Anne-Sophie Tabau

Bio: Anne-Sophie Tabau is an academic researcher from University of La Réunion. The author has contributed to research in topics: European union & Kyoto Protocol. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 4 publications receiving 31 citations.

Non-compliance Mechanisms: Interaction between the Kyoto Protocol System and the European Union

Abstract: The universality of climate change challenges and interdependence in the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions called for a collective response in a multilateral framework. However, because of discrepancies on the appropriate design for an international regime the European Community (EC) took the lead on the international stage in the negotiation and the application of the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, an international regime � a mixed agreement to which both the EC and its Member States are parties � and a regional regime in the framework of the European Union coexist. In both regimes, one of the core challenges remains to ensure the effective application of the law, which requires the setting up of compliance control mechanisms. At the international level, an innovative non-compliance procedure organizes a continuous monitoring which combines traditional techniques with more intrusive procedures. The system is also remarkable as regards the legal qualification of and reaction to non-compliance situations. For its part, the EC created a specific non-contentious mechanism and can make use of a reinforced jurisdictional armory and a reinforced sanctioning power. The EC's control mechanism should be able to take over from the Kyoto Protocol non-compliance mechanism in order to reinforce the effectiveness of adopted rules. Through the study of these mechanisms� interactions, this article aims to assess the capacity of the control system as a whole to ensure the very credibility of the Protocol and the reliability of the international and European economic tools to reduce GHG emissions at least cost. Finally, it allows the envisaging of the possible evolutions of the legal regime of the fight against climate change.

Une gouvernance globale du climat par la transparence depuis l’Accord de Paris : Le droit global de l’environnement comme solfège ?

Abstract: Les negociations internationales relatives aux changements climatiques ont revele une attente croissante de transparence sur la gouvernance de ce phenomene global, dans un contexte de prise de conscience affinee de son caractere multifactoriel et multiscalaire. Partant de ce constat, cette contribution entend illustrer la capacite du droit global, dans ces differentes declinaisons doctrinales, a permettre aux juristes de mieux apprecier les mutations du droit induites par l’exigence accrue de transparence en matiere climatique et consacree dans l’Accord de Paris. Tel est le cas, dans la mesure ou, le droit global tient compte des acteurs et des normes regulant la societe internationale, mais aussi des acteurs et des normes qui, dans les faits, exercent leur influence sur la societe globalisee. Les theories du droit global proposent donc avant tout une methode renouvelee d’analyse juridique. Elles offrent une approche du droit qui traduit la complexite des phenomenes que celui-ci contribue a reguler. Le droit global serait en quelques sorte un solfege, susceptible d’etre mobilise comme outil pour composer et orchestrer une musique juridique harmonieuse. Ainsi, le droit global permet-il de concevoir les interactions normatives induites par le caractere central de la transparence en matiere climatique, mais aussi de comprendre l’orchestration originale a l’oeuvre, en mettant egalement en evidence les interactions d’acteurs qui sont necessaires pour rendre cette transparence operationnelle.

Constitutionalising secondary rules in global environmental regimes : non-compliance procedures and the enforcement of multilateral environmental agreements

Abstract: Due to its remarkable success, the model of the Montreal Protocol's non-compliance procedure (NCP) has been adopted in other environmental regimes, whose primary norms differ considerably. Hence, this article distinguishes different types of global environmental regimes and assesses the performance of NCPs therein as endogenous enforcement mechanisms. In fact, the reciprocal nature of the main conventional obligations in some more recent environmental regimes seems to hamper the effectiveness of compliance procedures. On this basis, the article puts forward some tentative considerations from a constitutional perspective. Drawing from the experience gained under environmental regimes in the region of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), it explores the feasibility of transplanting some aspects of the model of the Aarhus Convention NCP into the more complex global context. Further, it reflects upon the potential of enhancing synergies between NCPs and national and international judiciaries as a step towards the consolidation of international public law in this area.

The contribution of the European Union to global climate change governance: explaining the conditions for EU actorness

Abstract: Como organizacao regional, o papel da Uniao Europeia na governanca global do clima enfrenta obstaculos que nao se aplicam a nenhuma outra parte da Convencao-Quadro das Nacoes Unidas sobre a Mudanca do Clima (CQNUMC) e do Protocolo de Quioto. Avaliando essa singularidade, este artigo fornece uma analise teorica e empirica de como os elementos de actorness (reconhecimento, capacidade, oportunidade e coesao) definem a participacao da UE no regime internacional de mudancas climaticas.

International Courts As Inter-Legality Hubs

Abstract: The two claims I develop in this paper are as follows: (1) Up until now, the engagement of international courts and tribunals with the concept of inter-legality (involving an acknowledgment of the simultaneously binding nature of competing normative frameworks) has often been superficial. Although courts found pragmatic ways to circumvent most of the practical challenges posed by inter-legality, for example, by foregrounding or backgrounding the jurisdictional and substantive aspects of specific regulatory frameworks, they have not fully come to terms with the deep implications of inter-legality for the rule of law in international life; and (2) the institutional configuration of international courts exacerbates some of the normative and practical challenges of inter-legality. This is because international courts adhere to an idiosyncratic set of interests, which further complicates the relations between the competing regulatory frameworks. For example, international courts typically have an interest in maintaining their own judicial power, legitimacy and effectiveness, and this interest often translates into claims of authority across legal regimes and across the national/international divide, which induce them to prioritize certain legal frameworks over others. Courts also sometime ‘pull’ the jurisdictional and substantive norms they apply towards their professional comfort zones, affecting thereby their choices regarding the regulation of situations of inter-legality. The relative power and institutional agendas of international courts therefore influences their engagement with the concept of inter-legality and complicates our ability to isolate principled normative considerations about how to bridge over multiple regulatory frameworks from institutional considerations. The first part of this chapter (section 2) discusses my first claim concerning international courts’ ability to avoid overt jurisdictional clashes and inconsistent rulings through a variety of legal interpretation techniques, which might nonetheless fail to seize the inter-legality ‘bull’ by its ‘horns’. For example, conflict avoidance techniques resorted to by international courts and tribunals leave in place much of the tensions and inconsistencies attendant to the competing regulatory frameworks. The second part of the chapter (section 3) illustrates the ways in which the particular institutional and ideological agendas of international courts might influence the manner in which they deal with situations of inter-legality, using case studies from the field of international human rights law involving interaction with other bodies of law. Section 4 concludes.

Between or Beyond Legal Orders

Abstract: Talking about interlegality inevitably leads to a consideration of legal orders between which linkages and connections appear. Interlegality is sometimes described as a process of mixing elements of different legal orders to create a new legal order. In this contribution, the concept of ‘legal order’ is reconsidered in light of the discussions of interlegality. More specifically, a notion of legal order as a system is contrasted with legal order as an interactional practice. Interlegality highlights plurality and tension which is problematic in a systemic view of legal order, and can be absorbed in an interactional view. However, taking the practice view to its limits may lead to a collapse of the notion of order altogether. Given the prominence of the value of coherence in legal thought, complete abandonment of the notion of legal order seems a step too far. This contribution considers how an interactional view of order may incorporate elements of systemic order in order to do justice to interlegality as a phenomenon of our legal world, ranging from the local to the transnational context.