This chapter proposes global experimentalist governance as an ideal framework for addressing ocean acidification (OA). Global experimentalist governance consists of five elements: identifying a shared problem, setting open-ended goals, delegating solutions to lower governance levels, establishing feedback and peer-review mechanisms, and adjusting goals based on learning. This approach aligns well with OA’s characteristics, which are both scientific and part of a regime complex. The framework accommodates OA’s complexity through recursive learning cycles, multilevel participation, and provisional goal setting that can adapt as scientific understanding advances. A central unit coordinates, but does not control, the process, using ‘penalty defaults’ to encourage reluctant actors to cooperate. Favourable background conditions for experimentalist governance exist for OA, such as strategic uncertainty due to problem complexity and polyarchic power distribution with no single dominant actor. The chapter concludes that this governance approach could leverage OA’s existing regime complex rather than replace it, making it a promising framework for tackling this emerging environmental challenge.

This chapter focuses on the law relating to sovereign territory. The concepts of territory and of territorial sovereignty are examined. The manner in which additional territory may be acquired is analysed. Mechanisms such as boundary treaties and boundary awards are noted, and then the methods of acquisition are discussed. These include an analysis of discovery, accretion, cession, the former use of force and conquest, and the exercise of effective control, including occupation of terra nullius and prescription. The impact of the concepts of the critical date and intertemporal law is noted. Attention then turns to the role of subsequent conduct, such as recognition, acquiescence and estoppel. The principles of territorial integrity and of self-determination in this context are then discussed, together with the doctrine of uti possidetis, both as to the colonial context and more generally. The role of subsequent practice is noted and the importance of sovereign effective control in the circumstances (‘effectivités’). The chapter continues by noting the relevance of leases and servitudes, then turns to international boundary rivers, and then the polar regions. The chapter concludes with a section on the law of outer space.

This chapter concerns the law of the sea, tracing its historical development. The various parts of the seas are discussed, commencing with internal waters and the territorial sea and proceeding through the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. The extent of these zones and the identification of the relevant baselines are analysed, together with the notions of bays and islands, archipelagic states and the juridical nature of the respective zones. The rights of innocent passage and transit passage are discussed, followed by an examination of international straits. The important question of maritime delimitation of the various zones as between adjacent or opposite states is then examined, and the relevant principles as revealed in case law are analysed, including the situation as to delimitation beyond the 200-mile zones. The chapter then deals with the legal regime over the high seas, with jurisdictional issues being noted with the principle of flag state exclusivity and the exceptions thereto. The legal position as to the international seabed is then discussed with the International Seabed Authority and its organs are noted. The chapter concludes with an examination of dispute settlement mechanisms, especially the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

This chapter concerns state responsibility. Responsibility is based upon the existence of an international legal obligation in force between the states in question and a violation of that obligation imputable to the state responsible, with consequential loss or damage. The nature of the fault is discussed, as are issues as to the identity of offending persons or organs, as well as the existence of direction or control by the state. A variety of circumstances may preclude wrongfulness and thus responsibility. For example, consent or the existence of a lawful act causing the damage, such as the exercise of self-defence, or where the act constitutes a lawful countermeasure where the other state has committed a prior unlawful act. Force majeure constitutes a further example. The consequences of internationally wrongful acts include cessation or reparation. The question of serious breaches of peremptory norms (jus cogens) is also noted and the nationality of claims is analysed. The need for exhaustion of local remedies is discussed, as is the treatment of aliens and foreign property in this context.

This chapter concerns international environmental law. It commences with a consideration of an argued human right to a clean environment and the increasing case law on this issue. The relationship between economic development and environmental protection is also addressed, before the key question of state responsibility is surveyed. The appropriate standard, whether or not actual damage is caused, the question of transboundary harm arising from hazardous activities, environmental impact assessments, the precautionary and polluter-pays principles are examined before turning to the range of international treaties on this topic. The question of atmospheric pollution is addressed before the chapter turns to a consideration of climate change and the various international instruments concerning this, including the important Paris Agreement of 2015. Environmental issues and outer space are then discussed, followed by a section on international watercourses and one on ultra-hazardous activities. Questions as to the requirements for the provision of information and assistance are covered.

