Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Private Implementation of Global and EU Administrative Law: The Case of Certification in the Climate Change Regime

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Administrative Law and EU Administrative Law

Abstract

Administrative law beyond the state knows a vast participation of private parties in its mechanisms both for rulemaking and for implementation. One of the major private implementation mechanisms used by Global and European administrative law is the certification and accreditation system. In this respect, the climate change regime is of one the fields of reference. On the global level, the Kyoto Protocol makes reference to the certification system. Not only the approval of projects but also the verification of emission reductions of greenhouse gases is being carried out by private companies instead of either national administrations or the global administration itself. The EU law, partly forced by the global level, introduces the certification system in order to guarantee for cost efficiency and accuracy of the emission reductions of greenhouse gases. The Global and European Administrative Law are partly implemented by a common administrative private structure: very often a single body verifies the compliance with the two kinds of obligations. After describing the two systems, the chapter discusses the features of this kind of administration and draws lessons from these legal tools for the elaboration of a common legitimacy model for administrative law beyond the state.

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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.

    See generally Cassese (2007), p. 33 ff.; on the model of “private expertise” in administrative law, see Scholl (2005).

  2. 2.

    On Global Administrative Law, see Kingsbury et al. (2005), p. 15 ff.; Cassese (2005), p. 663 ff.; see also Casini (2006), p. 1944 ff.; Cassese et al. (2008). On European Administrative Law see Schwarze (2005); von Danwitz (2008); Craig (2006); Chiti (2008).

  3. 3.

    On climate change law, see Winkler (2006); on global climate change law, see Yamin and Depledge (2004); on European climate change law, see Schulze-Fielitz and Müller (2009).

  4. 4.

    Rohleder (2006), p. 26. Monitoring, reporting and verification are usually referred to as MRV.

  5. 5.

    Rohleder (2006), p. 26.

  6. 6.

    Third-party certification is also a prerequisite of the design of a climate protection system, in order to guarantee financial flows into the system; cf. Stewart et al. (2009), p. 3.

  7. 7.

    See infra Sect. 18.3.1.

  8. 8.

    On composite administration, see Cassese (2000), p. 987 ff.; della Cananea (2003). On integrated administration, see Hofmann and Türk (2006), p. 573 ff.; Hofmann and Türk (2007), p. 253 ff.; Hofmann and Türk (2009a); see also the further-reaching German concept of the “Europäischer Verwaltungsverbund”: Schmidt-Aßmann and Schöndorf-Haubold (2005).

  9. 9.

    ILM 31 (1992), 849.

  10. 10.

    ILM 37 (1998), 22.

  11. 11.

    Cf. Streck and Lin (2008), p. 409.

  12. 12.

    Annex I refers to the Annex to the UNFCCC which lists the countries which agreed to assume binding QELRC.

  13. 13.

    See Láncos (2008), p. 1625 ff.

  14. 14.

    It concerns mainly investments of industrialized countries in countries in transition to market economy.

  15. 15.

    The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012. Nonetheless, it is estimated that a CDM-type mechanism will also be included in the post-Kyoto regime; on the design of the post-Kyoto regime, see Keohane and Raustiala (2008).

  16. 16.

    See Art. 12(2) KP; see the critical assertion of Voigt (2008), p. 15 ff.

  17. 17.

    Examples of CDM projects include renewable energy such as wind parks and rural electrification projects using solar panels, energy efficiency such as the installation of more energy-efficient boilers, and reforestation projects.

  18. 18.

    Article 12(9) KP; Streck and Lin (2008), at p. 419.

  19. 19.

    Meijer (2007), p. 875.

  20. 20.

    Decisions 16/CP.7 and 17/CP.7, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2.

  21. 21.

    See Art. 2(1) (b) KP.

  22. 22.

    The KP, in conjunction with the Marrakesh Accords, establishes three global certification systems. JI makes provision for the certification of projects, whereas CDM makes provision for the certification of both projects and GHG emission reductions. In the context of the JI, there is no need for certification in the phase of the calculation of the GHG emission reductions, since both parties to the KP have an equal interest in a compliant production of Emission Reduction Units (ERUs). The following analysis focuses on the CDM certification procedures.

  23. 23.

    See Annex para. 35 Decision17/CP.7: “Validation is the process of independent evaluation of a project activity by a designated operational entity against the requirements of the CDM as set out in decision 17/CP.7, the present annex and relevant decisions of the COP/MOP, on the basis of the project design document, as outlined in Appendix B below”.

