To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter aims to present the EU perspective on the controversial issue of carbon emission trading and aviation. The article analyses how the EU advanced to the concrete implementation of emissions trading in the aviation sector. It analyses why the EU first proposed and then introduced GHG emissions trading while at the same time seeking multilateral solutions to the issue of climate change contributions from the aviation sector. It highlights the technical issues at stake, the global resistance to what was perceived as a unilateral act by the EU, and how the fact that the EU had introduced the system influenced the 2016 ICAO climate decision to adopt the CORSIA carbon offsets scheme. The article documents how the EU system eventually influenced the global debate and the global compromise that arguably respected the most important sustainable development principles. It reviews ongoing EU policy respecting sustainable development and ends with an outlook on the unlikely scenario that the new ICAO mechanism could fail, in which case the EU’s original scheme could be resurrected under EU law.
In current public international law, normative regimes generally develop as the result of states' common interests. Various institutions are involved in the interplay of multilateral processes and diplomatic practices, which largely contributes to the development of legal regimes. Among those institutions, dispute settlement bodies play the vital role of interpreting and applying the relevant treaty law, customs and agreements which are the outgrowth of previous negotiations. However, the less-studied opposite might also be true: in some cases, judicial recourse and dispute settlement decisions can be used to influence treaty negotiations. As this chapter demonstrates, states can use a variety of institutions in order to attempt to influence and/or influence the outcome of treaty negotiations. Indeed, the dispute settlement mechanisms, for example in the WTO, help states to influence the negotiation of WTO-based treaties in the same policy areas. Thus, the dispute settlement mechanism and the treaty negotiation function of the same institution can form part of an overall policy of states to advance their treaty negotiation strategies.
Multidisciplinary approaches can be used to monitor the way that states use, or restrain from using, case law arguments in their negotiations. If there is indeed a link between dispute settlement based litigation and ensuing or concurrent negotiations, we should be able to observe it in the dispute settlement cases themselves from facts, from declarations by parties, and from the opinions of the deciders.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.