Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Forest Regulation: Model for International Soil Governance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2017

Part of the book series: International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy ((IYSLP,volume 2017))

Abstract

This chapter wants to introduce an additional perspective to the discussion on how to regulate soils by an international treaty. Well comparable to the concern of forests and international forest governance, the discussions within the framework of international soil governance largely center around the creation of a single stand-alone international instrument—may it be legally binding or not, within or outside the framework of an existing convention. Against the background of the developments within international forest governance over the last four decades and the evolution of what has been referred to as the international forest regime, a change of the approach to the international regulation of concerns like forests and soils seems appropriate. The example of forests in international law and policy indicates that options for more concerted—coordinated—approaches of the existing regime infrastructure need to be realized to achieve the sustainability goals required for human well-being today and for future generations.

All views expressed in this chapter are solely the opinion of the author. Parts of this chapter are taken from Eikermann (2015), which should be referred to for a more detailed analysis of the arguments.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ginzky et al. (2016).

  2. 2.

    See for example with a particular focus on the work of the UN in this regard Birnie et al. (2009) or refer to Bodansky (2010).

  3. 3.

    For the most influential studies in this regard see Miles et al. (2001), Brown Weiss and Jacobson (1998) and Young (1999).

  4. 4.

    See with further references Birnie et al. (2009), pp. 84 et seq.

  5. 5.

    Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, Geneva, 1 July 1975, UNTS, Vol. 993, p. 243.

  6. 6.

    Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat. Ramsar, 2 February 1971, UNTS, Vol. 996, p. 245.

  7. 7.

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 9 May 1992. UNTS, Vol. 1771, p. 107.

  8. 8.

    See in this regard particularly Boer et al. (2016), pp. 49 et seq.

  9. 9.

    For analyses of the reasons for the failure of a forest convention in 1992 see inter alia Hönerbach (1996). See also Davenport (2005) and Lipschutz (2000).

  10. 10.

    The structural differences are particularly related to the perception of biodiversity and climate change as common concerns of humankind which is not the case for forests and soils. See Hönerbach (1996), pp. 83 et seqq.

  11. 11.

    See Tarasofsky (1996), pp. 687 et seq.; Hönerbach (1996); Brunnée and Nollkaemper (1996). Within the context of international forest law and policy fragmentation has largely been used to describe the divergence of a multitude of international institutions and instruments of different legal nature governing international forests. See in more detail below Sect. 5.

  12. 12.

    In style of Humphreys’ “quest for a global forest convention”, Humphreys (2005).

  13. 13.

    See for example van Asselt (2012), exploring “autonomous interplay management” in accordance with Oberthür (2009); Krohn (2002); Schulte zu Sodingen (2002); Mackenzie (2012); for an overview see Giessen (2013).

  14. 14.

    See the rationales put forward by Boer et al. (2016), pp. 67 et seq.

  15. 15.

    Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992. UNTS, Vol. 1760, p. 79.

  16. 16.

    United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, Paris, 14 October 1994, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 1954, p. 3.

  17. 17.

    Boer et al. (2016), pp. 56 et seq.; Wyatt (2008), pp. 200 et seqq.; Hannam and Boer (2002), pp. 74 et seqq.

  18. 18.

    See also Markus (2015), pp. 217 et seqq.

  19. 19.

    Cf. Boer et al. (2016), p. 69.

  20. 20.

    Note that ecosystem services in general and forest ecosystem services in particular are categorized slightly different in available surveys. The approach taken here largely follows the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Hassan et al. (2009). For an overview see Eikermann (2015), pp. 15 et seq.

  21. 21.

    Hassan et al. (2009), p. 600.

  22. 22.

    Wolff and Kaphengst (2016), p. 129, taking the term from Weigelt et al. (2014).

  23. 23.

    In detail see FAO (2015); Hannam and Boer (2002), pp. 9 et seqq.

  24. 24.

    On the interlinkages between ecosystem services and human well-being see Hassan et al. (2009).

  25. 25.

    See most prominently the so-called TEEB-Studies, available http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/all-publications/. Accessed 14 April 2017. For example: European Communities (2008) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity—An Interim Report; The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, Earthscan, London and Washington, 2010; With regard to soils see Etter et al. (2016).

