocated to the Parties may be “regarded as a mixture of a sovereign rights … and a public property right of an Annex I Government. … Allowances can also create property rights or quasi property rights with private entities holding allowances allocated under a domestic scheme‥… [Allowances] represent a hybrid between a purely public and a purely private right, which has been described as a ‘regulatory’ right. As such, they find themselves between an administrative grant and private property.” Wemaere, Matthieu & Streck, Charlotte, Legal Ownership and Nature of Kyoto Units and EU Allowances, in Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work 35, 42 (David Freestone & Charlotte Streck eds., 2005).Google Scholar

125 Oberthür & Ott (note 5), at 254. It is important to note that transactions between private traders within the national registry are irrelevant from the point of view of the KP, as they do not lead to allowance transfers between eligible State Parties. de Witt Wijnen (note 33), at 410.Google Scholar

126 Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts, February 2007, at 10.Google Scholar

127 Jürgen Lefevere, Linking Emissions Trading Schemes: The EU ETS and the ‘Linking Directive', in Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work 511 (David Freestone & Charlotte Streck eds., 2005).Google Scholar

128 See EU ‘Linking Directive': Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 amending Directive 2003/87/EC, establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol's project mechanisms.Google Scholar

129 Decision 27/CMP. 1, Section XIII., Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts, February 2007, at 26.Google Scholar

130 Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts, February 2007, at 63.Google Scholar

131 Decision 24/CP.7, Section XI. paras. 1–4.Google Scholar

132 Jochen von Bernstoff, in this issue.Google Scholar

133 Id. Google Scholar

134 Art. 3 and 7 of the KP.Google Scholar

135 Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Reference Manual, in accordance with Art. 5(2) KP, available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs6.htm. Such ‘manuals', ‘specifications', etc. are often incorporated into COP/MOP Decisions by reference. Jochen von Bernstorff, in this issue.Google Scholar

136 On such implementation support, von Bogdandy, Armin & Dann, Philipp, International Composite Administration, in this issue.Google Scholar

137 Decision 24/CP.7, Section IX. para. 11.Google Scholar

138 Olav Schram Stokke, Jon Hovi & Ulfstein, Geir, Introduction and Main Findings, in Implementing the Climate Change Regime 1, 11 (Olav Schram Stokke, Jon Hovi & Geir Ulfstein eds., 2005).Google Scholar

139 Esty, Daniel C., Good Governance at the Supranational Scale: Globalizing Administrative Law, 115 Yale Law Journal 1490, 1510 (2006).Google Scholar

140 Sebastian Oberthür & Hermann E. Ott (note 5), at 260.Google Scholar

141 Decision 27/CMP.1, (Procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol), Section XV.Google Scholar

142 Id. at Section VIII. paras. 3–4.Google Scholar

143 Id. at Section VIII. para. 7.Google Scholar

144 Stokke, Hovi & Ulfstein (note 138), at 11.Google Scholar

145 Id. Google Scholar

146 Nico Krisch, Benedict Kingsbury & Stewart, Richard B., The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 Law and Contemporary problems 15, 19 (2005).Google Scholar

147 See Jochen von Bernstorff, in this issue; Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, in this issue.Google Scholar

148 Krisch, Kingsbury & Stewart, (note 146), at 26.Google Scholar

149 Stokke, Hovi & Ulfstein, (note 138), at 1.Google Scholar

150 Esty (note 139), at 1495.Google Scholar

151 Gupta (note 43), at 467–468.Google Scholar

152 See von Bogdandy, Armin, On Principles of International Public Authority, in this issue.Google Scholar

153 Art. 10(c),(d),(e) KP.Google Scholar

154 Art. 13(i) KP.Google Scholar

155 Decision 24/CP.7, Section VIII. para. 7.Google Scholar

156 Krisch, Kingsbury & Stewart, (note 146), at 17.Google Scholar