  24. 24.

    See Annex para. 37 Decision 17/CP.7.

  25. 25.

    Annex para. 37 (d) Decision 17/CP.7; see Kreuter-Kirchhof (2005), p. 233.

  26. 26.

    Annex para. 43 Decision 17/CP.7; see also Art. 12(5) (b) KP.

  27. 27.

    Annex para. 40 (f) Decision 17/CP.7.

  28. 28.

    Annex para. 36 Decision 17/CP.7.

  29. 29.

    Cf. Annex para. 53 ff. Decision 17/CP.7.

  30. 30.

    Annex para. 27 (e) Decision 17/CP.7.

  31. 31.

    Annex para. 61 Decision 17/CP.7.

  32. 32.

    See Annex para. 1 (b) Decision 17/CP.7: “A ‘certified emission reduction’ or ‘CER’ is a unit issued pursuant to Art. 12 and requirements thereunder, as well as the relevant provisions in these modalities and procedures, and is equal to one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, calculated using global warming potentials defined by decision 2/CP.3 or as subsequently revised in accordance with Article 5”.

  33. 33.

    Victor and House (2004), p. 56 ff. speak of a “new currency”, which can be bought and sold on the global market. It can be traded, for example, in the EU Emissions Trading System; see infra Sect. 18.2.3.1.

  34. 34.

    Designation is an international administrative act delivered by the COP/MOP; see Art. 12(5) KP: “Emission reductions resulting from each project activity shall be certified by operational entities to be designated by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, on the basis of:…”; infra Sect. 18.4.1.1.

  35. 35.

    Infra Sect. 18.3.1.

  36. 36.

    Annex para. 27 (a) and (b) Decision 17/CP.7; Art. 12(5) KP.

  37. 37.

    Stewart et al. (2000), p. 81 ff.

  38. 38.

    Cf. Green (2008), p. 34: “Most DOEs are private companies, often large risk management firms, which specialize in functions such as standardization, certification, verification, inspection and testing. A small number are non-profit organizations”.

  39. 39.

    See Annex para. 37 Decision 17/CP.7; Annex para. 62 Decision 17/CP.7.

  40. 40.

    Appendix para. 1 (a) Decision 17/CP.7.

  41. 41.

    Decision 2002/358/EC (Council Decision of 25 April 2002 concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the joint fulfillment of commitments thereunder OJ L 130/1, 15.05.2002). On the so-called “bubbles,” see Art. 4 KP.

  42. 42.

    Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, OJ L 275/32, 25.10.2003.

  43. 43.

    EU ETS draws on the experience of relevant programs in the USA and especially the “U.S. SO2 program”; cf. Rohleder (2006), at p. 27; on a comparison between the EU ETS on the one hand and relevant US American and Australian programs see also Kruger and Egenhofer (2006), p. 5 ff.; cf. also OECD (2004).

  44. 44.

    Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol’s project mechanisms, OJ L 338/18, 13.11.2004.

  45. 45.

    The EU ETS directive has been revised to include the aviation sector.

  46. 46.

    See Art. 1 subpara. 1 of Directive 2003/87.

  47. 47.

    Commission Decision of 18 July 2007 establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document number C(2007) 3416), (2007/589/EC).

  48. 48.

    See Arts. 4, 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/87; see also the exclusions in Art. 27 of the same directive.

  49. 49.

    Article 6(1) subpara. 1 of Directive 2003/87; on monitoring and reporting see Art. 14 of the same directive. By 31 December 2011, the Commission shall adopt a regulation for the monitoring and reporting of emissions. See also Annex IV Directive 2003/87 (Principles for Monitoring and Reporting Referred to in Art. 14(1)).

  50. 50.

    Article 14(3) of Directive 2003/87.

  51. 51.

    Article 15 of Directive 2003/87 contains provisions concerning verification and accreditation; see also Annex V RL 2003/87 and Annex I Section 10.4 MRG (see also Annex I Section 2 para. 5 (l): “‘verification’ means the activities carried out by a verifier to be able to provide a verification opinion as described in Art. 15 and Annex V of the Directive 2003/87/EC”); cf. Rohleder (2006), at p. 26.

  52. 52.

