Atmospheric justice: a political theory of climate change

Schiffman believes that formal adjudication is the appropriate way to address the tensions between exemptive provisions and the competing principles he discusses.It is unlikely, however, that states that have availed themselves of exemptive provisions would be willing to submit disputes about the use of those provisions to adjudication.These competing principles are more likely to be inºuential in other ways.For example, states party to marine conservation agreements may refer to these obligations in the context of negotiations over conservation measures.Commissions could invoke them in arguing for an expansive interpretation of their mandate, one that would allow them to report and comment on the use of reservations and vetoes.Non-governmental organizations could use them to bolster arguments critical of state practice under these regimes.The issues raised in this book are important and have been underexamined.Shiffman's approach could be usefully augmented by a multidisciplinary approach, in which observations derived from doctrinal analysis and data on state practice could be complemented by analysis of the dynamics of negotiation, discussion of the effectiveness of a range of sources of pressure on states beyond the threat of legal action, or exploration of the ways in which agents such as scientiªc bodies and ªsheries commissions can exercise inºuence on states and on regimes more generally.