  26. 26.

    With regard to forests see in particular Humphreys (2006), pp. 216 et seqq.

  27. 27.

    See Hooker (1994), pp. 836 et seq. Note particularly, that climate change and biodiversity are recognized as embodying a “common concern”. See on the concept in general for example Brunnée (2007); with regard to soils refer to Boer et al. (2016), pp. 65 et seqq.

  28. 28.

    On the issue of forests being a public or a private good, see in particular Humphreys (2006). On the issue of forests being a hybrid good Hönerbach (1996), pp. 83 et seqq. and Hooker (1994), pp. 825 et seqq.

  29. 29.

    See for a good overview European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, Brussels 22.09.2006, COM(2006)231 final.

  30. 30.

    A driver is any natural or human-induced factor that directly or indirectly causes a change in an ecosystem. A direct driver unequivocally influences ecosystem processes. An indirect driver operates more diffusely, by altering one or more direct drivers. See Hassan et al. (2009), p. 74.

  31. 31.

    See the exact observation made for forests as well, Eikermann (2015), p. 29.

  32. 32.

    Note the following section does not present the development of international political forest and soil processes in its entirety, but focuses on the overlapping developments. In more detail on the evolution of international forest processes see Eikermann (2015), pp. 31 et seqq., on the evolution of international soil processes see Boer et al. (2016), pp. 51 et seqq., both with further references and more detailed explanations.

  33. 33.

    Humphreys (2006), p. 213.

  34. 34.

    Declaration of the United Nation Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 16 June 1972, UN Doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev.1; 11 ILM 1416 (1972).

  35. 35.

    Cf. for example Birnie et al. (2009), pp. 48 et seq.

  36. 36.

    Kasimbazi (1995), p. 75.

  37. 37.

    See Principles 2 and 5 of the Stockholm Declaration; Cf. Boer et al. (2016), p. 51.

  38. 38.

    For analyses of the reasons for the failure of a forest convention in 1992 see inter alia Hönerbach (1996). See also Davenport (2005) and Lipschutz (2000).

  39. 39.

    See also Boer et al. (2016), pp. 52–53 and for more detail below Sect. 4.

  40. 40.

    Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. Annex II: Agenda 21, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. II), 13 August 1992.

  41. 41.

    Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. Annex II: Agenda 21, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. II), 13 August 1992.

  42. 42.

    Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. Annex II: Agenda 21, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. II), 13 August 1992.

  43. 43.

    Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. Annex III: Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all Types of Forests, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. III), 14 August 1992.

  44. 44.

    Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) and United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF).

  45. 45.

    See Boer et al. (2016), p. 56, with particular reference to the Global Soil Partnership and the Revised World Soil Charter.

  46. 46.

    See goal 15, United Nations General Assembly, Seventieth Session, No. 11688, Agenda items 15 and 116, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development’, A/RES/70/1.

  47. 47.

    See Desai (2011), p. 18.

  48. 48.

    On the issue of “soft law” in this regard see Boer et al. (2016) and Eikermann (2015), pp. 137–138 with further references.

  49. 49.

    Note that the term “cluster” is not used as the technical term as manifested by Konrad von Moltke in Moltke (2001), but simply to describe the uncoordinated and fragmented collectivity of instruments relating—directly or indirectly to forests. It is precisely not employed to describe a concerted, homogenous system.

  50. 50.

    For a more detailed elaboration on the effect of these treaties on forests see Eikermann (2015), pp. 61 et seqq. with further references. For a detailed list of international treaties relating to soils see Hannam and Boer (2004), pp. 95 et seqq. The following enumeration and itemization is not exclusive and solely exemplary.

  51. 51.

    International Tropical Timber Agreement 1983, Geneva, 18 November 1983. UNTS, Vol. 1393, p. 67; International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1994 (adopted Geneva, 26 January 1994, entered into force provisionally on 1 January 1997, in accordance with Article 41(3)), 1955 UNTS 81; International Tropical Timber Agreement, 2006 (adopted Geneva, 27 January 2006, entered into force 7 December 2011), UN Doc. TD/TIMBER.3/12.

  52. 52.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, UNTS, Vol. 1867, p. 187.