    Annex I Section 10.4.1 subpara. 1 MRG; see also Kruger and Egenhofer (2006), at p. 5, 6 ff. At the same time, verification serves as an effective and reliable instrument on the part of the operator for the improvement of performance in monitoring and reporting emissions; cf. the principle “Improvement of performance in monitoring and reporting emissions”; Annex I Section 3 MRG.

  53. 53.

    Annex V para. 1 of Directive 2003/87.

  54. 54.

    Annex V para. 2 of Directive 2003/87.

  55. 55.

    Annex I Section 10.4.2 (c) MRG.

  56. 56.

    Annex V para. 4 of Directive 2003/87.

  57. 57.

    Annex V para. 11 of Directive 2003/87.

  58. 58.

    Cf. Art. 10 of Directive 2003/87; Kruger and Egenhofer (2006), at p. 5 ff.; Epiney (2002), p. 583.

  59. 59.

    Kruger and Egenhofer (2006), at p. 7. Cf. also Art. 14(2) of Directive 2003/87 and Annex Section 1 para. 5 (m) MRG: “‘verifier’ means a competent, independent, accredited verification body or person with responsibility for performing and reporting on the verification process, in accordance with the detailed requirements established by the Member State pursuant to Annex V of the Directive 2003/87/EC”.

  60. 60.

    See also Annex I Section 10.4.2 subpara. 1 MRG.

  61. 61.

    Green (2008), at p. 23.

  62. 62.

    Benedetti (2004), p. 675; Scholl (2005), at p. 112.

  63. 63.

    On its Anglo-Saxon origin cf. Di Fabio (1996), p. 65; Merten (2005), p. 152; Merten (2004), p. 1216.

  64. 64.

    See Dimitropoulos (forthcoming).

  65. 65.

    Röhl (2000); Röhl (2005), p. 153 ff.

  66. 66.

    See generally Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC, OJ L 218/82, 13.8.2008.

  67. 67.

    On those three regulatory strategies, see Eifert (2006), Sect. 19.

  68. 68.

    Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and Commission Decisions 2001/681/EC and 2006/193/EC, OJ L 342/1, 22.12.2009.

  69. 69.

    Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (recast), OJ L 285/10, 31.10.2009.

  70. 70.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, OJ L 189/1, 20.7.2007.

  71. 71.

    See Meidinger (2006), p. 47 ff.

  72. 72.

    See Meidinger (2008), p. 259.

  73. 73.

    Meidinger (2006), p. 47 ff.; Guéneau (2009), p. 14 ff.

  74. 74.

    See also infra Sect. 18.4.1.3.

  75. 75.

    Schmidt-Aßmann (2004), Chapter 7, marginal no. 7 ff.

  76. 76.

    See Battini (2008), p. 188 ff.

  77. 77.

    Dimitropoulos (forthcoming) Chapter 3 A.II.4.c.; see generally, on decentralization and deconcentration on the international plane, Tietje (2001), p. 136 ff.; Battini (2008), p. 181 ff.

  78. 78.

    The climate change regime could have organized centralized systems with the CDM EB and the European Commission being responsible for the authorization of projects and data.

  79. 79.

    Cf. also Rohleder (2006), at p. 28.

  80. 80.

    See, e.g., UNDP (2001), p. 12.

  81. 81.

    Cf. Ehrmann (2006), p. 412.

  82. 82.

    Infra Sect. 18.4.3.

  83. 83.

    Cf., e.g., Annex para. 38 Decision 17/CP.7.

  84. 84.

    See Cassese (2010), p. 178, 189.

  85. 85.

    On the vast literature concerning the rise of private authority/power in global governance, see Green (2010); Cashore et al. (2004); Mattli and Büthe (2005); Bruce Hall and Biersteker (2002). On the European level see Chalmers (2006), p. 59 ff.

  86. 86.

    See Cassese (2005).

  87. 87.

    Cassese (2010), at p. 174: “Lastly, it would be odd to examine public law now, when the boundaries between public and private have proved to be so unstable. This is a consequence of, for example, the expansion and then reduction of the public sphere; the increasing penetration of public law into the private sphere; and the conceptualization of administrative activity. This movement between the two poles, the public and the private, is characteristic of administrative law (although not of all public law), to the extent that both public and private are essential parts thereof. It can no longer be said – as it once could – that administrative law is a branch of public law. Focusing attention on public law thus runs the risk of losing sight of one of the characteristics features of the public arena today: the mixture of public and private elements”.

