Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Editorial

Editorial Climate Law 1 (2010) 1–2 DOI 10.3233/CL-2010-001 IOS Press This issue appears at a time when the international regime’s flagship law, the Kyoto Protocol, has taken a battering that’s left it leaking and rudderless. The framework law to which it is appended seems by contrast to have been little affected by the new (or is it old?) dissonance, except of course in its now doubtful assumption that the global problem will be solved by all the states working together. That apart, the framework’s fundamental administrative ambition—to compile information on emissions, policies, scientific knowledge, and physical impacts—has become normalized. It’s not much; and with climate law fragmented where it does exist, and seemingly (by the end of 2009) having exhausted its early evolutionary momentum, we are challenged to see what we have and to imagine what we want. Meanwhile, the study of climate law, as a new interest, is finding its feet, as some of the articles in this issue demonstrate. There is an evident concern in the first two pieces with “definitional quandaries” (Osofsky’s term) and how to see and classify the new objects in the field (especially where they are connected with courts and tribunals); and, further http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Climate Law IOS Press

Editorial

Climate Law , Volume 1 (1) – Jan 1, 2010

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ios-press/editorial-Xu2Ezhp2yl
Publisher
IOS Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by IOS Press, Inc
ISSN
1878-6553
eISSN
1878-6561
DOI
10.3233/CL-2010-001
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Climate Law 1 (2010) 1–2 DOI 10.3233/CL-2010-001 IOS Press This issue appears at a time when the international regime’s flagship law, the Kyoto Protocol, has taken a battering that’s left it leaking and rudderless. The framework law to which it is appended seems by contrast to have been little affected by the new (or is it old?) dissonance, except of course in its now doubtful assumption that the global problem will be solved by all the states working together. That apart, the framework’s fundamental administrative ambition—to compile information on emissions, policies, scientific knowledge, and physical impacts—has become normalized. It’s not much; and with climate law fragmented where it does exist, and seemingly (by the end of 2009) having exhausted its early evolutionary momentum, we are challenged to see what we have and to imagine what we want. Meanwhile, the study of climate law, as a new interest, is finding its feet, as some of the articles in this issue demonstrate. There is an evident concern in the first two pieces with “definitional quandaries” (Osofsky’s term) and how to see and classify the new objects in the field (especially where they are connected with courts and tribunals); and, further

Journal

Climate LawIOS Press

Published: Jan 1, 2010

There are no references for this article.