We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 October 2012
A crucial question for international law is how to allocate regulatory jurisdiction over transboundary problems between sovereign states. Insufficient clarity can trigger disputes such as that regarding the legality of the EU Directive that extends its ETS to all flights taking off from or landing at an EU airport, including those by non-EU carriers. This article uses this dispute as the vehicle to examine sovereignty in an increasingly interdependent world. It argues that a state’s decisional inviolability is central to sovereignty. Decisional sovereignty allows a state to regulate actors or activities with a link to its territory when these affect the state’s domestic affairs, rather than leaving the state at the mercy of an actor’s home state or of other states from the territory of which the problem emerges. Moreover, allocation of regulatory jurisdiction in conformity with decisional sovereignty reduces the incentives to free-ride on other states’ regulatory efforts and incentivizes international cooperation.
1 Energy and Climate Change Committee, ‘Oral Evidence Taken before the Energy and Climate Change Committee: The EU Emissions Trading System’, HC 2010-12 1476-II, answer to Q74, available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/c1476-ii/c147601.htm.
2 The EEA States were included in the EU ETS through the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee 6/2011 of 1 Apr. 2011 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2011] OJ L93/35. To avoid over-complicating the discussion below, this article will refer only to the EU and the EU ETS.
3 Bartels, L., ‘The Inclusion of Aviation in the EU ETS: WTO Law Considerations’ (2012) 23(2) European Journal of International Law, pp. 429–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bogojević, S., ‘Legalising Environmental Leadership: A Comment on the CJEU’s Ruling in C-366/10 on the Inclusion of Aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme’ (2012) 24(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 345–56Google Scholar; B. Mayer, ‘Case C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America and Others v. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011’ (2012) 49(3) Common Market Law Review, pp. 1113–40; Meltzer, J., ‘Climate Change and Trade: The EU Aviation Directive and the WTO’ (2012) 15(1) Journal of International Economic Law, pp. 111–56Google Scholar; E. Pache, ‘On the Compatibility with International Legal Provisions of Including Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Aviation in the EU Emission Allowance Trading Scheme as a Result of the Proposed Changes to the EU Emission Allowance Trading Directive’, Legal Opinion Commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 15 Apr. 2008, available at: http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/aviation_emission_trading.pdf; Petersen, M., ‘The Legality of the EU’s Stand-Alone Approach to the Climate Impact of Aviation: The Express Role Given to the ICAO by the Kyoto Protocol’ (2008) 17(2) Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, pp. 196–204Google Scholar; Scott, J. & Rajamani, L., ‘EU Climate Change Unilateralism: International Aviation in the European Emissions Trading Scheme’ (2012) 23(2) European Journal of International Law, at pp. 469–94.Google Scholar
4 ICAO Council, ‘Council – 194th Session Summary Minutes of the Second Meeting (Draft)’, at paras. 9, 30, 47, 68, 70, 80, 82, 84, 86–8, 100, and Appendix, clause 7, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/docs/minutes_20111102_en.pdf.
5 Ibid., paras. 21, 29, 39, 43, 53, 91, 96, and 108; Directive 2008/101/EC amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to Include Aviation Activities in the Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading within the Community [2009] OJ L8/3, Preamble, at para. 25.
6 Sandler, T., Global Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar, at pp. 17, 19.
7 Ibid., at p. 47.
8 Barrett, S., Why Cooperate?: The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods (Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar, at p. 1.
9 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UN Doc A/CONF.48/14/REV.1, 16 June 1972, Principle 21, available at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&articleid=1503; Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN Doc A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), 14 June 1992, Principle 2, available at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163.
10 Scott & Rajamani, n. 3 above, at pp. 469, 472–3.
11 Directive 2008/101/EC, n. 5 above. For a discussion of the legislative history, see B. Mayer, n. 3 above, at pp. 1115–9.
12 Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading within the Community and Amending Directive 96/61/EC [2003] OJ L275/32.
13 Decision 6/2001, n. 2 above.
14 Directive 2008/101/EC, n. 5 above, Preamble, at para. 4.
15 Ibid., para. 1.
16 Ibid., para. 11. Emissions from maritime bunker fuels are still excluded from the ETS, but given the International Maritime Organization’s failure to adopt measures, the EU is considering including maritime transport as well: see International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), ‘Shipping Emissions Next Target for EU Carbon Scheme?’ (2012) 12(4) Bridges Trade BioResGoogle Scholar, available at: http://ictsd.org/i/news/biores/127370.