  88. 88.

    Cf. Rohleder (2006), at p. 26.

  89. 89.

    The latter can be further subdivided into the administrative system of direct public control and the judicially enforced system of private rights; see Posner (2007), Sect. 13.1, at p. 389.

  90. 90.

    See Annex para. 3 (c) Decision 17/CP.7.

  91. 91.

    On accreditation see infra Sect. 18.4.1.2

  92. 92.

    See infra Sect. 18.4.1.2.

  93. 93.

    See Hoffmann-Riem (1996), p. 300 ff.; cf. also Trute (1996), p. 950 ff.

  94. 94.

    On the KP see Kreuter-Kirchhof (2005), p. 1554, 1556.

  95. 95.

    One has to keep in mind that certifiers are based in the territory of a state.

  96. 96.

    See ISO/IEC 17011/2005-02, Introduction, Section 3.2: “The authority of an accreditation body is generally derived from government”. On private standardization as a form of external regulation of the certification bodies see infra Sect. 4.1.3.

  97. 97.

    Annex para. 5 (f), 20 (a) Decision 17/CP.7. The CDM EB is further responsible for making recommendations to the COP/MOP for the designation of operational entities, in accordance with Art. 12(5) KP. The same applies to all three certification procedures in the context of the Kyoto Protocol.

  98. 98.

    Appendix A Decision 17/CP.7 in conjunction with secondary global law of the CDM EB lays down the accreditation procedure; see “Procedure for Accrediting Operational Entities by the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)” (Version 10.1), EB 56 Report Annex 2, 1; “CDM Accreditation Standard for Operational Entities” (Version 02), CDM, EB 56 Report Annex 1, 1.

  99. 99.

    On control of the controller see Eifert (2006), at Sect. 19, marginal no. 92 ff.; on trust in public law see Schmidt-Aßmann and Dimitropoulos (2011).

  100. 100.

    Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93, OJ L 218/30, 13.8.2008. Directive 2003/87 needs to be amended in order to be adapted to the new accreditation Regulation; see also Annex I Section 10.4.1 subpara. 1 MRG.

  101. 101.

    European Co-operation for Accreditation, EA Guidance for Recognition of Verification Bodies under EU ETS Directive, EA-6/03: 2010 Mandatory Document, January 2010 rev03.

  102. 102.

    Every 3 years under global law (see Annex para. 5 (f) (i), para. 20 (d) Decision 17/CP.7.) and every 5 years under EU law.

  103. 103.

    See Annex para. 5 (f) (i) Decision 17/CP.7; Art. 5(4) Regulation 765/2008. No accreditation has so far been revoked in the context of the CDM; cf. Green (2008), at p. 42.

  104. 104.

    See also, specifically for the climate change regime, ISO 14064 and ISO 14065; see Boileau (2007a); Boileau (2007b), p. 6 ff.

  105. 105.

    See Röhl and Schreiber (2006), 44 ff.

  106. 106.

    See also the International Register of Certified Auditors (IRCA); for more information, see http://www.irca.org/ (last visited 30.9.2010).

  107. 107.

    For more information see http://www.ieta.org (last visited 30.9.2010).

  108. 108.

    On this type of global administration, see Kingsbury et al. (2005), at p. 21.

  109. 109.

    See, e.g., IETA, CDM Validation and Verification Manual (VVM). The VVM was later on adopted by the CDM Executive Board.

  110. 110.

    See Röhl (2000), at p. 44 ff. (see ebd., 51: “Modell einer an Vertrauensstrukturen orientierten demokratischen Legitimation”); Röhl (2005), p. 172 ff.; Röhl (2006), p. 1078 ff.; see also Röhl (1996), p. 499 ff. Cf. also Sydow (2004), p. 248 ff.; Trute (2006), Sect. 6 marginal no. 115 ff.; Franzius (2009), p. 121 ff.; see also on the global level Eifert (2008), p. 329 ff.

  111. 111.

    That is also why legitimacy models based on the idea of the “output” shall be rejected.

  112. 112.

    See Art. 2 TEU.

  113. 113.

    See Cassese (2006a), p. 36 ff.; see also Cassese (2006b), p. 9: “One of the most astonishing features of the global legal order is the speed with which it has developed principles in order to discipline global administrative proceedings by the rule of law”.

