Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Sustainable Development in Natural Resources Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2018

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 9))

Abstract

This chapter examines the role of Sustainable Development as a concept of Natural Resources Law. After a brief introduction, on the significance of natural resource management for Sustainable Development, and some definitional remarks, it first outlines Sustainable Development as a political objective. Subsequently, the study identifies and portrays the core conceptual contents of Sustainable Development as a norm of international law, its corresponding legal effects as well as its specific relationship with Natural Resources Law. Moreover, it enters the realms of the debate on the legal status of Sustainable Development in international law before assessing its quality to operate as a regulatory objective in- and outside treaty regimes. The final section of this chapter is dedicated to the question whether Sustainable Development could be regarded as the ultimate object and purpose of Natural Resources Law and what benefits, from the perspective of legal doctrine, such a perception would entail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 22.

  2. 2.

    Both can be summed up under the term “commodity” in the sense of the definition provided by Article 56(1) of the 1948 Havana Charter.

  3. 3.

    Sachs L (2013) On Solid Ground: Toward Effective Resource-Based Development. World Politics Review, https://beta.extractiveshub.org/servefile/getFile/id/1616 (last accessed 7 February 2018), p. 6.

  4. 4.

    Cf. instructively on the range of governance challenges in the commodity sector Bürgi Bonanomi E et al. (2015), “The Commodity Sector and Related Governance Challenges from a Sustainable Development Perspective: The Example of Switzerland and Current Research Gaps”, WTI Working Paper, 14 July 2015, https://www.wti.org/media/filer_public/38/38/38387f2d-b6b5-40d3-9bf5-dc42b8d3eefa/wti_cde_iwe_working_paper_july_2015_2_the_commodity_sector_and_related_gov.pdf (last accessed 7 February 2018).

  5. 5.

    Sachs L (2013) On Solid Ground: Toward Effective Resource-Based Development. World Politics Review, https://beta.extractiveshub.org/servefile/getFile/id/1616 (last accessed 7 February 2018), p. 2.

  6. 6.

    CDDCs are defined as those states in which the ratio of the value of commodity exports to the value of total merchandise exports exceeds 60%, ‘The State of Commodity Dependence 2016’ UN Doc UNCTAD/SUC/2017/2, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/suc2017d2.pdf (last accessed 7 February 2018), p. 19. For the list of CDDCs cf. ‘The State of Commodity Dependence 2016’ UN Doc UNCTAD/SUC/2017/2, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/suc2017d2.pdf (last accessed 7 February 2018) cf. pp. 23–24.

  7. 7.

    Sachs L (2013) On Solid Ground: Toward Effective Resource-Based Development. World Politics Review, https://beta.extractiveshub.org/servefile/getFile/id/1616 (last accessed 7 February 2018), p. 2.

  8. 8.

    Blasiak R et al. (2016) Making the Commodity Sector Work for Developing Countries Local Impacts, Global Links, and Knowledge Gaps. Swiss Academies Factsheet, Vol. 11, No. 2, https://iwe.unisg.ch/-/media/dateien/instituteundcenters/iwe/afactsheet2016commodities2.pdf (last accessed 7 February 2018).

  9. 9.

    The usage of the term ‘concept’ throughout the study is not meant to refer to a specific normative categorization of SD, but rather a placeholder until its conclusive classification in the final section of the main part, cf. Sect. 4.4.

  10. 10.

    Natural Resource Governance Institute (2014) Natural Resource Charter, 2nd edition, https://resourcegovernance.org/sites/default/files/NRCJ1193_natural_resource_charter_19.6.14.pdf (last accessed 7 February 2018), precepts #11 and #12.

  11. 11.

    Sachs (2015), pp. 3–8. Sachs seems to understand “normativity” rather in the sense of a value decision in favour of complexity and thus less in a legal sense, p. 7.

  12. 12.

    Schrijver and Weiss (2004), Schrijver (2008), Barral (2012), and Cordonnier Segger and Weeramantry (2017).

  13. 13.

    Cf. Schrijver (1997), pp. 14–15; for “natural wealth” Schrijver employs the following definition: “those components of nature from which natural resources can be extracted or which serve as basis for economic activities”; Beyerlin and Holzer (2013), para. 1; under the 43 US Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 11.14, natural resources are defined as “land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States”.

  14. 14.

    Beyerlin and Holzer (2013), para. 1.

  15. 15.

    Garner (2009), p. 1127; cf. Majzoub and Quilleré-Majzoub (2013), p. 10361.

  16. 16.

    Schrijver (1997), p. 19.

  17. 17.

    Schrijver (1997), pp. 13–14.

  18. 18.

    del Castillo-Laborde (2010), para. 4.

  19. 19.

    On the US example of domestic NRL Fischman (2007).

  20. 20.

    Cf. With regard to international energy law, cf. Vinuales (2013). On conceptualizations of fields of law cf. expertly Aagaard (2010). A parallel notion to NRL is the narrower field of International Commodity Law (ICL). It has a stronger economic connotation as it focuses exclusively on those items originating from natural resources—or, under Schrijver’s terminology, “natural wealth”—that are typically being traded and/or refined/processed for specific end uses as e.g. foodstuffs or industrial goods. Therefore, its concept and terminology are preferable whenever one is seeking to address this specific economic use of natural resources—or, for that matter more precisely, commodities. In this sense, the broader field of NRL appears to be the more favourable concept whenever, beyond their use as commodities also other economic usages of natural resources, such as navigation, or energy generation and their related governance challenges are concerned.

  21. 21.

    Proelß (2017), para. 50; Gehne (2011), p. 11.

  22. 22.

    Gehne (2011), p. 21 with reference to the UN GA International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade, 24 October 1970, UN Doc. A/RES/2626(XXV), http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2626.htm (last accessed 7 February 2018).

  23. 23.

    UN GA International development strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade, 24 October 1970, UN Doc. A/RES/2626(XXV), para. 8; cf. Gehne (2011), p. 21. In addition, “the Founex Report ‘Development and Environment’ of 1971 pointed to the linkage of long-term development goals and environmental protection”, cf. Beyerlin (2013), para. 2.

  24. 24.

    Sachs (2015), p. 4.

  25. 25.

    Cf. before also UN GA International Development Strategy for the Third United Nations Development Decade, 5 December 1980, UN Doc. A/RES/35/56, cf. Beyerlin (2013), para. 3.

  26. 26.

    Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, 4 August 1987, UN Doc. A/42/427, http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), Chap. 1, para. 49.

  27. 27.

    It is furthermore expressly contained in Principles 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 27 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 12 August 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm (last accessed 8 February 2018).

  28. 28.

    Cf. Beyerlin (2013), para. 5.

  29. 29.

    Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 4 September 2002, UN Doc. A/CONF.199/20, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018).

  30. 30.

    2005 World Summit Outcome, 24 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES60/1, http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/60/1 (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 10.

  31. 31.

    The future we want, 11 September 2012, UN Doc. A/RES/66/288, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 1.

  32. 32.

    The future we want, 11 September 2012, UN Doc. A/RES/66/288, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 246.

  33. 33.

    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 2.

  34. 34.

    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 5.

  35. 35.

    See already Schrijver (2008), p. 251.

  36. 36.

    Cordonnier Segger and Weeramantry (2017), p. 5.

  37. 37.

    Cordonnier Segger and Weeramantry (2017), p. 5; Lowe (1999); Schrijver and Weiss (2004); Schrijver (2008); Beyerlin (2013), para. 15.

  38. 38.

    Cordonnier Segger and Weeramantry (2017), p. 5.

  39. 39.

    Barral (2012), pp. 380–381 thus defines the element of socio-economic growth as a matter of the intragenerational, the element of environmental protection as the intergenerational equity that SD postulates.

  40. 40.

    Barral (2012), p. 381.

  41. 41.

    Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, 28 June 1997, UN Doc. A/RES/S-19/2, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/spec/aress19-2.htm (last accessed 8 February 2018), Annex, para. 3; cf. Barral (2012), p. 381.

  42. 42.

    Beyerlin (2013), para. 6.

  43. 43.

    Cf. Schrijver (2017), p. 100.

  44. 44.

    The 2002 Convention for Cooperation in the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Northeast Pacific, 18 February 2002, CISDL Translation available online: http://www.cep.unep.org/services/nepregseas/Convention_English_NEP.doc (last accessed 8 February 2018); cf. What is Sustainable Development Law?. A CISDL Concept Paper, Montreal, 2005, http://cisdl.org/public/docs/What%20is%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018).

  45. 45.

    Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 78, para. 140; cf. Beyerlin (2013), para. 16.

  46. 46.

    Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry to Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 88; cf. Beyerlin (2013), para. 16.

  47. 47.

    United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, 12 October 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=58544&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 153; cf. Gehne (2011), p. 294.

  48. 48.

    Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, decision of 24 May 2005, 27 RIAA (2005) 35, http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVII/35-125.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 59; cf. Barral (2012), p. 387.

  49. 49.

    Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/135/135-20100420-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 74, para. 177.

  50. 50.

    Cf. Barral (2012), p. 381; Wälde (2004), p. 121.

  51. 51.

    Barral (2012), p. 380.

  52. 52.

    Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, 28 June 1997, UN Doc. A/RES/S-19/2, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/spec/aress19-2.htm (last accessed 8 February 2018), Annex, para. 3.

  53. 53.

    Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 4 September 2002, UN Doc. A/CONF.199/20, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 2.

  54. 54.

    2005 World Summit Outcome, 24 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES60/1, http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/60/1 (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 10.

  55. 55.

    The future we want, 11 September 2012, UN Doc. A/RES/66/288, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 3.

  56. 56.

    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 2.

  57. 57.

    E.g. SD as the “conceptual bridge” between right to social and economic development and the imperative to protect the environment, Cordonnier Segger and Weeramantry (2017), p. 6.

  58. 58.

    Gehne (2011), p. 291.

  59. 59.