17 A. Runge-Metzger, ‘Aviation and Emissions Trading’, ICAO Council Briefing, 29 Sept. 2011, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/docs/presentation_icao_en.pdf.
18 ICAO Council, n. 4 above, at para. 24; S. Bogojević, n. 3 above, at p. 348.
19 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto (Japan), 10 Dec. 1997, in force 16 Feb. 2005, Art. 2(2), available at: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.
20 ICAO Assembly, ‘Resolution 35-5: Consolidated Statement of Continuing ICAO Policies and Practices Related to Environmental Protection’, in Assembly Resolutions in Force (as of 8 October 2004), Appendix I, operative clause 2(c)(1), available at: http://legacy.icao.int/icaonet/dcs/9848/9848_en.pdf. An open system is one in which emissions allowances can be traded across sectors: see Runge-Metzger, n. 17 above, slide 18.
21 ICAO Assembly, ibid., Appendix I, operative clause 2(c)(2). The Directive’s preamble explicitly refers to this endorsement as a motivation: Directive 2008/101/EC, n. 5 above, Preamble, at para. 9.
22 ICAO Assembly, ‘A36-22: Consolidated Statement of Continuing ICAO Policies and Practices Related to Environmental Protection’ in Assembly Resolutions in Force (as of 28 September 2007), Appendix L, operative clause 1(b)(1) available at: http://www.icao.int/icaonet/dcs/9902/9902_en.pdf. The EU ICAO members and the members of the European Civil Aviation Conference registered a formal reservation to this particular part of the resolution: see European Community and European Civil Aviation Conference, ‘MEMO/07/391 – Written Statement of Reservation on behalf of the Member States of the European Community (EC) and the Other States Members of the European Civil Aviation (ECAC) [made at the 36th Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal, 18–28 September 2007]’, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/391&format=PDF&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr.
23 ICAO Secretary-General, ‘Doc. 9985, Guidance on the Use of Emissions Trading for Aviation’, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/docs/icao_guidance_2008_en.pdf.
24 Ibid., para. 3.2.20.
25 Ibid., paras. 3.2.33–34.
26 ICAO Assembly, ‘Resolution A37-19: Consolidated Statement of Continuing ICAO Policies and Practices Related to Environmental Protection–Climate Change’, at para. 1, available at: http://www.icao.int/icao/en/env2010/A37_Res19_en.pdf.
27 Ibid., Annex, at para. f.
28 Directive 2008/101/EC, n. 5 above, Art. 1(3). A list of implementing legislation is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/documentation_en.htm.
29 Directive 2003/87/EC, n. 12 above, Art. 3c.
30 Ibid., Art. 3d.
31 Ibid., Art. 3f.
32 Certain types of flight are exempt, e.g., search and rescue flights, and operators with total flights or emissions below a minimum threshold: see Directive 2003/87/EC, n. 12 above, Annex I. The interpretation of the existing exemptions is clarified in Commission Decision 2009/450/EC on the Detailed Interpretation of the Aviation Activities Listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC [2009] OJ L149/69. Following the Directive’s review by 1 Dec. 2014, differential treatment could be introduced for airlines from states that are structurally dependent on air transport: see Directive 2003/87/EC, n. 12 above, Art. 30(4) (f) and (h).
33 Although airlines can purchase excess allowances from ETS participants in other sectors, such as steel production, they cannot sell their own excess allowances to participants in other sectors: see Directive 2008/101/EC, n. 5 above, Preamble, at paras. 27 and 29.
34 Directive 2003/87/EC, n. 12 above, Art. 18a. Every year, the European Commission publishes a list of all aircraft operators and their administering Member State. The latest compilation is attached to Commission Regulation (EU) No. 100/2012 Amending Regulation (EC) No. 748/2009 on the List of Aircraft Operators that Performed an Aviation Activity Listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006 Specifying the Administering Member State for Each Aircraft Operator also Taking into Consideration the Expansion of the Union Emission Trading Scheme to EEA-EFTA Countries [2012] OJ L39/1.
35 Directive 2003/87/EC, n. 12 above, Art. 3e(1) and 3f(2) for allowances from the special reserve.
36 Ibid., Art. 3e(4) and 3f(7) for allowances from the special reserve.
37 Ibid., Art. 3e(5).
38 Ibid., Art. 3g.
39 Ibid., Art. 12(2a).
40 Ibid., Art. 16.
41 For allowances issued from 1 Jan. 2013 onwards, this amount will be increased in line with the European index of consumer prices: Directive 2003/87/EC, n. 12 above, Art. 16(4).