  114. 114.

    See Dimitropoulos (2008); see in more detail Dimitropoulos (forthcoming), at Chapter 3 C.II.

  115. 115.

    On the formal and substantive notions of the rule of law see Grimm (2009), p. 598; Craig (1997), p. 467 ff.; cf. also Schmidt-Aßmann (2004), at Chapter 2 marginal no. 2; Harlow (2006), p. 197 ff.

  116. 116.

    Luhmann (1969).

  117. 117.

    See, e.g., Kingsbury et al. (2005), at p. 16 ff.: “In order to boost their legitimacy and effectiveness, a number of hybrid public-private and purely private standard setting and other regulatory bodies have also begun to adopt administrative law decision making procedures and practices”; Cassese (2006c), p. 60 ff.; Cassese (2008), p. 238: “However, judicial respect for the règle de droit confers a legitimation upon global bodies that makes up for their democratic insufficiency”; Schmidt-Aßmann (2006a), p. 263 (concerning mostly the informal “legislative structures” such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, ISO etc.); Zaring (2004), p. 24 (concerning the Basel Committee); Grant and Keohane (2004), p. 14: “Hence claims to legitimacy at the global level depend on inclusiveness of state participation and on general norms of fairness and process”.

  118. 118.

    Annex para. 26 Decision17/CP.7.

  119. 119.

    Annex para. 27 (c) Decision17/CP.7.

  120. 120.

    Supra Sects. 18.2.2.2 and 18.3.2.

  121. 121.

    Hoffmann-Riem (1994), p. 625; Schmidt-Aßmann (1996), p. 38 ff.; see also Appel (2008), Sect. 32, p. 801 ff.

  122. 122.

    See, e.g., Annex para. 21, 23 Decision 17/CP.7.

  123. 123.

    Annex para. 40 (e) Decision 17/CP.7.

  124. 124.

    Annex para. 40 (e) (ii) Decision 17/CP.7.

  125. 125.

    See, for example, Art. 21 of Directive 2003/87; see also the annual activity reporting obligation of the DOEs to the EB (Annex nr. 27 (g) Decision17/CP.7).

  126. 126.

    Annex para. 41 Decision17/CP.7.

  127. 127.

    Annex para. 65 Decision 17/CP.7.

  128. 128.

    A commonly used term is that of the “stakeholder”; see Annex para. 1 (e) Decision17/CP.7: “‘Stakeholders’ means the public, including individuals, groups or communities affected, or likely to be affected, by the proposed clean development mechanism project activity”; see also Art. 3 (i) of Directive 2003/87: “‘the public’ means one or more persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, associations, organisations or groups of persons”.

  129. 129.

    See also Art. 17 of Directive 2003/87. Information covered by professional secrecy may not be disclosed to any other person or authority except by virtue of the applicable laws, regulations or administrative provisions.

  130. 130.

    See, e.g., Annex para. 5 (i), (j), (m), para. 40 (b), (c) Decision 17/CP.7.

  131. 131.

    See, e.g., Annex para. 16 Decision 17/CP.7.

  132. 132.

    See also Eddy (2005), p. 70 ff.

  133. 133.

    Article 10(3), 11(2), (3) TEU.

  134. 134.

    On the accountability mechanisms in the context of the CDM and especially in relation to the DOEs see Green (2008), at p. 38 ff.

  135. 135.

    Meijer (2007), at p. 873 ff.

  136. 136.

    See Streck and Lin (2008), at p. 422 ff.

References

  • Appel I (2008) Privatverfahren. In: Hoffmann-Riem W, Schmidt-Aßmann E, Voßkuhle A (eds) Grundlagen des Verwaltungsrechts II, Sect. 32. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Battini S (2008) Political fragmentation and administrative integration: the role of the international civil service. In: United Nations Administrative Tribunal (eds) International administrative tribunals in a changing world. Esperia, London, p 181

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedetti A (2004) Le Certificazioni di Qualità tra Regolazione Pubblica e Autorevolezza Privata. Servizi Pubblici Appalti 4:669

    Google Scholar 

  • Boileau P (2007a) A comparison of the requirements and guidance of the clean development mechanism and joint implementation programme with those of the ISO 14064 Standard. Improving efficiency, effectiveness, & international harmonization of compliance activities in emissions trading workshop, 8–9 March 2007, Dublin, Ireland (unpublished). http://www.inece.org/emissions/dublin/ (last visited 30.9.2010)

