Skip to main content Skip to page footer

Enforcement Mechanisms in International Law and International Environmental Law

Jutta Brunnée

elni Review 2005, Issue 1,  pp. 1-12.

This essay aims to launch the proceedings of international law on a high note, and to suggest that many common impressions of it are wrong in general, and particularly wrong in the context of international environmental law. Even more particularly, multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) illustrate the maturation and sophistication of international environmental law. If anything, the diversity and flexibility of compliance approaches under MEAs highlight the limited purchase of simple dichotomies such as “binding vs. non-binding” or “enforcement vs. ineffectiveness”. 
The essay begins by exploring the concept of “enforcement” in international law in general. It suggests that a concept of enforcement as imposition of legal sanctions, or penalties, is unduly narrow. The essay then canvasses some of the main theoretical assumptions about international law and compliance. An exploration of this theoretical context illuminates the reasons underlying common misconceptions about international law and its enforcement, and helps put in perspective the evolution of approaches to compliance in international environmental law. Finally, against the backdrop of these general considerations, the author examines key features of the approaches to compliance and enforcement in international environmental law and MEAs. The aim is to provide a ‘bigger picture’, a context for the detailed discussions of compliance mechanisms that make up the bulk of the conference proceedings.

Access full article


  1. Beyerlin U (2000) Umweltvölkerrecht. ("Erfüllungskontrolle"), ISBN: 978-3-406-46517-8.
  2. Birnie P, Boyle A (2002) International Law and the Environment, 2nd ed.
  3. Hunter D, James S, Zaelke D (1998) International environmental law and policy.
  4. Epiney A, Scheyli M (2000) Umweltvölkerrecht: Völkerrechtliche Bezugspunkte des schweizerischen Umweltrechts. ISBN: 978-3-7272-0930-7.
  5. Sands P (2003) Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed. DOI:
  6. Kiss A, Shelton D (2004) International Environmental Law, 3rd ed.
  7. Brownlie I (2003) Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed. ISBN: 9780199260713.
  8. Currie J (2001) Public International Law.
  9. Janis MW (1993) An Introduction to International Law, 2nd ed.
  10. Shaw MN (2003) International Law, 5th ed.
  11. Cassese A (2001) International Law.
  12. Malanczuk P (1997) Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th ed.
  13. Dunoff JL, Ratner SR, Wippman D (2002) International Law: Norms, Actors and Processes – A Problem-Oriented Approach.
  14. Weil P (1992) "Le droit international en quête de son identité," Récueil des Cours de l’Academie de Droit International 237, 13 et seq. (53).
  15. O’Connell ME (1995) “Enforcement and the Success of International Environmental Law,” Ind. J. Global Leg. Stud 3, 47 et seq. (49).
  16. Bederman DJ (2001) “Constructivism, Positivism and Empiricism in International Law”, Georgetown L. J. 89, 469 et seq. (473).
  17. Brethour P, Chase S, Mahoney J (2002) “Kyoto not binding, Manley says,” The [Toronto] Globe and Mail, 14 November 2002, A7.
  18. LeBel L, Chao G (2002)“The Rise of International Law in Canadian Constitutional Litigation: Fugue or Fusion? Recent Developments and Challenges in Internalizing International Law,” 16 Supreme Ct. L. Rev. (2d) 16 (2002), 23 et seq. (62).
  19. Higgins R (1994) Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It, 207. ISBN: 9780198764106.
  20. Black’s Law Dictionary (2004), 8th ed., 569.
  21. Charter of the United Nations.
  22. UN GAOR (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session, 56th Sess., Suppl. No. 10, 43, UN Doc. A/56/10.
  23. Elagab OY (1999) “The Place of Non-Forcible Counter-Measures in Contemporary International Law,” in G.S. Goodwin-Gill & S. Talmon, eds, The Reality of International Law – Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie, 125, DOI:
  24. Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), International Court of Justice, November 6, 2003 (paras 12-13).
  25. Barcelona Traction Case (Second Phase), I.C.J. Reports 1970, 3 et seq. (paras 33-34).
  26. Ragazzi M (1997) The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes.
  27. Stein T (1995) “Decentralized International Law Enforcement: The Changing Role of the State as Law Enforcement Agent,” in J. Delbrück, ed, Allocation of Law Enforcement Authority in the International System – Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Kiel Institute of International Law, 135.
