Skip to main content

International environmental law as a complex adaptive system

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics volume 14, pages 5–24 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Complex adaptive systems are a special kind of self-organizing system with emergent properties and adaptive capacity in response to changing external conditions. In this article, we investigate the proposition that international environmental law, as a network of treaties and institutions, exhibits some key characteristics of a complex adaptive system. This proposition is premised on the scientific understanding that the Earth system displays properties of a complex adaptive system. If so, international environmental law, as a control system, may benefit from the insights gained and from being modelled in ways more appropriately aligned with the functioning of the Earth system itself. In this exploratory review, we found evidence suggesting that international environmental law is a complex system where treaties and institutions self-organize and exhibit emergent properties. Furthermore, we contend that international environmental law as a whole is adapting to exogenous changes through an institutional process akin to natural selection in biological evolution. However, the adequacy of the direction and rate of adaptation for the purpose of safeguarding the integrity of Earth’s life-support system is questioned. This paper concludes with an emphasis on the need for system-level interventions to steer the direction of self-organization while maintaining institutional diversity. This recommendation stands in contrast to the reductionist approach to institutional fragmentation and aims at embracing the existing complexity in international environmental law.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Ahmed, E., Hegazi, A. S. (2009). Global crises from the perspective of complex adaptive systems. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 343.

  • Arthur, W. B. (1999). Complexity and the economy. Science, 284, 107–109.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B., Durlauf, S. N., & Lane, D. A. (Eds.). (1997). The economy as an evolving complex system II. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, M. (2011). Climate change and global fisheries management: Linking issues to protect ecosystems or to save political interests? Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 64–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (1999). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bak, P. (1996). How nature works: The science of self-organised criticality. New York: Copernicus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F. (2007). ‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change, 17, 326–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (Eds.). (2009). Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Backstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M. M., et al. (2012). Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth system governance. Science, 335, 1306–1307.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Birnie, P. (1977). The development of international environmental law. British Journal of International Studies, 3, 169–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnie, P., Boyle, A., & Redgwell, C. (2009). International law and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D. (2006). Does one need to be an international lawyer to be an international environmental lawyer? American Society of International Law Proceedings, 100, 303–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D. (2010). The art and craft of international environmental law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D., & Diringer, E. (2010). The evolution of multilateral regimes: implications for climate change. Arlington: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J., & Hey, E. (2007). International environmental law: Mapping the field. In D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée, & E. Hey (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2010). Governance for resilience: CALFED as a complex adaptive network for resource management. Ecology and Society, 15(3), 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgen, C. J. (2005). Resolving treaty conflicts. George Washington International Law Review, 37, 573–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgen, C. J. (2012). Treaty conflicts and normative fragmentation. In D. B. Hollis (Ed.), The Oxford guide to treaties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosselmann, K., Brown, P. G., & Mackey, B. (2012). Enabling a flourishing Earth: Challenges for the green economy, opportunities for global governance. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 21, 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, A. (2007). Relationship between international environmental law and other branches of international law. In D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée, & E. Hey (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, A., & Freestone, D. (1999). Introduction. In A. Boyle & D. Freestone (Eds.), International law and sustainable development: Past achievements and future challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie, I. (2005). Principles of public international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée, J. (2002). COPing with consent: Law-making under multilateral environmental agreements. Leiden Journal of International Law, 15, 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée, J. (2012). Treaty amendments. In D. B. Hollis (Ed.), The Oxford guide to treaties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullmore, E., & Sporns, O. (2009). Complex brain networks: Graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 186–198.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cardesa-Salzmann, A. (2012). Constitutionalising secondary rules in global environmental regimes: Non-compliance procedures and the enforcement of multilateral environmental agreements. Journal of Environmental Law, 24, 103–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, W. B. (2008). Interlinkages and the effectiveness of multilateral environmental agreements. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherp, A., Jewell, J., & Goldthau, A. (2011). Governing global energy: Systems, transitions, complexity. Global Policy, 2, 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, R. R., & Ulfstein, G. (2000). Autonomous institutional arrangements in multilateral environmental agreements: A little-noticed phenomenon in international law. American Journal of International Law, 94, 623–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, 19, 292–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato, A. (2005). International law as an autopoietic system. In R. Wolfrum & V. Röben (Eds.), Developments of international law in treaty making. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato, A. (2009). International law as a unitary system. In D. Armstrong (Ed.), Routledge handbook of international law. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decleris, M. (2000). The law of sustainable development: General principles. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doelle, M. (2004). Linking the kyoto protocol and other multilateral environmental agreements: From fragmentation to integration? Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 14, 75–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, K. J. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Live Sciences, 1, 69–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, A., & Galaz, V. (2008). Governance and complexity—Emerging issues for governance theory. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 21, 311–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, A., Galaz, V., Eckerberg, K., & Ebbesson, J. (2010). Governance, complexity, and resilience. Global Environmental Change, 20, 363–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, J., & Wood, S. (2006). International environmental law. In B. J. Richardson & S. Wood (Eds.), Environmental law for sustainability: A reader. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emison, G. A. (1996). The potential for unconventional progress: Complex adaptive systems and environmental quality policy. Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 7, 167–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO, 5, 437–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freestone, D. (1994). The road from Rio: International environmental law after the Earth summit. Journal of Environmental Law, 6, 193–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., & Svedin, U. (2008). The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: Insights and emerging challenges. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaz, V., Biermann, F., Folke, C., Nilsson, M., & Olsson, P. (2012a). Global environmental governance and planetary boundaries: An introduction. Ecological Economics, 81, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2012b). Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries—Emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 81, 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, R., & Appenzeller, T. (1999). Beyond reductionism. Science, 284, 79.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, R. (2012). The Vienna convention rules on treaty interpretation. In D. B. Hollis (Ed.), The Oxford guide to treaties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gattuso, J.-P., & Hansson, L. (Eds.). (2011). Ocean acidification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehring, T. (2007). Treaty-making and treaty evolution. In D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée, & E. Hey (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2006). Comparative empirical analysis and ideal types of institutional interaction. In S. Oberthür & T. Gehring (Eds.), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grassi, G., Elzen, M. G. J., Hof, A. F., Pilli, R., & Federici, S. (2012). The role of the land use, land use change and forestry sector in achieving annex I reduction pledges. Climatic Change, 115, 873–881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. E., McAllister, R. R. J., Abel, N., Smith, D. M. S., & Maru, Y. (2006). Australian rangelands as complex adaptive systems: A conceptual model and preliminary results. Environmental Modelling & Software, 21, 1264–1272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzman, A. T. (2005). The design of international agreements. European Journal of International Law, 16, 579–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M. (2004). Addressing the global governance deficit. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanjra, M. A., & Qureshi, M. E. (2010). Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change. Food Policy, 35, 365–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. (Ed.). (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10, 328–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huitema, D., Aerts, J., & van Asselt, H. (2008). Adaptive governance in climate change: The cases of the international climate change regime and water management in the Netherlands. In V. I. Grover (Ed.), Global warming and climate change: Ten years after Kyoto and still counting. Enfield: Science Publishers.