  • Boileau P (2007b) Can ISO 14064 help the CDM and JI Processes? CDM Investment Newsletter No. 2/2007: 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce Hall R, Biersteker TJ (eds) (2002) The emergence of private authority in global governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashore B, Auld G, Newsom D (2004) Governing through markets: forest certification and the emergence of non-state authority. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Casini L (2006) Diritto Amministrativo Globale. In: Cassese S (ed) Dizionario di Diritto Pubblico. Giuffrè, Milan, p 1944

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (2000) L’Unione Europea come Organizzazione Pubblica Composita. Rivista Italiana di Diritto Pubblico Comunitario:987

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (2005) Administrative law without the state? The challenge of global regulation. NY Univ J Int Law Polit 37:663

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (2006a) Oltre lo Stato. Verso una Costituzione Globale? Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (2006b) Introduction: regulation, adjudication and dispute resolution beyond the state. In: Cassese S et al (eds) Global administrative law – cases and materials, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Public Law Institute (electronic publication), 1st edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (2006c) A global due process of law? Paper presented at New York University – Hauser Colloquium on Globalization and its Discontents, 13 September 2006 (unpublished)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (2007) La Partecipazione dei Privati alle Decisioni Pubbliche. Saggio di Diritto Pubblico. Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico:13

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (2008) The constitutional function of supranational courts: from global legal space to global legal order. In: United Nations Administrative Tribunal (eds) International administrative tribunals in a changing world. Esperia, London, p 231

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (2010) “Le Droit tout Puissant et Unique de la Société”: paradoxes of administrative law. Eur Rev Public Law 22:171

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S et al (eds) (2008) Global administrative law. cases, materials, issues, 2nd edn. Irpa – IILJ. http://www.iilj.org/GAL/documents/GALCasebook2008.pdf (last visited 30.9.2010)

  • Chalmers D (2006) Private power and public authority in European Union Law. In: Bell J, Kilpatrick C (eds) Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies 8 (2005–2006). Hart, Oxford, p 59

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiti MP (2008) Diritto Amministrativo Europeo, 3rd edn. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (1997) Formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law. Public Law:467

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2006) EU administrative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • della Cananea G (2003) L’Unione Europea. Un Ordinamento Composito. Laterza, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Fabio U (1996) Produktharmonisierung durch Normung und Selbstüberwachung. Heymann, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitropoulos G (2008) A common GAL: the legitimating role of the global rule of law. Paper presented at the 4th Viterbo Global Administrative Law Seminar, 13–14 June 2008. http://www.iilj.org/GAL/documents/Dimitropoulos.pdf (last visited 30.9.2010)

  • Dimitropoulos G (forthcoming 2011/2012) Zertifizierung und Akkreditierung im Internationalen Verwaltungsverbund. Internationale Verbundvewaltung und Gesellschaftliche Administration am Beispiel von Zertifizierung und Akkreditierung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddy N (2005) Public participation in CDM and JI projects. In: Freestone D, Streck C (eds) Legal aspects of implementing the Kyoto protocol mechanisms. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 70

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrmann M (2006) Das ProMechG: Projektbezogene Mechanismen des Kyoto-Protokolls und europäischer Emissionshandel. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht:411

    Google Scholar 

  • Eifert M (2006) Regulierungsstrategien. In: Hoffmann-Riem W, Schmidt-Aßmann E, Voßkuhle A (eds) Grundlagen des Verwaltungsrechts I, Sect. 19. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Eifert M (2008) Legitimationsstrukturen internationaler Verwaltung. In: Trute HH, Groß T, Röhl HC, Möllers C (eds) Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht – zur Tragfähigkeit eines Konzepts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, p 307

    Google Scholar 

  • Epiney A (2002) Emissionshandel in der EU. Dtsch Verwaltungsblatt 117:579

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzius C (2009) Neue Organisationsformen im Verwaltungsrecht. Verwaltungsblätter Baden Württemb 30:121

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant RW, Keohane RO (2004) Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. IILJ Working Paper 2004/7 (GAL Series)

    Google Scholar 

  • Green JF (2008) Delegation and accountability in the clean development mechanism: the new authority of non-state actors. J Int Law Int Relat 4:21