  28. Gill TD (1995) “Legal and Some Political Limitations on the Power of the UN Security Council to Exercise its Enforcement Powers under Chapter VII of the Charter,” Netherlands Ybook Int’l L. XXVI, 33 et seq, DOI:
  29. Bodansky D (1995) “Customary (and Not So Customary) International Environmental Law,” Ind. J. Global Leg. Stud. 3, 105 et seq (116-119).
  30. Keohane RO et al (2001) “Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational,” in Goldstein JL et al (eds) (2001) Legalization and World Politics, 73.
  31. Kingsbury B (1999) “Foreword: Is the Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals a Systemic Problem?” N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol, 31, 679 et seq.
  32. Dupuy PM (1999), “The Danger of Fragmentation or Unification of the International Legal System and the International Court of Justice,” N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 31, 791 et seq.
  33. Maupain F (2000) “International Labor Organization Recommendations and Similar Instruments,” in Shelton D (ed) (2000) Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System, 372.
  34. Alkoby A (2003) “Non-State Actors and the Legitimacy of International Environmental Law,” Non-State Actors & Int’l L. 3, 23 et seq, DOI:
  35. Anderson M, Galizzi P (eds) (2003) International Environmental Law in National Courts.
  36. Ebbesson J (1997) “The Notion of Public Participation in International Environmental Law,” Ybook Int’l Env. L. 8, 51 et seq.
  37. MacIntyre D (2003) “The Iraq Crisis: Mr. Cook Has Resigned – But it is Mr. Blair Who is Out of Step with Public Opinion,” The Independent, 18.
  38. The Economist (2003) “Who Speaks for Europe?”, 48.
  39. Winkler TH (2004) “Outside View: Abu Ghraib and International Law,” The Washington Times, at
  40. De Visscher P (1972) “Cours général de droit international public,” Récueil des Cours de l’Academie de Droit International, 1 et seq. (138-153).
  41. Franck TM (1990), The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations, 3. ISBN 0-19-506178-0.
  42. Henkin L How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy, 2nd ed., 47.
  43. Kingsbury B (1998) “The Concept of Compliance as a Function of Competing Conceptions of International Law,” Mich Int’l L. J. 19, 345 et seq.
  44. Ago R (1984) “Positivism,” in R. Bernhardt, (ed), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol.7, 385 et seq.
  45. Simma B, Paulus AL (1990) “The Responsibility of Individuals for Human Rights Abuses in Internal Conflict: A Positivist View,” AJIL 93, 302 et seq. (303-308), DOI:
  46. Fitzmaurice G (1956) “The Foundations of the Authority of International Law and the Problem of Enforcement” M.L.R. 19, 1 et seq.
  47. Brownlie I (1981) “The Reality and Efficacity of International Law,” British Ybook. Int’l L. 55, 1 et seq.
  48. Brunnée J, Toope SJ (2002), “Persuasion and Enforcement: Explaining Compliance with International Law,” Finnish Ybook. Int’l L. XIII, 273 et seq.
  49. Franck TM (1995) Fairness in International Law and Institutions, 7-8.
  50. Brunnée J, Toope SJ (2000) “International Law and Constructivism: Elements of an Interactional Theory of International Law,” Columbia J. Transnat’l L. 39, 19 et seq.
  51. Brunnée J, Toope SJ (2001) “Interactional International Law,” Int’l Law FORUM de droit int’l 3, 186 et seq, DOI:
  52. Raustiala K, Slaughter AM “International Law, International Relations and Compliance” in Carlsnaes W et al, (eds) (2002) Handbook of International Relations, 541 et seq.
  53. Katzenstein PJ et al. (1998) “International Organization and the Study of World Politics,” Int’l Org. 52, 645 et seq. (658).
  54. Finnemore M, Sikkink K (1998) “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” Int’l Org. 52, 887 et seq, DOI:
  55. Ruggie JG (1998) “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge,” Int’l Org. 52, 855 et seq, DOI:
  56. Wendt A (1994) “Collective Identity Formation and the International State”, 88 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 88 (1994), 384 et seq, DOI:
  57. Chayes A, Handler Chayes A (1995) The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements, 3.
  58. Downs GW, Rocke DM, Barsoom PN (1996) “Is the Good News about Compliance Good News about Cooperation?” Int’l Org. 50, 379 et seq. (382-7), DOI:
  59. Downs GW (1998) “Enforcement and the Evolution of Cooperation,” Mich. J. Int'l L. 19, 319 et seq, 320-321.
  60. Brunnée J (2004) “Of Sense and Sensibility: International Liability Regimes as a Tool for Environmental Protection,” ICLQ 53, 351 et seq. (353-354).
  61. Boisson de Chazournes L (2000) “Unilateralism and Environmental Protection: Issues of Perception and Reality of Issues,” Eur. J. Int’l L. 11, 315 et seq. (319-321), DOI:
  62. Vigneron G (1998) “Compliance and International Environmental Agreements: A Case Study of the 1995 United Nations Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement,” Georgetown Int’l. Env. L.R. 11, 581 et seq. (585-588).
  63. Parker RW (1999) “The Use and Abuse of Trade Leverage to Protect the Global Commons: What We Can Learn from the Tuna-Dolphin Conflict,” Georgetown Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. XII, 1 et seq.
  64. Guruswamy L (2000) “The Annihilation of Sea Turtles: World Trade Organization Intransigence and U.S. Equivocation,” Envtl. L. Rep. 30, 10261 et seq.
  65. United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Appellate Body (1998); reprinted in (1999) 38 I.L.M. 121 (paras 166-171 of the decision), DOI:
  66. BBC World News (2002) “Tiny Pacific Nation takes on Australia”.
  67. Permanent Court of Arbitration (2003) Dispute Concerning Access to Information under Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention (Ireland vs. United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland), DOI:  
  68. UNFCCC (1998), Article 5, Kyoto Protocol, reprinted 37 I.L.M. 22.
  69. Brunnée J (2002) “COPing with Consent: Lawmaking under Multilateral Environmental Agreements,” Leiden J. Int’l L. 15, 1 et seq.
  70. Henkin L (1989) “International Law, Politics, Values and Function,” Récueil des Cours de l’Academie de Droit International, volume 261 (IV) 251 et seq. (72-74).
  71. Basel Convention (2003) Establishment of a Mechanism for Promoting Implementation and Compliance, Decision VI/12, in Annex to the Report of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention of the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, Doc. UNEP/CHW.6/40, 2, 20.
  72. Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) Establishment of procedures and mechanisms on compliance under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Decision BS-1/7, in Annex to Report of the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol on Biosafety, sections I, III 1(a), VI.
  73. UNEP (1998) Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Annex II: Non-Compliance Procedure, UNEP Doc. OzL.Pro.10/9, 7(d).
  74. Corfee Morlot J (1998) Ensuring Compliance with the Global Climate Change Agreement, OECD Information Paper ENV/EPOC(98)5, 22-55.
  75. Summary Compilation of Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Data from Annex I Parties, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/1998/INF.9.
  76. UNFCCC (2001) Climate Change Information Kit.
  77. UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol.
  78. Charnovitz S (1997) “Two Centuries of Participation: NGOs and International Governance,” Mich. J. Int’l L. 18, 183 et seq. (250-256).
  79. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1992) Article 7.6, reprinted, 31 I.L.M. 849.
  80. UNFCCC, Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action: Adoption of the Decisions Giving Effect to the Bonn Agreements Procedures and Mechanisms on Compliance under
  81. The Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2001/L.21, Draft Decision -/CP.7, Annex, XV, 5(b).
  82. Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (1998) Report of the Fifteenth Session of the Executive Body, ECE/EB.AIR/53, Annex III 3(b).
  83. UNEP (1992) Indicative List of Measures that Might be Taken by a Meeting of the Parties in Respect of Non-Compliance with the Protocol, in Annex V to Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, UNEP Doc. Ozl. Pro.4/15.
  84. Yoshida O (1999) “‘Soft Enforcement” of Treaty: The Montreal Non-Compliance Procedure and the Functions of Internal International Institutions,” Col. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol. 10, 95 et seq. (135-136).
  85. UNFCCC (2002) Report of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on its Seventh Session, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1-3, Decision 15/CP.7, Draft Decision (Mechanisms), 5.
  86. Decision 16/CP.7, Draft Decision (Article 17), 2-4.
  87. D.G. Victor, “Enforcing International Law: Implications for an Effective Global Warming Regime,” Duke Envt’l. L. & Pol’y F. 10 (1999), 147 et seq. (166-170).
  88. MEA NCPs – the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, reprinted in (1973) 12 I.L.M. 1085.