This chapter further explores the necessary structural and conceptual contours for the development of a normative framework of rules addressing both (i) taking and (ii) presentation of evidence. In doing so, emphasis is placed on the absence of a universally recognized framework purporting to constitute a uniform set of international rules of evidence. Moreover, the hybrid nature of ICA, straddling the space between a private adjudicative dispute resolution system and one that necessarily must operate within a framework of a national arbitral law (lex arbitri), as well as a treaty-based enforcement regime that hardly is immune from idiosyncratic public policies of signatory States, is identified as a source of indeterminacy that clouds the necessary risk assessment conducive to settlement. In this same vein, evidentiary rules themselves are identified as partaking in a duality that also leads to indeterminacy.

This chapter analyzes the Prague Rules’ claim to maximizing process efficiency by limiting party-autonomy and emphasizing arbitrator discretion. In this context, it is asserted that the re-shifting of focus from the parties to the arbitral tribunal does not and cannot lead to optimal efficiency. Hence, notwithstanding the Prague Rules’ settlement provision, these rules fail to create an environment providing for the (i) identification, (ii) quantification, and (iii) communication of risk that would drive the parties to a voluntary settlement of the dispute, foreclosing a zero-sum result. The delay, lack of efficiency, and indeterminacy plaguing ICA simply are not cured by the Prague Rules’ shift of emphasis. Comprehensive evidential analysis and objective standards remain necessary predicates to settlement, irrespective of any enhancement of arbitrator discretion and corresponding diminution of party-autonomy.

This chapter reviews the expanding legal scope of the subject, noting the universalisation of international law beyond its European roots and the development of international human rights law and international criminal law, as well as the rise of international organisations. Modern theories and interpretations are examined, ranging from the natural law/positive law debates, referring to Kelsen and Hart in particular, to more contemporary approaches, such as power politics and balance of power, behaviouralism and the policy-oriented school including the views of McDougal and Franck, with the latter’s focus on legitimacy, and on to the critical legal studies movement, noting the important work of Koskenniemi, particularly emphasising the relationship between law and society. These various theories and approaches illustrate and reveal the political, ethical and social aspects of international law. The chapter then turns to discuss the problem of the fragmentation of international law, with the rise of special treaty regimes and particular rules, and how the system may deal with this phenomenon.

This chapter deals with individual criminal responsibility rather than state responsibility. A range of international criminal courts and tribunals are examined, from the Nuremberg Tribunal following the Second World War to the more recent International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, which deals with matters remaining after the demise of these tribunals. The International Criminal Court is discussed in some detail and in terms of governing principles and organisation, with references to relevant case law. A number of hybrid courts and other internationalised domestic courts and tribunals are then referred to, including those concerning Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Kosovo, East Timor and Bosnia. The chapter proceeds to examine a series of international crimes, from genocide to war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression. These crimes are analysed and discussed in the light of practice and case law, both in terms of definition and implementation.

This chapter selects two case studies to examine the presence of global experimentalist governance in ocean acidification governance: the Ocean Acidification Alliance and the International Maritime Organization. The selection distinguishes between ‘suitable’ institutions (addressing one OA activity) and those with ‘significant potential’ (addressing multiple activities within one concern or across concerns). Using a comprehensive table that maps actors and instruments, the chapter analyses how institutions address OA’s three concerns: causes (CO2, NOx/SOx), stressors (e.g., climate change, pollution, and fishing), and adaptation (blue carbon, marine protected areas, and fisheries management). Most institutions show significant potential by addressing concerns in depth and/or breadth. The OA Alliance was selected as the only institution explicitly focused on OA, addressing CO2 emissions and coastal activities. The IMO was chosen for its role in shipping emissions (both CO2 and NOx/SOx) and broader pollution control mandate. These cases differ in legalisation levels and institutional structure, providing diverse perspectives on experimentalist governance challenges. Both have significant potential and focus on CO2, the primary OA driver, making them ideal candidates for testing the implementation of global experimentalist governance.