    Google Scholar 

  • Green JF (2010) Private authority on the rise: a century of international environmental law. In: Jönsson C, Tallberg J (eds) Transnational actors in global governance. Patterns, explanations and implications. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm D (2009) Stufen der Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Juristen Ztg 64:596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guéneau S (2009) Certification as a new private global forest governance system: the regulatory potential of the Forest Stewardship Council. In: Peters A, Koechlin L, Förster T, Fenner Zinkernagel G (eds) Non-state actors as standard-setters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 14

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow C (2006) Global administrative law: the quest for principles and values. Eur J Int Law 17:187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann-Riem W (1994) Ökologisch orientiertes Verwaltungsverfahrensrecht. Arch öffentlichen Rechts 119:590

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann-Riem W (1996) Öffentliches Recht und Privatrechts als wechselseitige Auffangordnungen. In: Hoffmann-Riem W, Schmidt-Aßmann E (eds) Öffentliches Recht und Privatrecht als wechselseitige Auffangordnungen. Nomos, Baden-Baden, p 261

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann HCH, Türk A (2006) Conclusions: Europe's integrated administration. In: Hofmann HCH, Türk A (eds) EU administrative governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 573

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann HCH, Türk A (2007) The development of integrated administration in the EU and its consequences. Eur Law J 13:253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann HCH, Türk A (eds) (2009a) Legal challenges in EU administrative law. Towards an integrated administration. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane RO, Raustiala K (2008) Toward a Post-Kyoto Climate change architecture: a political analysis. UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 08–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B, Krisch N, Stewart RB (2005) The emergence of global administrative law. Law Contemp Probl 68:15

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter-Kirchhof C (2005) Die Weiterentwicklung des internationalen Klimaschutzregimes. Dtsch Verwaltungsblatt 120:1552

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger J, Egenhofer C (2006) Confidence through compliance in emissions trading markets. Sustain Dev Law Policy 6:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Láncos P (2008) Flexibility and legitimacy – the emissions trading system under the Kyoto protocol. Ger Law J 9:1625

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1969) Legitimation durch Verfahren. Luchterhand, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattli W, Büthe T (2005) Global private governance: lessons from a national model of setting standards in accounting. IILJ Working Paper 2005/4 (GAL Series)

    Google Scholar 

  • Meidinger E (2006) The administrative law of global private-public regulation: the case of forestry. Eur J Int Law 17:47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meidinger E (2008) Multi-interest self-governance through global product certification programs. In: Dilling O, Herberg M, Winter G (eds) Responsible business. Self-governance and law in transnational economic transactions. Hart, Oxford, p 259

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer EE (2007) The international institutions of the clean development mechanism brought before national courts: limiting jurisdictional immunity to achieve access to justice. NY Univ J Int Law Polit 39:873

    Google Scholar 

  • Merten JO (2004) Benannte Stellen: Private Vollzugsinstanzen eines Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts. Dtsch Verwaltungsblatt 119:1211

    Google Scholar 

  • Merten JO (2005) Private Entscheidungsträger und Europäisierung der Verwaltungsrechtsdogmatik. Zur Einbindung benannter Stellen in den Vollzug des Medizinprodukterechts. Duncker und Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2004) Tradeable permits. Policy evaluation, design and reform. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner RA (2007) Economic analysis of law, 7th edn. Aspen, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Röhl HC (1996) Staatliche Verantwortung in Kooperationsstrukturen. Verwaltung 29:487

    Google Scholar 

  • Röhl HC (2000) Akkreditierung und Zertifizierung im Produktsicherheitsrecht. Zur Entwicklung einer neuen Europäischen Verwaltungsstruktur. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Röhl HC (2005) Konformitätsbewertung im Europäischen Produktsicherheitsrecht. In: Schmidt-Aßmann E, Schöndorf-Haubold B (eds) Der Europäische Verwaltungsverbund. Formen und Verfahren der Verwaltungszusammenarbeit in der EU. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, p 153

    Google Scholar 

  • Röhl HC (2006) Verantwortung und Effizienz in der Mehrebenenverwaltung. Dtsch Verwaltungsblatt 121:1070

    Google Scholar 

  • Röhl HC, Schreiber Y (2006) Konformitätsbewertung in Deutschland. Konstsance

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohleder J (2006) The role of third-party verification in emissions trading systems: developing best practices. Sustain Dev Law Policy 6:26

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aßmann E (1996) Öffentliches Recht und Privatrecht: Ihre Funktionen als wechselseitige Auffangordnungen. Einleitende Problemskizze. In: Schmidt-Aßmann E, Hoffmann-Riem W (eds) Öffentliches Recht und Privatrecht als wechselseitige Auffangordnungen. Nomos, Baden-Baden, p 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aßmann E (2004) Das allgemeine Verwaltungsrecht als Ordnungsidee. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aßmann E (2006a) Internationalisation of administrative law: actors, fields and techniques of internationalisation – impact of international law on national administrative law. Eur Rev Public Law 18:263

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-AÔmann E, Dimitropoulos G (2011) Vertrauen in und durch Recht. Éberlegungen zum Verhðltnis von Vertrauen und Recht als Beitrag zu einer Phðnomenologie des Vertrauens, In: Weingardt P. (eds) Vertrauen in der Krise. Zugðnge verschiedener Wissenschaften, Nomos, Baden-Baden, p 129

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aßmann E, Schöndorf-Haubold B (eds) (2005) Der Europäische Verwaltungsverbund. Formen und Verfahren der Verwaltungszusammenarbeit in der EU. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholl P (2005) Der private Sachverständige im Verwaltungsrecht. Elemente einer allgemeinen Sachverständigenlehre. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze-Fielitz H, Müller T (eds) (2009) Europäisches Klimaschutzrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze J (2005) Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht. Entstehung und Entwicklung im Rahmen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, 2nd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart R et al (2000) The clean development mechanism. Building international public-private partnerships under the kyoto protocol. Technical, financial and institutional issues. UNCTAD/GDS/GFSB/Misc.7, New York, Geneva, p 81

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart RB, Kingsbury B, Rudyk B (2009) Climate finance for limiting emissions and promoting green development: mechanisms, regulation, and governance. In: Stewart RB, Kingsbury B, Rudyk B (eds) Climate finance. Regulatory and funding strategies for climate change and global development. New York University Press, New York, p 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Streck C, Lin J (2008) Making markets work: a review of CDM performance and the need for reform. Eur J Int Law 19:409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sydow G (2004) Verwaltungskooperation in der Europäischen Union. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietje C (2001) Internationalisiertes Verwaltungshandeln. Duncker und Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Trute H-H (1996) Die Verwaltung und das Verwaltungsrecht zwischen gesellschaftlicher Selbstregulierung und staatlicher Steuerung. Dtsch Verwaltungsblatt 111:950

    Google Scholar 

  • Trute HH (2006) Die demokratische Legitimation der Verwaltung. In: Hoffmann-Riem W, Schmidt-Aßmann E, Voßkuhle A (eds) Grundlagen des Verwaltungsrechts I, Sect. 6 C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP (2001) UNDP and civil society organizations: a practice note on engagement, UNDP, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor DF, House JC (2004) A new currency: climate change and carbon credits. Harv Int Rev 26:56

    Google Scholar 

  • Voigt C (2008) Is the clean development mechanism sustainable? Some critical aspects. Sustain Dev Law Policy 7:15

    Google Scholar 

  • von Danwitz T (2008) Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler M (2006) Klimaschutzrecht. Völker-, europa- und verfassungsrechtliche Grundlagen sowie instrumentelle Umsetzung der deutschen Klimaschutzpolitik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Emissionshandels. LIT-Verlag, Münster

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamin F, Depledge J (2004) The international climate change regime. A guide to rules, institutions and procedures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zaring D (2004) Informal procedure, hard and soft, in International Administration. IILJ Working Paper 2004/6 (GAL Series)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, New York University, 245 Sullivan St., New York, NY, 10012, USA

    Georgios Dimitropoulos

Authors
  1. Georgios Dimitropoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georgios Dimitropoulos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Via del Paradiso 47, Viterbo, 01100, Italy

    Edoardo Chiti

  2. , Dipartimento di diritto pubblico, Università di Siena, Viale Liegi 5, Roma, 00198, Italy

    Bernardo Giorgio Mattarella

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dimitropoulos, G. (2011). Private Implementation of Global and EU Administrative Law: The Case of Certification in the Climate Change Regime. In: Chiti, E., Mattarella, B. (eds) Global Administrative Law and EU Administrative Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20264-3_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation