Contenu du sommaire

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction or sequestration projects (especially Afforestation/ Reforestation projects) – when implemented in developing countries who ratified the Kyoto Protocol and following the process defined by the Clean Development Mechanism – can generate tradable emission credits which certify real, additional and sustainable GHG emission reductions. Those emission credits or «Certified Emission Reduction » are freely transferable to a third party. But, as for any sale, the seller must be the owner or its mandatory. He must be able to do the sale and transfer the property rights to the buyer while keeping in mind that the right to dispose of something is solely the owner right. But, what is the thing we are talking about concerning Certified Emission Reduction ? Who is considered as the owner ? How the rights of the different parties involved in such project or impacted by it could be considered ? This is precisely the diverse elements that are analysed in this article.

The conventional system regarding the Carpathian Mountains, in full process of establishment (as of today, it consists only of The Framework Convention On The Protection And Sustainable Development Of The Carpathians -2003 -and The Protocol on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological and Landscape -2008) follows and it is inspired from the one regarding the Alps but it stands, in the same time, as a superior stage in the development of the judicial framework of regional cooperation, regarding the integrated management of the economic and social issues of the transnational mountain chains. The Carpathian Convention and the Biodiversity Protocol fall in the post-Rio generation of documents, by achieving a direct relation and correlation with the intention of the Convention on biological diversity (1992), the European documents in the field, and it also stands as a customization to the specific of the mountain area, in general, and to the Carpathians, in particular. Being a document open to the influences of the concrete realities and of the conventional evolutions, the Biodiversity Protocol forwards a dynamic and flexible vision, always adapting and customizing, and it can establish, in turn, a new starting point in developing the environmental dimension (chapter) of international (regional) mountain law.

The actions in responsibility against the companies involved in greenhouse gas emissions for compensation of climate change damages are growing before the American jurisdictions. However, these damages are uncertain, indefinite. The liability of those companies engaged further to the occurrence of such damages is elusive, and varied, as well as the chain of the responsibilities concerned is indistinct and long. The admissibility of these damages and actions, as well as the liability of those companies is finally settled by an audacious renewal of the legal and political mechanisms of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, this judicial movement underlies a logic of overtaking the reticence of States about imposing thresholds in order to reduce the greenhouse gases emissions.

The set up of an ad hoc non-compliance procedure for the Espoo Convention and its Kiev Protocol is representative of the ' learning by doing' method many conventional regimes have adopted. On the one hand, a reactive monitoring system is little by little developed not by means of additional conventional obligations but by using successive strata of decisions made by the Conference of the Parties. On the other hand, the non-compliance procedure is progressively fleshed out as the review of implementation and non-compliance procedures grow intertwined but also on the basis of the experience gained in the handling of potential non-compliance situations, which contributes to the progressive clarification of both the scope of the non-compliance review and the consequences a non-compliant party might face.

Biosphere reserves are privileged areas recognized under UNESCO "The Man and the Biosphere" (MAB) Programme. International designation, States must pursue a series of objectives and follow certain principles. However it is not hard rules, creativity in national definition and implementation of the biosphere concept is regarded as one of its strengths. The Madrid Action Plan (2008-2013) promotes biosphere reserves as a distinct notion, recommending States that they receive a legal strengthened recognition. The aim is to stimulate the creation of transition areas. Unlike other European countries, the discussions have not led to the emergence of an autonomous notion in the French order. In the absence, we must nevertheless consider the richness of its legislative framework. We will assess whether the discipline can enhance biosphere reserves in accordance with objectives of the MAB Programme. Particular attention is also given to the revision procedure whose MAB reserves are subject.

The years 2009 to 2011 are marked by several elements in civil environmental law : the adaptation of the waste directive and its effects on the French positive law, an evolution of the judiciary jurisprudence on the cleaning up of the soil by the Classified Installations for the Protection of the Environment law (the ICPE law), two decisions which expressly establish the precautionary principle like a civil source of responsibility in event of failure and of the judgement of the first civil court relating to the imputability of the responsibility which could have applications in event of diffuse pollution. As for the commercial law it was very marked by the " Grenelle " of the environment, the financial markets also knew evolutions following the adoption of directives constituting the " package climate-energy " and finally the question of the reparation of a contamined site is currents issues.