42 Ibid., Art. 16(3).
43 Ibid., Art. 16(1); Directive 2008/101/EC, n. 5 above, Preamble, para. 26.
44 Directive 2003/87/EC, n. 12 above, Art. 16(5), as amended.
45 Directive 2008/101/EC, n. 5 above, Preamble, para. 16. Whether or not leakage will occur is debated: see Barker, T. et al. ., ‘Mitigation from a Cross-Sectoral Perspective’, in Metz, B. et al. . (eds), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2007), at pp. 665–6Google Scholar. In the specific case of the EU ETS, the threat of leakage is reduced because 85% of the allowances are allocated for free.
46 Directive 2008/101/EC, n. 5 above, Preamble, para. 16.
47 Directive 2003/87/EC, n. 12 above, Art. 25a(1), 1st subpara.
48 Ibid., 2nd subpara.
49 Ibid., 3rd subpara.
50 Ibid., 4th subpara.
51 The EU’s delegation in Beijing is reportedly studying Chinese proposals to allot a portion of the revenue generated by passenger taxes to curb aviation emissions: see Lewis, B., ‘EU Climate Boss: Studying China’s Airline CO2 Plan’, Reuters, 19 Apr. 2012Google Scholar, available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/uk-eu-china-airlines-idUSLNE83I00S20120419.
52 The Air Transport Association of America is now known as ‘Airlines for America’ or ‘A4A’: see http://www.airlines.org.
53 The UK was chosen as the forum because of its role as the administering Member State for these three airlines: see Commission Regulation (EC) No. 748/2009 on the List of Aircraft Operators which Performed an Aviation Activity Listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006 Specifying the Administering Member State for Each Aircraft Operator [2009] OJ L219/1, now superseded by Commission Regulation (EU) No. 100/2012, above n. 34, Annex.
54 Case C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines, Inc., Continental Airlines, Inc., United Airlines, Inc. v. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Reference for a Preliminary Ruling from High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (UK) made on 22 July 2010 [2010] OJ C260/9.
55 Case C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America and Others v. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Opinion of A-G Kokott (not yet published). For a detailed discussion of the Opinion, see Kulovesi, K., ‘Make Your Own Special Song, Even if Nobody Else Sings Along: International Aviation Emissions and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme’ (2011) 2(4) Climate Law, pp. 535–58Google Scholar, at 545–51.
56 Case C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America and Others v. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (not yet reported).
57 Airlines for America, ‘A4A Lawsuit Defines Clear Path for Government Action’, 27 Mar. 2012, available at: http://www.airlines.org/Pages/news_3-27-2012.aspx.
58 ICTSD, ‘EU Aviation Emissions Levy Ruled Lawful by European Court as Measure Enters into Force’ (2012) 16(1) Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, available at: http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/123063/; ‘China Aviation Body Urges Members not to Cooperate with EU CO2 Scheme’, Reuters, 15 Dec. 2011, available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/15/uk-china-aviation-carbon-idUSLNE7BE01D20111215.
59 H.R. 2594, An Act to Prohibit Operators of Civil Aircraft of the United States from Participating in the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme, and for Other Purposes, available at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR02594:.
60 The Bill was introduced in the Senate on 7 Dec. 2011, where it was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation: see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:S.1956:.
61 Aviation Law Prof Blog, ‘India Encouraging Carriers not to Comply with EU ETS’, 11 Jan. 2012, available at: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/aviation/2012/01/india-encouraging-carriers-not-to-comply-with-eu-ets.html; ‘China Bans Airlines from Joining EU Carbon Levies System’, Bloomberg News, 6 Feb. 2012, available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-06/china-bans-airlines-from-joining-european-union-s-carbon-emissions-system.html. The China Air Transport Association had already instructed its members not to participate in the EU ETS, see Reuters, n. 58 above.
62 Clark, P., ‘China Blocks Billion-Dollar Airbus Order’, The Financial Times, 24 June 2011Google Scholar, available at: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c4ce5aa0-9e4b-11e0-8e61-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1eNoGmzej.
63 ‘China Says to Defend against EU Emissions Plan’, Reuters, 7 Feb. 2012, available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-china-eu-airlines-idUSTRE8160QF20120207.