  53. 53.

    Convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, Paris, 16 November 1972, UNTS, Vol. 1037, p. 151.

  54. 54.

    Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto, 11 December 1997. UNTS, Vol. 2303, p. 148.

  55. 55.

    United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, Paris, 14 October 1994, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 1954, p. 3.

  56. 56.

    See Wyatt (2008), p. 180 with further reference to Montgomery (2007). See for a more detailed elaboration Hannam and Boer (2002), pp. 59 et seqq.

  57. 57.

    See for example Wyatt (2008).

  58. 58.

    Hannam and Boer (2002), p. 59.

  59. 59.

    The term “instruments” is to be understood in a nontechnical way, referring simply to the single elements considered and analyzed within the framework of Sects. 3 and 4. Following this approach, the term “multi-instrument-approach” is used to refer to the composite body of all components. For further information see Eikermann (2015), p. 146, fn. 59.

  60. 60.

    See Eikermann (2015), pp. 145 et seqq.

  61. 61.

    The concept of sustainable forest management is just one, but an important example in this regard.

  62. 62.

    See above Sect. 3 with regard to the fundamental principles provided for by the UN driven environmental processes.

  63. 63.

    For example the criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, cf. Humphreys (2006), pp. 116 et seqq.

  64. 64.

    Cf. with regard to forests Eikermann (2015), pp. 136 et seqq. for a more detailed comparison of the “multi-instrument-approach” with elements for an ideal substance for international forest regulation. With regard to soils see Hannam and Boer (2002, 2004).

  65. 65.

    See in more detail Eikermann (2015), pp. 164 et seqq.; with regard to international cooperation see Wolfrum (2011).

  66. 66.

    For the required minimum elements of international forest regulation see Eikermann (2015), pp. 136 et seqq.; with regard to soils see Hannam and Boer (2002, 2004).

  67. 67.

    A feature of international law addressed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), 23 May 1969. UNTS, Vol. 1155, p. 331; and particularly by the United Nations General Assembly, Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 58th session, Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.

  68. 68.

    See in general Matz (2006). The line between legal and political interrelations or interdependencies is often hard to draw, see Wolfrum and Matz (2003), p. 12. On the interrelation of treaties in forest matters see Eikermann (2015), pp. 150 et seqq.

  69. 69.

    See particularly Matz (2006). For further detail with regard to forests see Eikermann (2015), pp. 158 et seqq.

  70. 70.

    See Pauwelyn (2008), para. 17.

  71. 71.

    The case of the unknown outcomes of rule development has been termed “a blind spot in the fragmentation debate” by van Asselt (2012), p. 1253.

  72. 72.

    United Nations General Assembly, Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 58th session, Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682; Matz (2006).

  73. 73.

    Matz (2006).

  74. 74.

    With regard to forests see for an overview over the advantages and disadvantages provided for by an international treaty approach to forests see inter alia Tarasofsky (1996), p. 682; Brunnée (1996), pp. 49 et seqq.; Humphreys (2005), p. 2; Mackenzie (2012), p. 251; With regard to soils see for example the pros and cons weighed by Wyatt (2008), pp. 200 et seqq. or Boer et al. (2016), pp. 56 et seqq.

  75. 75.

    Such an approach would also include a legal format for REDD. For the options with regard to forest amendments and protocols see Tarasofsky (1996), p. 673; Boyd (2010); Levin et al. (2008); Mackenzie (2012); Srivastava (2011); van Asselt (2011). In terms of soils see Wyatt (2008), pp. 203–204 or Boer et al. (2016), pp. 56 et seqq.

  76. 76.

    See in general Matz (2006).

  77. 77.

    Alter and Meunier (2009), p. 21.

  78. 78.

    Matz-Lück (2008), para. 44.

  79. 79.

    See in detail Matz (2006).

  80. 80.

    On these approaches see Eikermann (2015), pp. 164 et seqq. with further references.

  81. 81.

    A description lent from Rayner et al. (2010).

  82. 82.

    Rayner et al. (2010), p. 16; See with regard to soils also Wyatt (2008), pp. 205–206.

  83. 83.

    For an overview in more detail see Eikermann (2015), pp. 170 et seqq.