  • Hulme, M., & Mahony, M. (2010). Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography, 34, 705–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussey, K., & Pittock, J. (2012). The energy-water nexus: Managing the links between energy and water for a sustainable future. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  • Jóhannsdóttir, A., Cresswell, I., & Bridgewater, P. (2010). The current framework for international governance of biodiversity: Is it doing more harm than good? Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 19, 139–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanie, N. (2007). Governance with multilateral environmental agreements: A healthy or ill-equipped fragmentation? In L. Swart & E. Perry (Eds.), Global environmental governance: Perspectives on the current debate. New York: Center for UN Reform Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanie, N., Betsill, M. M., Zondervan, R., Biermann, F., & Young, O. R. (2012). A charter moment: Restructuring governance for sustainability. Public Administration and Development, 32, 292–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9, 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. A. (2004). Regime interplay: The case of biodiversity and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 14, 315–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, R. E. (2012). Is a new multilateral environmental agreement on ocean acidification necessary? Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 21, 243–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.006.

  • Kim, R. E., & Bosselmann, K. (2013). International environmental law in the Anthropocene: Towards a purposive system of multilateral environmental agreements. Transnational Environmental Law, 2, 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss, A., & Shelton, D. (1986). Systems analysis of international law: A methodological inquiry. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 17, 45–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss, A., & Shelton, D. (2004). International environmental law. Ardsley: Transnational Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers, J. (2008). The paradox of international institutional law. International Organizations Law Review, 5, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, M., & Leino, P. (2002). Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties. Leiden Journal of International Law, 15, 553–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R. P. (2006). The design of environmental regimes: Social construction, contextuality, and improvisation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 6, 187–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenton, T. M., & van Oijen, M. (2002). Gaia as a complex adaptive system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 357, 683–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levermann, A., Clark, P. U., Marzeion, B., Milne, G. A., Pollard, D., Radic, V., et al. (2013). The multimillennial sea-level commitment of global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 13745–13750.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1, 431–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. A. (1999). Fragile dominion: Complexity and the commons. Reading: Perseus Books.

  • Levin, S. A. (2002). Complex adaptive systems: Exploring the known, the unknown and the unknowable. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 40, 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, H., & Mackey, B. (2009). The nature of climate change: Reunite international climate change mitigation efforts with biodiversity conservation and wilderness protection. International Journal of Wilderness, 15, 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, A. (2010). Developing linkages to preserve biodiversity. Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 21, 41–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, J. E., & Margulis, L. (1974). Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: The Gaia hypothesis. Tellus, 26, 2–10.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Matz-Lück, N. (2008). Treaties, conflict clauses. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, C. (2005). The principle of systemic integration and article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54, 279–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction: Chelsea Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

  • Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. B. (2013). International Environmental Agreements Database Project (Version 2013.1). Available at: http://iea.uoregon.edu/.