    Barral (2012), p. 381; cf. also ILA New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development, 2 April 2002, UN Doc. A/CONF.199/8, 9 August 2002, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.199/8&Lang=E (last accessed 8 February 2018), principle #7.

  60. 60.

    These two elements, however, to my mind rather constitute additional components of SD, which serve to further clarify its functioning and especially to guide its application. I therefore suggest to distinguish between these supplements of SD and the core concept of SD. cf. in the same vein, Proelß (2017), para. 52.

  61. 61.

    What is Sustainable Development Law?. A CISDL Concept Paper, Montreal, 2005, http://cisdl.org/public/docs/What%20is%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 1.

  62. 62.

    Gehne (2011), p. 54.

  63. 63.

    ILA New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development, 2 April 2002, UN Doc. A/CONF.199/8, 9 August 2002, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.199/8&Lang=E (last accessed 8 February 2018); Schrijver (2008), p. 173.

  64. 64.

    The ILA, which was founded in 1873, today has more than 4300 members worldwide, among them renowned personalities who are holding or held prestigious positions in international jurisprudence and academia, cf. http://www.ila-hq.org/index.php/about-us/aboutus2 (last accessed 8 February 2018). It constitutes one of the most authoritative organisations producing international legal scholarship, many of its reports are being widely perceived by international and governmental organisations as well as academia. The 2002 ILA Principles feature prominently in many treatises on the topic of SD and thus appear to have been recognized as an accurate account of the law relating to SD, cf. i.a., Schrijver (2008); Grosse Ruse-Kahn (2010); Cordonnier Segger (2017); Schrijver (2017).

  65. 65.

    In a preambular paragraph, however, SD is defined as an “objective” that “involves a comprehensive and integrated approach to economic, social and political processes, which aims at the sustainable use of natural resources of the Earth and the protection of the environment on which nature and human life as well as social and economic development depend and which seeks to realize the right of all human beings to an adequate living standard on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom, with due regard to the needs and interests of future generations”, ILA New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development, 2 April 2002, UN Doc. A/CONF.199/8, 9 August 2002, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.199/8&Lang=E (last accessed 8 February 2018).

  66. 66.

    ILA New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development, 2 April 2002, UN Doc. A/CONF.199/8, 9 August 2002, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.199/8&Lang=E (last accessed 8 February 2018).

  67. 67.

    Cf. previous section, Sect. 4.1.

  68. 68.

    ILA 2012 Sofia Conference, Committee on International Law on Sustainable Development, Final Report, http://ila.vettoreweb.com/Storage/Download.aspx?DbStorageId=1177&StorageFileGuid=7dcf2ffb-6010-48cf-ad92-32453d8ee2b9 (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 14, Annex, Guiding Statement #3.

  69. 69.

    Cf. Proelß (2017), para. 56; Gehne (2011), p. 314 in this respect describes SD as “multipolar programme norm”; Barral (2012), p. 388.

  70. 70.

    Cf. Gehne (2011), p. 314. However, given the universal nature of SD, many, if not most of the objectives a state is typically pursuing can generally be subsumed under one of the three pillars of SD.

  71. 71.

    Barral (2012), p. 388.

  72. 72.

    Cf. Barral (2012), p. 388; Proelß (2017), para. 56.

  73. 73.

    Barral (2012), p. 388 speaks of varying circumstances rationae materiae, temporis, personae, and loci. Proelß (2017), para. 56 points to the wide margin of discretion that should be conceded to state actors as to the “how” of the balancing exercise given the political nature of the task. This indicates that the SD rule will mainly influence discretionary decisions of the legislative and executive branches.

  74. 74.

    Cf. also Proelß (2017), para. 57.

  75. 75.

    Gehne (2011), p. 324. In this dimension, SD thus particularly influences decisions of the judiciary branch.

  76. 76.

    United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, 12 October 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=58544&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 153; cf. Gehne (2011), p. 294.

  77. 77.

    Cf. Barral (2012), p. 392.

  78. 78.

    Cordonnier Segger and Weeramantry (2017), p. 5.

  79. 79.

    Cf. already Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, 4 August 1987, UN Doc. A/42/427, http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), Chap. 12.

  80. 80.

    Beyerlin (2007), pp. 444–445; cf. Proelß (2017) para. 53; also Beyerlin (2013), para. 19.

  81. 81.

    Beyerlin (2013), para. 19 referring to Lowe (1999), p. 30 deems excluding such an effect “hardly persuasive”.

  82. 82.

    Scheyli (2008), pp. 296–298, 352–353; cf. Proelß (2017), para. 53.

  83. 83.

    Bodansky (2009), 203; cf. Proelß (2017), para. 53.

  84. 84.

    Lowe (1999), pp. 31, 33; cf. Proelß (2017), para. 53; Beyerlin (2013), para. 17.

  85. 85.

    Lowe (1999), p. 33; cf. Barral (2012), p. 387.

  86. 86.

    Gehne (2011), pp. 32–322; Lowe (1999), p. 34; cf. Barral (2012), p. 387.

  87. 87.

    Proelß (2017), para. 54. The ILA scholars in this respect call for more “flexibility” in the assessment of the normative quality of SD in order to facilitate an accurate capture of its legal effects, ILA 2012 Sofia Conference, Committee on International Law on Sustainable Development, Final Report, https://ila.vettoreweb.com/Storage/Download.aspx?DbStorageId=1177&StorageFileGuid=7dcf2ffb-6010-48cf-ad92-32453d8ee2b9 (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 6.

  88. 88.

    Barral (2012), p. 378 refers to SD as a primary norm of international law, which “purports to directly regulate conduct and has properly material and direct legal implications”.

  89. 89.

    Gehne (2011), p. 314.

  90. 90.

    Proelß (2017), paras. 54–55; also Barral (2012), p. 388; Proelß (2017), para. 56 sees this rule to have obtained the status of customary international law. Referring to the great number of international legal documents, in which SD is contained, he makes this claim in relation to the “if” of a balancing exercise. In his view, the customary content of SD requires states to conduct this balancing exercise. Yet, he also points out that IL—at least for now—provides little to no guidance as to how such a balancing exercise shall be conducted.

  91. 91.

    Shaw (2017), pp. 73–74; Thirlway (2010), p. 109; Jennings and Watts (1992), pp. 36–40.

  92. 92.

    Given that SD has as of now also found proliferation in many domestic legal orders, it could over time also evolve to a domestic principle of law that applies to international relations.

  93. 93.

    Cf. Thirlway (2010), p. 109.

  94. 94.

    This question again is to be distinguished from the one relating to the binding nature of SD; cf. also Sect. 4.4.4 below.

  95. 95.

    Koskenniemi (2000), p. 371 with reference to Herczegh (1969), p. 36.

  96. 96.

    Koskenniemi (2000), p. 371 with reference to MacCormick (1978), pp. 65–72.

  97. 97.

    Koskenniemi (2000), p. 373 with reference to Eckhoff and Sundby (1976); Similarly Cordonnier Segger (2017), p. 61 with reference i.a. to Dworkin (1977), pp. 22–31.

  98. 98.

    Koskenniemi (2000), p. 367.

  99. 99.

    Koskenniemi (2000), pp. 368–370.

  100. 100.

    Koskenniemi (2000), pp. 381–383.

  101. 101.

    Koskenniemi (2000), p. 382.

  102. 102.

    Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 78, para. 140.

  103. 103.

    Virally (1968), p. 147; cf. Koskenniemi (2000), p. 385.

  104. 104.

    Koskenniemi (2000), p. 385.

  105. 105.

    Insofar, cf. Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry to Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 104 who already in 1997 saw “plentiful indications”, which justify giving “the principle of sustainable development the nature of customary law”. In favour also Proelß (2017), para. 56; Barral (2012), p. 386; arguably Sands (2012), p. 217 as well. Cautious Cordonnier Segger (2017), p. 92. Against Beyerlin (2013), para. 18; Lowe (1999), p. 33.

  106. 106.

    In lieu of many Jennings (1998), p. 737 with reference to the difficulties in developing or changing customary international law in the interwar period.

  107. 107.

    Jennings (1998), p. 738.

  108. 108.

    Jennings (1998), p. 742.

  109. 109.

    Cf. ILA 2012 Sofia Conference, Committee on International Law on Sustainable Development, Final Report, https://ila.vettoreweb.com/Storage/Download.aspx?DbStorageId=1177&StorageFileGuid=7dcf2ffb-6010-48cf-ad92-32453d8ee2b9 (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 6.

  110. 110.

    Jennings (1998), p. 749.

  111. 111.

    Referring to international custom Dissenting Opinion of Judge Yusuf to Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment, 3 February 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-05-EN.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 297.

  112. 112.

    Koskenniemi (2000), p. 389.

  113. 113.

    Cf. also Shaw (2017), p. 52. On the “myth of (in)determinacy” in international law, Bianchi (2010).

  114. 114.

    Koskenniemi (2000), p. 390.

  115. 115.

    Cf. Koskenniemi (2000), p. 396: “In this discourse, general principles come in when other norm-formulations do not seem to provide coherence for the legitimation of the solution which is intuitively experienced as correct. Such intuition is not, however, an uncontrolled impulse…”.

  116. 116.

    ILA 2008 Rio de Janeiro Conference, Committee on International Law on Sustainable Development, Report, http://ila.vettoreweb.com/Storage/Download.aspx?DbStorageId=1179&StorageFileGuid=3d118f92-d796-4ad5-9b78-c22fb3bb3b1c (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 7; cf. ILA 2012 Sofia Conference, Committee on International Law on Sustainable Development, Final Report, https://ila.vettoreweb.com/Storage/Download.aspx?DbStorageId=1177&StorageFileGuid=7dcf2ffb-6010-48cf-ad92-32453d8ee2b9 (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 6.

  117. 117.

    ILA 2012 Sofia Conference, Committee on International Law on Sustainable Development, Final Report, https://ila.vettoreweb.com/Storage/Download.aspx?DbStorageId=1177&StorageFileGuid=7dcf2ffb-6010-48cf-ad92-32453d8ee2b9 (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 6; cf. also Sands (2012), p. 217 who states in a nonchalant manner that SD “is recognized as principle (or concept) of international law”.

  118. 118.

    Cf. above Sect. 3; Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 5.

  119. 119.

    The notions “regulatory objective” and “object and purpose” are being used synonymously here, both describing the ultimate ends a particular legal rule, instrument or field is intended to serve.

  120. 120.

    Even dictatorships/repressive regimes tend to carry out their actions in legal form. cf. only the disastrous example of Nazi Germany, which exhibited a rule of law that served the most unlawful purposes, including war crimes and the Holocaust. In an attempt to set to rights these repugnant conditions i.a. Radbruch (1946).

  121. 121.

    This holds true regardless of the binding or non-binding nature of the resolution.

  122. 122.

    Many resolutions and other UN acts are typically qualified as soft law, cf. Knauff (2014), pp. 387–389; non-legal acts below this threshold can consist of e.g. statements at press conferences or other purely reporting acts.

  123. 123.

    If, for instance, in the 2002 WSSD Plan of Implementation, the Heads of State commit themselves to “promote coherent and coordinated approaches to institutional frameworks for sustainable development at all national levels”, such institutional frameworks will generally be implemented through law, thus rendering SD the regulatory objective of such endeavours, Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 4 September 2002, UN Doc. A/CONF.199/20, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 162(a); cf. also Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 21, which pledges that the agenda needs to be implemented on global, regional, national levels.

  124. 124.

    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), paras. 39–47.

  125. 125.

    Cf. the catalogue of measures that states shall implement in order to foster SD in Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 41: “We recognize that these will include the mobilization of financial resources as well as capacity building and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed. Public finance, both domestic and international, will play a vital role in providing essential services and public goods and in catalysing other sources of finance.” Naturally the implementation of such measures requires legal instruments.

  126. 126.

    Cordonnier Segger (2017), p. 72 speaks of a “search in the wrong direction”.

  127. 127.

    United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, 12 October 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=58544&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 129.

  128. 128.

    On the “teleological school of thought” briefly Shaw (2017), p. 707.

  129. 129.

    Cf. Sect. 4.4.3 below; also Art. 9(1), 10(2)(a) UNCCDD, which call for national action programmes to be designed and implemented for SD. Many of such policies will be implemented through legal instruments, which will generally feature SD as their regulatory objective.

  130. 130.

    Again even repressive governments usually portray their policies and thus legal instruments as being implemented for the benefit of the people, the advancement of the state etc. cf. e.g. the example of North Korea, which portrays its nuclear weapons programme as a “road of independence and justice”, Ellis R and Cuevas M (2017) North Korea says it’s not backing down on nuclear development in 2018. CNN International Edition, 30 December 2017, https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/29/asia/north-korea-statement-on-nuclear-development/index.html (last accessed 9 February 2018).

  131. 131.

    Now one could of course argue that also war can contribute to the development of a society. The jus cogens prohibition of force in Article 2(4) UN charter however is one of the foundational pivots of the international legal order—which thus clearly gives preference to a development based on peace, and not on war, cf. also Article 1(1) UN charter as well as principle #24 of the Rio Declaration according to which “[w]arfare is inherently destructive of” SD. Apart from this normative aspect, also factually human societies develop better in times of peace, cf. instructively Sen (1999), pp. 3–4 and his perception of “development as freedom”. War in this context is an “unfreedom” that needs to be removed in order for society to prosper.

  132. 132.

    Take for example international humanitarian law, which regulates an orderly conduct in times of war, thus decreasing atrocities and fatalities, which in turn contributes to human resources being depleted in a less speedily manner. In addition, of course, it also contributes to a climate between the parties at war, which may increase the likelihood of later peaceful stable relations once the fighting has seized for some time. Or a procedural rule which features in the statutes of any international court, tribunal or commission: since these institutions are typically created in order to remedy injustice—and thus tensions between either states, particular social groups or individuals—it contributes to strengthening the rule of law, thus to the stability of a nation or even the international community as a whole, which again is the precondition for i.a. economic growth and therefore development. cf. in this respect e.g. Article 1 of the 1948 Havana Charter, which explicitly recognizes “the determination of the United Nations to create conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations” before addressing the measures necessary to foster economic prosperity; cf. also the Preamble of the 2014 UN Arms Trade Treaty, https://www.un.org/disarmament/att/ (last accessed 9 February 2018), which does not omit to mention that “peace and security, development and human rights are pillars of the United Nations system and foundations for collective security and […] development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing”.

  133. 133.

    I thus do not mean to contend that all of international law actually contributes to the development of our global society. Proponents of the TWAIL movement and International Development Law have expertly demonstrated, what normative and institutional changes may be necessary in order for international law to more vigorously work towards reducing inequalities between global centre and periphery, cf. e.g., the strong stance voiced by Mutua and Anghie (2000). However, these observations to my mind do not refute my statement that law—conceptually speaking—is meant to foster development. Lawmakers will generally at least pretend to be pursuing this objective. In fact, the TWAIL critique (and others) further underlines this conceptual purpose of the law: the authors are dissatisfied with the current legal regime since it does not sufficiently foster development. Their critique thus does not counter my statement regarding law as an instrument for pursuing development, but instead addresses the notion and precise aims of ‘development’ one employs. Likewise, the fact that, conversely, the development of a society may frequently shape the applicable law does not rebut my statement—both can be held to be correct: law is conceptually intended to foster development and development drives the creation of law. These simple observations become intricate only once one enters the debate as to what law shall be created for which kind of development.

  134. 134.

    While in the ancient or medieval times, war glory, the pursuit of religious motives or the intention to rule the greatest possible share of territory may have been the articulated objective of many policies, these pursuits likewise can be seen as individual perceptions of what kind of actions may contribute to the development of a state or society in terms of a “specified sense of advancement”, cf. Oxford Living Dictionaries, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/development (last accessed 9 February 2018). If not in all policies, at least in most the advancement of the state in economic terms, e.g. the increase of a nation’s wealth through conquering enemy territory, securing important geostrategic positions etc. will regularly have featured as, at a minimum, a secondary objective. On early signs of sustainable approaches to economic development however, cf. instructively Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry to Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), pp. 107–108.

  135. 135.

    The ITO was never established mainly due to domestic opposition within the US, Sacerdoti (2014), para. 10.

  136. 136.

    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 5.

  137. 137.

    Take, for instance, the US government’s recent decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. While such action has been taken in a move to challenge the presumptions revolving around climate change, not even the US government seems to challenge SD as an overall regulatory objective with regard to the other objectives it entails, cf. the remarks by incumbent US president Donald J Trump: “Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does –– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters”, Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord, 1 June 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/ (last accessed 9 February 2018).

  138. 138.

    This of course at the same time illustrates the weakness of the current operation of SD as an element of international law. It can only be remedied through further (judicial and or scholarly) elaboration as to the “how” of the balancing exercise required from states, cf. Cordonnier Segger and Weeramantry (2017), pp. 5–6.

  139. 139.

    This is indicated inter alia by the fact that all states agreed on the SD Agenda. It can furthermore be witnessed in countless examples of state practice in the form of public statements, declarations etc. Apart from that, state practice does not have to be “in absolutely rigorous conformity” with a particular customary rule in order for the latter to be recognized as such, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (last accessed 9 February 2018), p. 98: “If a State acts in a way prima facie incompatible with a recognized rule, but defends its conduct by appealing to exceptions or justifications contained within the rule itself, then whether or not the State’s conduct is in fact justifiable on that basis, the significance of that attitude is to confirm rather than to weaken the rule”. On the “two factor test” for determining international custom and its applicability to SD as an object and purpose, cf. Sect. 4.4.4 below.

  140. 140.

    Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), para. 5, many of which will generally be qualified as soft law, the emphasis here is on binding international agreements.

  141. 141.

    Updated text of 2007; the preamble speaks of “sustainable management”, yet clearly refers to the definition of SD when stating that such management shall be conducted in a manner that the marine ecosystem will “continue to meet the needs of present and future generations”.

  142. 142.

    Here, SD is referenced under the heading “general obligations”, yet essentially used as a regulatory objective as well, since the specific obligations of the Parties are spelled out “in order to […] contribute to the sustainable development of the Mediterranean Sea Area”.

  143. 143.

    Cf. Cordonnier Segger (2017), p. 81.

  144. 144.

    The latter provision defines SD as a legitimate objective for the introduction of technical barriers to trade (TBT).

  145. 145.

    Cf. also the catalogues provided by Schrijver (2017), p. 100 and Barral (2012), p. 388, Fn. 59. On the EU-CARIFORUM-EPA and SD as an objective Grosse Ruse-Kahn (2010).

  146. 146.

    Cf. preamble, Article 1(2) and Article 2(1) of the Germany-Peru commodity partnership agreement, Abkommen zwischen der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Regierung der Republik Peru über Zusammenarbeit im Rohstoff-, Industrie- und Technologiebereich, signed 14 July 2014, https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/A/abkommen-zwischen-brd-und-peru-partnerschaft-rohstoff-industrie-und-technologiebereich.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6 (last accessed 9 February 2018); Articles 1(2) and 2(2) of the Germany-Kazakhstan commodity partnership agreement, Abkommen zwischen der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Regierung der Republik Kasachstan über Zusammenarbeit im Rohstoff-, Industrie- und Technologiebereich, signed 8 February 2012, https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/A/abkommen-zwischenbrd-und-kasachstan-partnerschaft-rohstoff-industrie-und-technologiebereich.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 (last accessed 9 February 2018); Articles 1(2) and 2(2) of the Germany-Mongolia commodity partnership agreement, Abkommen zwischen der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Regierung der Mongolei über Zusammenarbeit im Rohstoff-, Industrie- und Technologiebereich, signed 13 October 2011, https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/A/abkommen-zwischen-brd-und-mongolei-zusammenarbeit-rohstoff-industrie-technologie.pdf?__blob=publicationFile%26v=1 (last accessed 9 February 2018).

  147. 147.

    ILA 2012 Sofia Conference, Committee on International Law on Sustainable Development, Final Report, https://ila.vettoreweb.com/Storage/Download.aspx?DbStorageId=1177&StorageFileGuid=7dcf2ffb-6010-48cf-ad92-32453d8ee2b9 (last accessed 8 February 2018), Annex, Guiding Statement #2.

  148. 148.

    The ILA here, to stick with the comparison with domestic legal orders, defines four of such potentially conflicting “constitutional” objectives or principles: territorial boundaries, fundamental aspects of the global legal order, the express wording of a treaty or a rule of jus cogens.

  149. 149.

    On the domestic level, if the legislator seeks to introduce e.g. a new norm of criminal law, it needs to adequately balance the various objectives of this field of law—for instance protecting the population, preventing it from committing crime and at the same time ensuring pathways to the rehabilitation of offenders.

  150. 150.

    Barral (2012), p. 391 appears to see such effects of SD as an “extraneous conventional rule” and thus regardless of its status as international custom.

  151. 151.

    Proelß (2017), para. 56; Barral (2012), p. 386.

  152. 152.

    Cf. already above, Sect. 4.3.2.

  153. 153.

    Similarly Cordonnier Segger (2017), p. 93 as well as Schrijver (2017), p. 101; referring to SD as an “objective” also Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/135/135-20100420-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 74, para. 177; on the need to leave the “boxes” of Article 38 cf. Sect. 4.3.2 above on the remarks by Jennings (1998).

  154. 154.

    In addition, one could also assess the “fundamental norm creating character” of SD, cf. Cordonnier Segger (2017), pp. 69–72.

  155. 155.

    In my view, there is room for methodological flexibility here i.a. since it is fair to speak of a certain “presumption” for a universal political objective such as SD to acquire the status of a legally binding regulatory objective. The opinio juris of states to a certain degree is thus somewhat already inherent to the universal objective, especially when States express their will to “operationalize” it intensively. This does not mean, of course, to entirely ignore opinio juris beyond this point, particularly if there should be indications of a changing opinion or a modification of the political objective. However, there are no such signs with respect to SD.

  156. 156.

    As argued by Barral (2012), p. 394 with reference to the Iron Rhine decision, this external normative force can be of such intensity as to even “revise” an individual treaty norm. According to Article XII of the 1839 Treaty, Belgium would have had to bear the costs for the construction of the railway, while in the end the tribunal, interpreting the provision i.a. in light of SD, ruled that costs would have to be shared between the Parties, i.a. in order to factor in the obligation carried by the Netherlands to construct the railway in conformity with contemporary environmental standards, Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, decision of 24 May 2005, 27 RIAA (2005) 35, http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVII/35-125.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), pp. 115–121.

  157. 157.

    Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 78, para. 140.

  158. 158.

    Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/135/135-20100420-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 74, para. 177.

  159. 159.

    In depth analysis by Baetens (2017).

  160. 160.

    ILA 2012 Sofia Conference, Committee on International Law on Sustainable Development, Final Report, http://ila.vettoreweb.com/Storage/Download.aspx?DbStorageId=1177&StorageFileGuid=7dcf2ffb-6010-48cf-ad92-32453d8ee2b9 (last accessed 8 February 2018), p. 12 French (2011), p. 526. Further cases that concerned NR and touched upon SD or related concepts include Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, 31 March 2014, ICJ Reports 2014, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/148/148-20140331-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (last accessed 9 February 2018), p. 226; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/95/095-19960708-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf (last accessed 9 February 2018), p. 226.; cf. the list provided by Schrijver (2017), p. 100 and the extensive list of cases in Cordonnier Segger and Weeramantry (2017), pp. x–xxvi.

  161. 161.

    Cf. Sect. 4.4.3 above.

  162. 162.

    Wälde (2004), p. 119.

  163. 163.

    ILA New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development, 2 April 2002, UN Doc. A/CONF.199/8, 9 August 2002, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.199/8&Lang=E (last accessed 8 February 2018).

  164. 164.

    ILA 2012 Sofia Conference, Committee on International Law on Sustainable Development, Final Report, http://ila.vettoreweb.com/Storage/Download.aspx?DbStorageId=1177&StorageFileGuid=7dcf2ffb-6010-48cf-ad92-32453d8ee2b9 (last accessed 8 February 2018), Annex, Guiding Statement #3.