  84. 84.

    von Moltke (2001), p. 5.

  85. 85.

    Chambers (2008), p. 247.

  86. 86.

    Chambers (2008), p. 249.

  87. 87.

    Rayner et al. (2010), pp. 93 et seqq.

  88. 88.

    van Asselt (2012).

  89. 89.

    For further details regarding this concept see Eikermann (2015), pp. 170 et seqq.

  90. 90.

    On the advantages and disadvantages arising from the merging of treaties see von Moltke (2001), p. 4.

  91. 91.

    See on the role of treaty organs for example Brunnée (2002) and Eikermann (2015), pp. 170 et seqq. with further references.

  92. 92.

    “A hallmark of the regime complex is a shift in the locus of action—away from elemental regimes and toward legal inconsistencies that tend to arise at the joints between regimes, and away from formal negotiations and toward the more complicated processes of implementation and interpretation.” Raustiala and Victor (2004), p. 306.

  93. 93.

    Developments pointing in the direction of more coordinative approaches for forest governance are the Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe, see Eikermann (2015), pp. 37–39, 173–176; Jürging and Giessen (2013); as well as the rather recent developments under the UNFF, ECOSOC, Report of the United Nations Forum on Forests on its 2017 special session, 8 February 2017, UN Doc. /2017/10–E/CN.18/SS/2017/2.

References

  • Alter KJ, Meunier S (2009) The politics of international regime complexity. Perspect Polit 7:13–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnie PW et al (2009) International law and the environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer BW, Ginzky H, Heuser IL (2016) International soil protection law: history, concepts and latest developments. In: Ginzky H, Heuser IL, Qin T, Ruppel OC, Wegerdt P (eds) International yearbook of soil law and policy. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd W (2010) Ways of seeing in environmental law: how deforestation became an object of climate governance. Ecol Law Q 37:843–916

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss E, Jacobson HK (eds) (1998) Engaging countries: strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. MIT Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée J (1996) A conceptual framework for an international forest convention: customary law and emerging principles. In: Canadian Council on International Law, global forests & international environmental law. Kluwer Law International, London, pp 41–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée J (2002) COPing with consent: law-making under multilateral environmental agreements. Leiden J Int Law 15:1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée J (2007) Common areas, common heritage, and common concern. In: Bodansky D et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 550–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunneé J, Nollkaemper A (1996) Between the forests and the trees – an emerging international forest law. Environ Conserv 23:307–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport DS (2005) An alternative explanation for the failure of the UNCED forest negotiations. Global Environ Polit 5:105–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai BH (2011) Forests, international protection. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. www.mpepil.com. Accessed 14 April 2017

  • Eikermann A (2015) Forests in international law – is there really a need for an international forest convention? Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Etter H, Gerhartsreiter T, Stewart N (2016) Economics of land degradation: achievements and next steps. In: Ginzky H, Heuser IL, Qin T, Ruppel OC, Wegerdt P (eds) International yearbook of soil law and policy. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2015) Status of the World’s Soil Resources Main report. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2017

  • Giessen L (2013) Reviewing the main characteristics of the international forest regime complex and partial explanations for its fragmentation. Int For Rev 15:60–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzky H, Heuser IL, Qin T, Ruppel OC, Wegerdt P (eds) (2016) International yearbook of soil law and policy. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannam I, Boer B (2002) Legal and institutional frameworks for sustainable soils: a preliminary report. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 45. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/EPLP-045.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2017

  • Hannam I, Boer B (2004) Drafting legislation for sustainable soils: a guide. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 52. https://portals.iucn.org/lbrary/sites/library/files/documents/EPLP-052.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2017

  • Hassan R et al (eds) (2009) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: findings of the condition and trends working group, The millennium ecosystem assessment series, vol 1. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Hönerbach F (1996) Verhandlung einer Waldkonvention Ihr Ansatz und Scheitern, Discussion paper FS-II 96-404. Wissenschaftszentrum, Berlin. http://bibliothek.wz-berlin.de/pdf/1996/ii96-404.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2017