  • Najam, A., Christopoulou, I., & Moomaw, W. R. (2004). The emergent “system” of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), 23–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2011). Complex systems. American Journal of Physics, 79, 800–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, S. (2002). Clustering of multilateral environmental agreements: Potentials and limitations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2, 317–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (Eds.). (2006). Institutional Interaction in global environmental governance: Synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2011). Institutional interaction: Ten years of scholarly development. In S. Oberthür & O. S. Stokke (Eds.), Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (Eds.). (2011). Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., et al. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsini, A., Morin, J.-F., & Young, O. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom, or a boost for global governance? Global Governance, 19, 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15, 203–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 493–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20, 550–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottino, J. M. (2003). Complex systems. AIChE Journal, 49, 292–299.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn, J., (2013). At the edge of chaos? Emergence and change in international investment law. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2271869.

  • Pavoni, R. (2010). Mutual supportiveness as a principle of interpretation and law-making: A watershed for the ‘WTO-and-competing-regimes’ debate? European Journal of International Law, 21, 649–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N. I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., et al. (1999). Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 399, 429–436.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Proelss, A., & Krivickaite, M. (2009). Marine biodiversity and climate change. Carbon and Climate Law Review, 3, 437–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammel, C., Stagl, S., & Wilfing, H. (2007). Managing complex adaptive systems—a co-evolutionary perspective on natural resource management. Ecological Economics, 63, 9–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58, 277–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S, III., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.

  • Rosendal, G. K. (2001). Overlapping international regimes: The case of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) between climate change and biodiversity. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 1, 447–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J. B. (1997). Thinking of environmental law as a complex adaptive system: How to clean up the environment by making a mess of environmental law. Houston Law Review, 34, 933–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J. B. (2008). Law’s complexity: A primer. Georgia State University Law Review, 24, 885–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J. B. (2012). Panarchy and the law. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 31.

  • Sands, P., & Peel, J. (2012). Principles of international environmental law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanwal, M. (2004). Trends in global environmental governance: The emergence of a mutual supportiveness approach to achieve sustainable development. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunier, R. E., & Meganck, R. A. (2007). Dictionary and introduction to global environmental governance. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S. R., Lenton, T. M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W., Dakos, V., et al. (2012). Anticipating critical transitions. Science, 338, 344–348.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, K. N. (2011). International environmental governance: Managing fragmentation through institutional connection. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 12, 177–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2010). Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sporns, O., Chialvo, D. R., Kaiser, M., & Hilgetag, C. C. (2004). Organization, development and function of complex brain networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 418–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam, C. J., & van Straaten, E. C. W. (2012). The organization of physiological brain networks. Clinical Neurophysiology, 123, 1067–1087.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P., Jäger, J., Matson, P., Moore, B, III., et al. (2004). Global change and the Earth system: A planet under pressure. Berlin: Springer.

  • Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? AMBIO, 36, 614–621.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, W., Persson, A., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., et al. (2011). The Anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. AMBIO, 40, 739–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teclaff, L. A., & Teclaff, E. (1991). Transfers of pollution and the marine environment conventions. Natural Resources Journal, 31, 187–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trujillo, B., (2004). Self-organizing legal systems: Precedent and variation in bankruptcy. Utah Law Review, 2, 483–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulfstein, G. (2012). Treaty bodies and regimes. In D. B. Hollis (Ed.), The Oxford guide to treaties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underdal, A., & Young, O. R. (Eds.). (2004). Regime consequences: Methodological challenges and research strategies. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme. (2001). Multilateral environmental agreements: A summary (UNEP/IGM/1/INF/1). New York: United Nations Environment Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme. (2010). Advancing the biodiversity agenda. Bresson: United Nations Environment Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme. (2012). 21 issues for the 21st century: Results of the UNEP foresight process on emerging environmental issues. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Asselt, H. (2012). Managing the fragmentation of international environmental law: Forests at the intersection of the climate and biodiversity regimes. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 44, 1205–1278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernadsky, V. (1998). The biosphere: Complete annotated edition. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Moltke, K. (2005). Clustering international environmental agreements as an alternative to a World Environment Organization. In F. Biermann & S. Bauer (Eds.), A World Environment Organization: Solution or threat for effective international environmental governance? Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

  • Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiersema, A. (2009). The new international law-makers? Conferences of the parties to multilateral environmental agreements. Michigan Journal of International Law, 31, 231–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. J. P. (2007). A system’s view of the evolution of life. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4, 1049–1070.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum, R., & Matz, N. (2003). Conflicts in international environmental law. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2010). Institutional dynamics: Emergent patterns in international environmental governance. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2011). If an Arctic Ocean treaty is not the solution, what is the alternative? Polar Record, 47, 327–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelli, F., & van Asselt, H. (2013). The institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance: Causes, consequences, and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Rakhyun E. Kim

  2. Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia

    Brendan Mackey

  3. United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), Yokohama, Japan

    Rakhyun E. Kim

Authors
  1. Rakhyun E. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brendan Mackey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rakhyun E. Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, R.E., Mackey, B. International environmental law as a complex adaptive system. Int Environ Agreements 14, 5–24 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-013-9225-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-013-9225-2

Keywords

  • International environmental law
  • Complex adaptive systems
  • Self-organization
  • Emergence
  • Complexity
  • Adaptive governance
  • Earth system