References

  • Aagaard T (2010) Environmental law as a legal field: an inquiry into legal taxonomy. Cornell Law Rev 95:221–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Baetens F (2017) The Iron Rhine case: on the right track to sustainable development? In: Cordonier Segger MC, Weeramantry JCG (eds) Sustainable development principles in the decisions of international courts and tribunals 1992–2012. Routledge, London, pp 297–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Barral V (2012) Sustainable development in international law: nature and operation of an evolutive legal norm. Eur J Int Law 23(2):377–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyerlin U (2007) Different types of norms in international environmental law. In: Bodansky D, Brunnée J, Hey E (eds) The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Chapter 18)

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyerlin U (2013) Sustainable development. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyerlin U, Holzer V (2013) Conservation of natural resources. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi A (2010) Textual interpretation and (international) law reading: the myth of (in)determinacy and the genealogy of meaning. In: Bekker P, Dolzer R, Waibel M (eds) Making transnational law work in the global economy: essays in honour of Detlev Vagts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 34–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky D (2009) The art and craft of international environmental law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordonnier Segger MC (2017) Commitments to sustainable development through international law and policy. In: Cordonier Segger MC, Weeramantry JCG (eds) Sustainable development principles in the decisions of international courts and tribunals 1992–2012. Routledge, London, pp 31–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordonnier Segger MC, Weeramantry JCG (2017) Introduction. In: Cordonier Segger MC, Weeramantry JCG (eds) Sustainable development principles in the decisions of international courts and tribunals 1992–2012. Routledge, London, pp 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • del Castillo-Laborde L (2010) Equitable utilization of shared resources. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhoff T, Sundby N (1976) Rettsystemer: Systemteoretisk Innføring i Rettsfilosofien. Tanum-Norli, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischman RL (2007) What is natural resources law? Univ Colorado Law Rev 78:718–749 Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 43. https://ssrn.com/abstract=880115

    Google Scholar 

  • French D (2011) From the depths: rich pickings of principles of sustainable development and general international law on the ocean floor – the Seabed Disputes Chamber’s 2011 Advisory Opinion. Int J Marine Coast Law 26(4):525–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner B (2009) Black’s law dictionary, 9th edn. West, Eagan, p 1127

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehne K (2011) Nachhaltige Entwicklung als Rechtsprinzip. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosse Ruse-Kahn H (2010) A real partnership for development? Sustainable development as treaty objective in European Economic Partnership Agreements and beyond. J Int Econ Law 13(1):139–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Herczegh G (1969) General principles of law and the international legal order. Publishing House of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, p 36

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY (1998) What is international law and how do we tell it when we see it? In: Jennings RY (ed) Collected writings of Sir Robert Jennings, vol 2. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 730–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY, Watts A (1992) Oppenheim’s international law. Introduction and part 1, vol 1, 9th edn. Longman, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Knauff M (2014) Soft law. In: Schöbener B (ed) Völkerrecht: Lexikon zentraler Begriffe und Themen. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (2000) General principles: reflexions on constructivist thinking in international law. In: Koskenniemi M (ed) Sources of international law. Ashgate Dartmouth, Aldershot, pp 359–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe V (1999) Sustainable development and unsustainable arguments. In: Boyle AE, Freestone D (eds) International law and sustainable development: past achievements and future challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 19–37

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick N (1978) Legal reasoning and legal theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 65–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Majzoub T, Quilleré-Majzoub F (2013) Is water a natural resource in international watercourses. Environ Law Rep 43(4):10358–10371

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutua M, Anghie A (2000) What is TWAIL? In: Proceedings of the annual meeting (American Society of International Law), 5–8 April 2000, vol 94, pp 31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Proelß A (2017) Prinzipien des internationalen Umweltrechts. In: Proelß A (ed) Internationales Umweltrecht. De Gruyter, Berlin (Chapter 3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Radbruch G (1946) Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht. Süddeutsche Juristen-Zeitung 1(5):105–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacerdoti G (2014) Havana Charter. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs J (2015) The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheyli M (2008) Konstitutionelle Gemeinwohlorientierung im Völkerrecht. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver N (1997) Sovereignty over natural resources: balancing rights and duties. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver N (2008) The evolution of sustainable development in international law: inception, meaning and status. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver N (2017) Advancements in the principles of international law on sustainable development. In: Cordonier Segger MC, Weeramantry JCG (eds) Sustainable development principles in the decisions of international courts and tribunals 1992–2012. Routledge, London, pp 99–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver N, Weiss F (2004) International law and sustainable development: principles and practice. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Anchor Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2017) International law, 8th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway H (2010) The sources of international law. In: Evans MD (ed) International law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Chapter 4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinuales J (2013) Vers un droit international de l’énergie: Essai de cartographie. In: Kohen M, Bentolila D (eds) Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Michel Jacquet. LexisNexis, Paris (Chapter 18)

    Google Scholar 

  • Virally M (1968) The sources of international law. In: Sorensen M (ed) Manual of international law. McMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wälde T (2004) Natural resources and sustainable development: from “good intentions” to “good consequences”. In: Schrijver N, Weiss F (eds) International law and sustainable development. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 119–150

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Comparative, European and International Law, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Maximilian Oehl

Authors
  1. Maximilian Oehl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maximilian Oehl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Christian J. Tams

  4. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  5. Faculty of Law and Criminal Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Oehl, M. (2018). The Role of Sustainable Development in Natural Resources Law. In: Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C.J., Terhechte, J.P., Ziegler, A.R. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2018. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2018_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2018_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97751-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97752-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation