|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
132983
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Vij Books India Pvt Ltd, 2014.
|
| Description |
xii, 362p.Hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9789382652779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 057850 | 355.02/JHA 057850 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
112807
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article traces the evolution of international environmental law and dialogue in the four decades from Stockholm, 1972, to Rio+20, 2012, with a focus on the changing dynamics of the discourse between developed and developing countries, and the corresponding interpretational shifts in the application of differential treatment in international environmental law-climate change law in particular. This article argues that in the first three decades of environmental diplomacy, from 1972 to 2002, the international community witnessed an exponential growth in the number and range of multilateral environmental agreements, an array of tools, techniques and practices, and a rapid expansion of differential treatment in favour of developing countries. Differential treatment in central obligations, albeit disputed from its inception, found pride of place in the Kyoto Protocol negotiated in 1997. The decade that followed, 2002 to 2012, witnessed heightened popular and political mobilization around the climate change issue. But, in response to seemingly intractable difficulties across the North-South and North-North spectrum, it was accompanied by a retreat from differential treatment in central obligations. The battle over the future (or lack thereof) of the Kyoto Protocol, and the recent developments in the climate regime-in particular the 2011 Durban Platform Decision-testify to this retreat from certain variants of differential treatment, and interpretations of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities. An analysis of these developments and the politics that gave rise to them, reveal that while the international regime can survive the erosion of certain limited forms of differential treatment, a wholesale rejection of differential treatment, and of the 'equity' concerns that animate it, would destabilize the normative core of the regime as well as render the climate regime unattractive to key players like India.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
109205
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This part supplemented materials reflecting Chinese practice in 2010 relating to: I. International Law of the Sea (Responsibility and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the International Seabed Area; Arctic Cooperation); II. International Law on Outer Space (Peaceful Use of Outer Space); III. International Criminal Law (Crime of Aggression); IV. International Environmental Law (Climate Change).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
127533
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
117030
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Increasingly, international law is used to address a variety of issues that do not fit nicely within political boundaries. Therefore, we must remain critical of the use of international law to address issues such as climate change. In order to do so this article will look at the domestic analogy and how it has shaped our understanding and expectations of the use of international law. In several respects, the international system mirrors domestic society. Yet, there are very real and significant differences that hamper our ability to effectively use international law to address these issues. As global capitalism expands and reaches ever-further corners of the world, practical problems continue to escalate and repercussions become increasingly serious and irreversible. These practical problems carry with them equally important ethical issues. Perhaps international law as currently conceived and applied is incapable of adequately addressing such issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
157647
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017.
|
| Description |
xxxix, 374p.pbk
|
| Standard Number |
9780199664306
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 059312 | 344.046/BOD 059312 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
163446
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In an era of globalized waste, international environmental law’s main function is not simply to protect and preserve nature and the environment. Rather, it should be conceived of as a set of norms, institutions, and practices designed to manage waste on a global scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
141483
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Much study has focussed upon the legality of, as well as justifications for, military activities of States causing environmental damage in times of armed conflict, with particular reference to norms of international humanitarian law. However, in preparation for potential armed conflict, such military activities may also take place before the commencement of any such armed conflict. This paper seeks to explore the environmental protection obligations of States under international law in their conduct of military activities in anticipation of armed conflict. On the one hand, peacetime obligations entailing environmental protection, which may be derived not only from international environmental law but also other fields such as international human rights law and international investment law, would generally apply during the pre-conflict stage. On the other hand, it is also observed that there may be legal justifications for deviation from such obligations in particular circumstances in connection with the pre-conflict situation, for instance, by reliance upon exception clauses within the relevant treaties, suspension of primary obligations due to circumstances such as the needs of national security, as well as invocation of circumstances precluding wrongfulness under the law of State responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|