1 G. Shaffer, ‘Transnational Legal Process and State Change: Opportunities and Constraints’, Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-28, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1901952.
2 R.O. Keohane & D.G. Victor, ‘The Regime Complex for Climate Change’ (2011) 9 Perspectives on Politics, pp. 7–23.
4 Gunningham N., ‘Confronting the Challenge of Energy Governance’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 119–35.
6 Kennedy D., ‘The Mystery of Global Governance’, in Dunoff J. & Trachtman J., Ruling the World: Constitutionalism, International Law and Global Governance (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
7 See Kingsbury B., Krisch N. & Stewart R., ‘The Emergence of Global Administrative Law’ (2004–2005) 68 Law & Contemporary Problems, pp. 15–61, at 16.
8 For examples in the EU context see Sabel C.T. & Zeitlin J. (eds.), Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture (Oxford University Press, 2010).
9 Fisher E., ‘The Rise of Transnational Environmental Law and the Expertise of Environmental Lawyers’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 43–52, at 47.
10 Brown Weiss E., ‘The Coming Water Crisis: A Common Concern of Humankind’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 153–68.
11 Gillespie A., ‘Science, Values and People: The Three Factors that Will Define the Next Generation of International Conservation Agreements’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 169–82.
12 Examples of multilateral water agreements include the Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin, Convention on the Protection of the Rhine, and the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. On bilateral water agreements, Singapore and Malaysia have signed four agreements to regulate the supply of water from Malaysia to Singapore (which meets about half of the latter’s water demand): Kog Y., et al. ., Beyond Vulnerability? Water in Singapore–Malaysia Relations (SingaporeInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, 2002).
13 Bodansky D., ‘Targets and Timetables: Good Policy but Bad Politics’, in Aldy J.E. & Stavins R.N. (eds.), Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World (Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 57–66;Bodansky D., ‘The Future of Climate Governance: Creating a More Flexible Architecture’, in Stewart R.B., Kingsbury B. & Rudyk B. (eds.), Climate Finance: Regulatory and Funding Strategies for Climate Change and Global Development (New York University Press, 2010), pp. 48–56.
14 Rayner S., ‘How to Eat an Elephant: A Bottom-up Approach to Climate Policy’ (2010) 10 Climate Policy, pp. 615–21.
15 Levit J., ‘Bottom-Up International Lawmaking: Reflections on the New Haven School of International Law’ (2007) 32 Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 393–420, at 409.
16 Streck C., ‘Innovativeness and Paralysis in International Climate Policy’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 137–52.
18 Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC  OJ L275/32, as amended.
19 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), New York, NY (US), 9 May 1992, in force 21 Mar. 1994, available at: http://unfccc.int.
20 See also Streck C., ‘Struggling with Expectations and Changing Realities: International Climate Negotiations’ (2012) 21(1) Journal of Environment & Development, pp. 52–6.
21 See, e.g., Newell P., ‘Climate Change, Human Rights and Corporate Accountability’, in Humphreys S. (ed.), Human Rights and Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 126–58.
22 Gillespie, n. 11 above.
26 See Art. 17(3)(b)(ii) of Directive 2009/28/EU on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources  OJ L140/16.
27 Gillespie, n. 11 above, at p. 176.