64 Crawley, J. & Quinn, A., ‘Analysis: U.S. Weighs Retaliation over Europe Aviation Law’, Reuters, 6 Jan. 2012Google Scholar, available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-usa-eu-airlines-idUSTRE8051YU20120106; ICTSD, ‘Washington-Brussels Tension Grows over Aviation Emissions Levy’ (2012) 16(2) Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, available at: http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/123211.
65 Mukherjee, K., ‘EU CO2 Law Could Scupper Global Climate Talks’, Reuters, 11 Apr. 2012Google Scholar, available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/11/uk-india-eu-climate-idUSLNE83A02020120411.
66 See, e.g., Buckley, C., ‘China Bans Airlines from Joining EU Emissions Scheme’, Reuters, 6 Feb. 2012Google Scholar, available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-china-eu-emissions-idUSTRE81500V20120206.
67 The 21 states involved were Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, the US, and the United Arab Emirates: see Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, ‘Inclusion of International Civil Aviation in European Union-Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) and its Impact – Press Note’, available at: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=77104.
68 ICAO Council, n. 4 above. The 26 states endorsing the New Delhi Declaration in the ICAO Council are Argentina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, South Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates and the US.
69 ICAO Council, ibid., para. 6.
70 European Commission, ‘EU Reservation to Council Decision on Joint Declaration’, 12 Jan. 2012, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/docs/reservations_20120112_en.pdf.
71 In Moscow, the opponents that signed the Declaration were Armenia, Argentina, Belarus, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Guatemala, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda and the US.
72 ‘Joint Declaration of the Moscow Meeting on Inclusion of International Civil Aviation in the EU-ETS’, available at: http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/1/2012/2/22/50; ICTSD, ‘Opponents of EU Aviation Carbon Law Agree on Possible Countermeasures’ (2012) 16(7) Bridges Weekly Trade DigestGoogle Scholar, available at: http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/126278/.
73 Convention on International Civil Aviation, Chicago, IL (US), 7 Dec. 1944, in force 4 Apr. 1947, available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/pages/doc7300.aspx.
74 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Marrakesh (Morocco), 15 Apr. 1994, in force 1 Jan. 1995, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm.
75 ICTSD, ‘France Wavers on EU Aviation Emissions Rule’ (2012) 16(14) Bridges Weekly Trade DigestGoogle Scholar, available at: http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/130794.
76 ICAO Council, n. 4 above, para. 26.
77 Ibid., paras. 10, 13, 47, 56, 81, 83, 103; Pache, n. 3 above, at p. 3.
78 Arbitral Award Rendered in Conformity with the Special Agreement Concluded on January 23, 1925 between the United States of America and the Netherlands Relating to the Arbitration of Differences Respecting Sovereignty over the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) RIAA 829, at p. 838; Jackson, R.H., Sovereignty: Evolution of an Idea (Polity, 2007), at pp. 10–11Google Scholar; Lake, D.A., ‘The State and International Relations’, in Reus-Smit, Ch. and Snidal, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 41–61Google Scholar, at 43; Sarooshi, D., ‘The Essentially Contested Nature of the Concept of Sovereignty: Implications for the Exercise by International Organizations of Delegated Powers of Government’ (2003–4) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law, pp. 1107–39Google Scholar, at 1108.
79 Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law (6th edn, Oxford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar, at p. 291; Ziegler, K.S., ‘Domaine Réservé’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International LawGoogle Scholar (2008), available at: http://www.mpepil.com.
80 UN GA Resolution 2625 (XXV), of 24 Oct. 1970, on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, available at: http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/2625(XXV)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION. For a discussion, see D’Amato, A., ‘Domestic Jurisdiction’, in Bernhardt, R. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, 1992), pp. 1090–6, at 1090.Google Scholar
81 Lauterpacht, E., ‘Sovereignty – Myth or Reality?’ (1997) 73(1) International Affairs, pp. 137–50Google Scholar, at 139–40.
82 Malanczuk, P. and Akehurst, M.B., Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (7th revd. edn, Routledge, 1997)Google Scholar, at p. 109.
83 Island of Palmas case, n. 78 above, at p. 838.
84 See, e.g., Brownlie, n. 79 above, who devotes a whole Part to the discussion of territorial sovereignty.
85 Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (French Zone) on November 8th, 1921, Advisory Opinion, 7 Feb. 1923, (1923) PCIJ Series B 5.
86 Brownlie, n. 79 above, at p. 291; Nolte, G., ‘Article 2(7)’, in Simma, B. (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Vol. 1 (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 148–71Google Scholar, at 157.
87 This question was important because Art. 15(8) of the Covenant of the League of Nations precluded the Council from making recommendations about the settlement of a dispute arising ‘out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party’.
88 Nationality Decrees Advisory Opinion, n. 85 above, at p. 24.
89 Abi-Saab, G., ‘Some Thoughts on the Principle of Non-Intervention’, in Suy, E. & Wellens, K. (eds), International Law: Theory and Practice (M. Nijhoff, 1998), pp. 225–35Google Scholar, at 230; Brownlie, n. 79 above, at p. 291; Nolte, n. 86 above, at p. 157; Preuss, L., ‘Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Charter of the United Nations and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction’ (1949) 74 Recueil de Cours, pp. 553–652Google Scholar, at 568; Rajan, M.S., The Expanding Jurisdiction of the United Nations (Oceana Publications, 1982)Google Scholar, at p. 232.
90 Scott & Rajamani, n. 3 above, at p. 476.
91 It should be noted that these principles confer only a presumption of legality, and that there may be reasons why an exercise of jurisdiction based on one of these principles is nevertheless unacceptable under international law: Kamminga, M.T., ‘Extraterritoriality’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2009)Google Scholar, at para. 10, available at: www.mpepil.com.
92 Rankin, J., ‘Foes of EU Airline CO2 Rules Agree on Tactics’, Reuters, 22 Feb. 2012Google Scholar, available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/22/eu-airlines-idUSL5E8DM3YD20120222. (emphasis added)
93 Agreement between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at their Common Borders, 14 Jun. 1985, Schengen (Luxemburg) [2000] OJ L239/13.
94 Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at their Common Borders [2000] OJ L239/19, at Art. 26.
95 Mayer, n. 3 above, at p. 1129.
96 Ryngaert, C., Jurisdiction in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar, at p. 42.
97 Case of the S.S. ‘Lotus’, Judgment, 7 Sept. 1927, PCIJ Series A, at pp. 18–19; Brownlie, n. 79 above, at p. 297; Ryngaert, ibid., at pp. 17, 134.
98 See n. 77 above.
99 WTO Members will have to comply with the provisions of domestic regulation in the General Agreement on Trade in Services, Marrakesh (Morocco), 15 Apr. 1994, in force 1 Jan. 1995, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm. In this author’s opinion, this is, however, a matter of application rather than of jurisdiction itself.
100 Opinion of A-G Kokott, n. 55 above, at paras. 143–8. This is known as the ‘objective territoriality principle’ or the ‘effects doctrine’: see Ryngaert, C., Jurisdiction over Antitrust Violations in International Law (Intersentia, 2008).Google Scholar
101 26 U.S.C 862(b), 911.
102 Double taxation agreements can limit the reach of tax law for resident aliens.
103 In this hypothetical example, ‘regular’ arrivals or departures would be based on a quantitative threshold, similar to the calculation of the ‘substantial presence’ test in 26 U.S.C 7701(b), which is based on the number of days spent within the US.
104 See text accompanying n. 78 above.
105 Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France), Judgment, 20 Dec. 1974 [1974] ICJ Rep 253.
106 Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France), Memorial on Jurisdiction and Admissibility submitted by the Government of Australia, at p. 336, para. 454, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/58/9443.pdf.
107 Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France), Oral Arguments on Jurisdiction and Admissibility – Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague (the Netherlands), on 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 July and 20 December 1974, at p. 496, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/58/11829.pdf.
108 Judge Barwick discusses it briefly in his dissenting opinion, where he mentions though that, despite initial impressions, decisional sovereignty was not a major basis of Australia’s claim: see Nuclear Test Cases (Australia v. France), n. 105 above, Dissenting Opinion of Sir Garfield Barwick, at p. 428.
109 See, e.g., Brownlie, I., State Responsibility (Oxford University Press, 1983)Google Scholar, at pp. 68–9, who states that ‘it is not unreasonable to propose the concept of “decisional sovereignty”’, but does not analyze it; or Giref, N., ‘Legal Aspects of Nuclear Testing’ (1991) 23 Bracton Law Journal, pp. 25–40Google Scholar, at 34.
110 Lowe, A.V., ‘Jurisdiction’, in Evans, M.D. (ed.), International Law (Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 335–60Google Scholar, at 342.
