The duty to negotiate disputes in good faith in international environmental law
By: by Cameron James Hutchison.
Published: 2005
Language: eng
Number of pages: 341
Subjects: University of Toronto. -- Faculty of Law -- Dissertations.; Dispute resolution (Law); Environmental law, International.
Description: The duty of states to negotiate environmental disputes in good faith has risen to prominence in international case law in recent years, although its meaning remains far from clear. This dissertation explores the doctrinal and theoretical contours of this obligation. It begins by highlighting the practical problems and state behaviours that impede successful environmental negotiations at the pre-regime level, and argues that there is a need and opportunity to revitalize a conception of good faith negotiation to meet the challenges of environmental degradation and goals of international cooperation. The duty to negotiate in good faith is distinguished from other principles and obligations at international law, e.g. peaceful settlement of disputes, the duty to consult in good faith, and is characterized as an integral part of the law of international environmental cooperation.The focus of the dissertation turns to two questions:  What specific role does good faith play in the duty to negotiate? And, can law be facilitative to successful dispute resolution? Using a comparative analysis, it is advanced that the role of good faith is intimately tied to the policy purposes underlying a duty to negotiate. In the international environmental context, negotiation is essential to meeting the goals set by states to achieve transboundary and global environmental protection and as such, the strongest of content is to be given to principle of good faith. Integral to the duty to negotiate in good faith is that states heed to the legitimate interests of other states when they are negotiating. It is argued that global soft law instruments, as identifying emerging and gathering concerns of states and as setting the goals of environmental cooperation, are often more facilitative of dispute resolution than formal sources of international law, since they tend to embody greater legitimacy. Through discursive interaction undertaken in good faith, states can persuasively and convincingly advance their legitimate interests, as well as the environmental principles that shape negotiated debate, when norms positively correlate to identified legitimacy criteria.
Notes: Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Toronto, 2005.

Includes bibliographical references (leaves 320-341)