  • Hooker A (1994) The international law of forests. Nat Resour J 34:823–877

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys D (2005) The elusive quest for a global forests convention. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 14:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys D (2006) Logjam: deforestation and the crisis of global governance. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jürging J, Giessen L (2013) Ein “Rechtsverbindliches Abkommen über die Wälder in Europa”: Stand und Perspektiven aus rechts- und umweltpolitikwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Natur und Recht 35:317–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasimbazi EB (1995) An international legal framework for forest management and sustainable development. Annu Surv Int Comp Law 2:67–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin K et al (2008) The climate regime as global forest governance: can reduced emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) initiatives pass a ‘dual effectiveness’ test? Int For Rev 10:538–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipschutz RD (2000) Why is there no international forestry law: an examination of international forestry regulation, both public and private. UCLA J Environ Law Policy 19:153–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie CP (2012) Future prospects for international forest law. Int For Rev 14:249–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus T (2015) Verbindlicher internationaler Bodenschutz im Rahmen der Alpenkonvention. ZUR 4:214–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Matz N (2006) Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge: völkervertragsrechtliche und institutionelle Ansätze. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Matz-Lück N (2008) Biological diversity, international protection. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. www.mpepil.com. Accessed 26 May 2017

  • Miles EL et al (2001) Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery DR (2007) Dirt: the erosion of civilizations. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür S (2009) Interplay management: enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. Int Environ Agreements Polit Law Econ 9:371–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2008) Fragmentation of international law. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. www.mpepil.com. Accessed 14 April 2017

  • Raustiala K, Victor DG (2004) The regime complex for plant genetic resources. Int Organ 58:277–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner J et al (eds) (2010) Embracing complexity: meeting the challenges of international forest governance. A global assessment report, prepared by the global forest expert panel on the international forest regime, IUFRO world series, vol 28. Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte zu Sodingen B (2002) Der völkerrechtliche Schutz der Wälder: nationale Souveränität, multilaterale Schutzkonzepte und unilaterale Regelungsansätze. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava N (2011) Changing dynamics of forest regulation: coming full circle? Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 20:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarasofsky R (1996) The global regime for the conservation and sustainable use of forests: an assessment of progress to date. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 56:668–684

    Google Scholar 

  • van Asselt H (2011) Integrating biodiversity in the climate regime’s forest rules: options and tradeoffs in greening REDD design. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 20:139–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Asselt H (2012) Managing the fragmentation of international environmental law: forests at the intersection of the climate and biodiversity regimes. J Int Law Polit 44:1205–1279

    Google Scholar 

  • von Moltke K (2001) On clustering international environmental agreements, IISD. http://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/trade_clustering_meas.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2017

  • Weigelt J, Müller A, Beckh C, Töpfer K (eds) (2014) Soils in the nexus – a crucial resource for water, energy and food security. München

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff F, Kaphengst T (2016) The UN Convention on biological diversity and soils: status and future options. In: Ginzky H, Heuser IL, Qin T, Ruppel OC, Wegerdt P (eds) International yearbook of soil law and policy. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum R (2011) International law of cooperation. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, online edition. www.mpepil.com. Accessed 14 April 2017

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt AM (2008) The dirt on international environmental law regarding soils: is the existing regime adequate? Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 19:165–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Young OR (ed) (1999) The effectiveness of international environmental regimes – causal connections and behavioral mechanisms. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Federal Hydrographic and Maritime Agency, Hamburg, Germany

    Anja Eikermann

Authors
  1. Anja Eikermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anja Eikermann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. German Environment Agency, Dessau, Germany

    Harald Ginzky

  2. Farmer Center, Iowa State University, Urbandale, Iowa, USA

    Elizabeth Dooley

  3. Sustainable Soils and Desertification, IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law, Kleinmachnow, Germany

    Irene L. Heuser

  4. Kampala, Uganda

    Emmanuel Kasimbazi

  5. Research Centre for European Environmental Law, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Till Markus

  6. Research Institute of Environmental Law, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

    Tianbao Qin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Eikermann, A. (2018). International Forest Regulation: Model for International Soil Governance. In: Ginzky, H., Dooley, E., Heuser, I., Kasimbazi, E., Markus, T., Qin, T. (eds) International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2017. International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy, vol 2017. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68885-5_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68885-5_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68884-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68885-5

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation