Is a New Multilateral Environmental Agreement on Ocean Acidification Necessary?

No multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) has so far been concluded with a view to addressing the problem of ocean acidification. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is considered by many as being capable of addressing ocean acidification as it regulates carbon dio...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Review of European Community & International Environmental Law
Main Author: Kim, Rakhyun E.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2012
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/reel.12000.x
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Freel.12000.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/reel.12000.x
id crwiley:10.1111/reel.12000.x
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.1111/reel.12000.x 2024-09-15T18:27:28+00:00 Is a New Multilateral Environmental Agreement on Ocean Acidification Necessary? Kim, Rakhyun E. 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/reel.12000.x https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Freel.12000.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/reel.12000.x en eng Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor Review of European Community & International Environmental Law volume 21, issue 3, page 243-258 ISSN 0962-8797 1467-9388 journal-article 2012 crwiley https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12000.x 2024-07-04T04:28:25Z No multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) has so far been concluded with a view to addressing the problem of ocean acidification. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is considered by many as being capable of addressing ocean acidification as it regulates carbon dioxide emissions – the root cause of the problem. In this article it is argued that, on the contrary, the UNFCCC does not provide an adequate legal framework for the problem because ocean acidification is not an effect of ‘climate change’, meaning that it is outside the UNFCCC's jurisdiction. The article provides a critical examination of whether ocean acidification is likely to be addressed through the self‐organization of existing MEAs or whether a new MEA is necessary. Specifically, it considers the extent to which the provisions of relevant MEAs are applicable to ocean acidification and how their decision‐making bodies have responded to the problem. This article observes inherent weaknesses in the emerging polycentric order and reaches the conclusion that a new MEA on ocean acidification is necessary to fill the regulatory gap. The article concludes by outlining two hypothetical candidates as a way of discussing key considerations informing the choice of an appropriate form and forum for an MEA on ocean acidification. Article in Journal/Newspaper Ocean acidification Wiley Online Library Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 21 3 243 258
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description No multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) has so far been concluded with a view to addressing the problem of ocean acidification. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is considered by many as being capable of addressing ocean acidification as it regulates carbon dioxide emissions – the root cause of the problem. In this article it is argued that, on the contrary, the UNFCCC does not provide an adequate legal framework for the problem because ocean acidification is not an effect of ‘climate change’, meaning that it is outside the UNFCCC's jurisdiction. The article provides a critical examination of whether ocean acidification is likely to be addressed through the self‐organization of existing MEAs or whether a new MEA is necessary. Specifically, it considers the extent to which the provisions of relevant MEAs are applicable to ocean acidification and how their decision‐making bodies have responded to the problem. This article observes inherent weaknesses in the emerging polycentric order and reaches the conclusion that a new MEA on ocean acidification is necessary to fill the regulatory gap. The article concludes by outlining two hypothetical candidates as a way of discussing key considerations informing the choice of an appropriate form and forum for an MEA on ocean acidification.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Kim, Rakhyun E.
spellingShingle Kim, Rakhyun E.
Is a New Multilateral Environmental Agreement on Ocean Acidification Necessary?
author_facet Kim, Rakhyun E.
author_sort Kim, Rakhyun E.
title Is a New Multilateral Environmental Agreement on Ocean Acidification Necessary?
title_short Is a New Multilateral Environmental Agreement on Ocean Acidification Necessary?
title_full Is a New Multilateral Environmental Agreement on Ocean Acidification Necessary?
title_fullStr Is a New Multilateral Environmental Agreement on Ocean Acidification Necessary?
title_full_unstemmed Is a New Multilateral Environmental Agreement on Ocean Acidification Necessary?
title_sort is a new multilateral environmental agreement on ocean acidification necessary?
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2012
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/reel.12000.x
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Freel.12000.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/reel.12000.x
genre Ocean acidification
genre_facet Ocean acidification
op_source Review of European Community & International Environmental Law
volume 21, issue 3, page 243-258
ISSN 0962-8797 1467-9388
op_rights http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12000.x
container_title Review of European Community & International Environmental Law
container_volume 21
container_issue 3
container_start_page 243
op_container_end_page 258
_version_ 1810468700494495744