6. Conclusions
This article argues that internationally harmonized – if not fully uniform - standards for GE are indispensable for the effective governance of these activities. Admittedly, national measures are required for the implementation and enforcement of international norms, especially those regulating commercial and other non-state actors. However, domestic regulation is unlikely to be successful in the absence of some harmonized criteria for GE, due to the transboundary impact of GE and the likely differences among stakeholders in how they perceive risks of GE. In the absence of a uniform approach at the international level, states may allow (or may not be able to preclude) large-scale GE experiments and, potentially, give a green light to commercial development and application of SRM projects without sufficiently considering their risks, uncertainties and impacts.
While a prohibition on GE has been advocated by some States and organizations, it is, in this author’s view, feasible to focus efforts on the development of effective, workable norms and procedures to govern GE. Examples of CBD and IMO show that a (functional) prohibition may be accomplished by the adoption of criteria and procedures to govern GE projects, to the extent they are governed by these frameworks. However, the discussion in this chapter shows that key issues of international law and governance of GE remain debatable, including the desirability of a universal, international initiative to address GE in multilateral instruments. This gives reasons to fear that sectoral accomplishments of the international community under auspices of CBD and IMO will turn out to be exceptions, not followed up by international regulatory attempts in the UN- or other multilateral frameworks.
To conclude, the international community has not yet used the full potential of international law to tackle emerging GE issues. It remains to be seen how the gaps in the international regulation of GE will be filled: by public international law measures adopted by States and international organizations or rather by self-regulation and judicial law-making. While the latter two approaches may be a welcome addition to the GE governance framework, they are poorly suited to deal with emergency or crises situations that GE has an ambition to solve. Lingering in the development of international norms on GE will not hinder technological and scientific progress and, ultimately, commercial deployment of GE techniques. The lack of harmonized approach to GE may amplify the risk that individual States will authorize GE projects in contravention of environmental law principles, including the precautionary principle. In the next decades, the legal research community, in collaboration with other sciences, faces challenging tasks, as it has to promote knowledge-based decision-making on GE at the international and national level and to work out feasible and effective legal solutions for GE.