111 See text accompanying nn. 85–89 above.
112 Island of Palmas case, n. 78 above, at p. 839; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996 [1996] ICJ Rep 226, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, at 393–4; Abi-Saab, G., ‘Whither the International Community?’ (1998) 9(2) European Journal of International Law, pp. 248–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 254.
113 See the description by Australia in text accompanying nn. 106–107 above.
114 Berlin, Cf. I., Liberty: Incorporating ‘Four Essays on Liberty’ (Hardy, Henry (ed.), Oxford University Press, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
115 Trail Smelter Case (United States v. Canada), 16 Apr. 1938 and 11 Mar. 1941, RIAA, Vol. III, p. 1905, at 1965; Stockholm Declaration, n. 9 above, at Principle 21; Rio Declaration, n. 9 above, at Principle 2; International Law Commission, ‘Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities with Commentaries’ (2001 Draft Articles on Prevention), UN Doc A/56/10, pp. 144–70, at Art. 3; Ryngaert, n. 100 above, at pp. 31–2.
116 Meltzer, n. 3 above, at p. 153.
117 2001 Draft Articles on Prevention, n. 115 above, at p. 151, para. 17.
118 International Law Commission, ‘Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities with Commentaries’, UN Doc A/61/10, pp. 101–82, at 117–8.
119 R.Q. Quentin-Baxter, ‘Fourth Report on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law’, International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/373 (1983), at para. 212.
120 Directive 2008/101/EC, n. 5 above, Preamble, para. 17, recognizes that the ‘Community scheme may serve as a model for the use of emissions trading worldwide’.
121 Directive 2003/87/EC, n. 12 above, Art. 25a, as discussed in the text accompanying nn. 47–50. See also Kanter, J., ‘Airline Emissions Restraints may be Relaxed in Europe’, The New York Times, 7 Feb. 2012Google Scholar, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/business/global/european-union-shows-flexibility-on-airline-emissions-law.html?_r=2&ref=business.
122 ICAO Assembly, n. 26 above.
123 Scott & Rajamani, n. 3 above, at pp. 469, 472–3.
124 Kulovesi, n. 55 above, at p. 556.
125 Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 Nov. 1998, para. 166.
126 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Marrakesh (Morocco), 15 Apr. 1994, in force 1 Jan. 1995, Art. XX, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm.
127 Shrimp/Turtle , n. 125 above, para. 165.
128 Ibid., paras. 163–4.
129 See text accompanying n. 7 above.
130 Chang, H.F., ‘An Economic Analysis of Trade Measures to Protect the Global Environment’ (1994–5) 83 Georgetown Law Journal, pp. 2131–213Google Scholar, at 2151.
131 Ibid., at pp. 2148–9.
132 ICAO Assembly, n. 26 above, Annex.
133 Scott, J., ‘The Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change’ (2011) 5(1) Carbon & Climate Law Review, pp. 25–33Google Scholar, at 32.
134 ICAO, ‘Towards the Sustainable Development of Aviation’, Submission to the 36th Session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA36), May 2012, available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/smsn/igo/127.pdf. See also A. Vitelli & M. Carr, ‘UN Aviation Regulator Seeks 2012 CO2 Deal, May Enlist World Bank’, Bloomberg News, 30 Nov. 2011, available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-30/un-aviation-regulator-seeks-2012-co2-deal-may-enlist-world-bank.html. Other examples of unilateral action triggering negotiations on international agreements in the context of international environmental law can be found in Bodansky, D. & Shaffer, G., ‘Transnationalism, Unilateralism and International Law’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 31–41Google Scholar, at 34–5.
135 Martel, A., ‘U.N. Aviation Body Says Will Have Emissions Plan by March’, Reuters, 18 June 2012Google Scholar, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/us-airlines-emissions-idUSBRE85H1M920120618.
136 European Commission, ‘Connie Hedegaard: “ICAO is making some progress towards the long-awaited global deal to curb aviation emissions”’, 28 June 2012, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/hedegaard/headlines/news/2012-06-28_01_en.htm.
137 Alvarez, J., ‘Multilateralism and Its Discontents’ (2000) 11(2) European Journal of International Law, pp. 393–411Google Scholar, at 394.
138 Kulovesi, n. 55 above, at pp. 537, 558.
139 D. Bodansky, ‘Multilateral Climate Efforts beyond the UNFCCC’, 25 Nov. 2011, at p. 11, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1963928.
