Global spearheads of sustainability: In how far Environmental Convention Secretariats' functions and discretions are legally defined

Multilateral Environmental Agreements - MEAs (or “Environmental Conventions”) are indispensable legal frameworks for environmental sustainability and regularly also defining the operating rules of their implementation... [ view full abstract ]

Multilateral Environmental Agreements - MEAs (or “Environmental Conventions”) are indispensable legal frameworks for environmental sustainability and regularly also defining the operating rules of their implementation bodies. MEAs themselves show a variety of normative structures from framework conventions to rather “one-fits-all”- agreements. The functions of their executive units, usually called “Secretariats”, also differ widely. The contribution assesses in how far these functional norms differ and also reflect on actual functions for three MEAs, namely 1) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora-CITES(1973), 2) the Convention on Biological Diversity–CBD(1992), and 3) the Convention on Migratory Species–CMS(1979). It does so by comparative legal interpretation of the main norms of these MEAs laying down the functions of its respective Secretariats as well as an in-depth review of academic literature about these functions. It is in particular analyzed whether certain functions appear in all or only some of these agreements and to which extent the particular formulation of a certain function provides discretion to the respective Secretariat. A particular focus lies in exploring the reasons for differences observed. The results for these three conventions are presented according to nine functional areas and show a wide range of different functions laid down in the conventions as well as an extensive variety in the discretion for many of these functional areas. Potential explanations of these formal differences are provided. The findings also indicate that actually executed functions may not be fully covered by the underlying legal norms but by rather “flexible” highest governing bodies of MEAs. The contribution also presents some limiting factors of the current study and concludes in particular by criticizing the unusual legislative style in these MEAs regarding defining functions of rule-making as well as by providing some hints towards future research directions.

Keywords: convention, secretariat, function, discretion, difference

References Mauerhofer V. (forthcoming), Activities of MEA-Secretariats: how far law predetermines different discretion. Invited contribution in Jorgens H. et al (Eds), Still Managers of Global Change? Reassessing the Role and Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies, MIT-Press, Cambridge/MA, US.