Charting the Course When International Law Is Fragmented

Abstract

If our work is future-oriented, problem-solving, and global in scope, we are all climate lawyers now. But, beyond widening the epistemic circle of climate lawyers, we must understand two things. First, the reach of climate change law into so many areas of international law requires an understanding of how these laws fit together—clashing, supporting, side-stepping, deferring, pulling rank. Second, we need to constantly ask how they should fit together, and for which beneficiaries. From the perspective of the fragmentation of international law, trade lawyers, environmental lawyers, and human rights lawyers can be said to be climate lawyers now, but convergence is neither the best explanation nor the best normative guidepost. We should strategically embrace law making and adjudication everywhere, but be conscious that our attention might be diverted to particular functional ends when issues of mitigation or adaptation are framed to suit the structural biases or vocabularies of particular regimes.