Alexander Proelß

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Volume 20 (2022), Issue 3, Page 321 - 332

This article examines Germany’s regulation of ocean-based negative emissions technologies and demonstrates the legislature’s domestic implementation of the London Protocol and its 2013 amendment on “marine geoengineering.” This article notes that the German legislature has deviated from the regulatory approach of the 2013 amendment, adopting even stricter requirements to be applied in the context of negative emissions technologies in German waters. In doing so, it provides a comprehensive analysis of the classification, exceptions and permit procedure (potentially) applicable in the case of specific carbon removal activities, including ocean fertilization, artificial upwelling, and seaweed cultivation. By providing a timely examination of the overlap and nuances involved in Germany’s domestic regulation of ocean-based negative emissions technologies, the article stresses that a complete understanding of the different applicable domestic Acts is necessary for an accurate evaluation of the legality of any particular carbon dioxide removal activity.

Klaus F. Gärditz, Ekkehard Hofmann, Alexander Proelß

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Volume 20 (2022), Issue 3, Page 247 - 247

Alexander Proelß

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Volume 17 (2019), Issue 2, Page 109 - 109

Alexander Proelß

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Volume 17 (2019), Issue 1, Page 1 - 1

Alexander Proelß

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Volume 17 (2019), Issue 1, Page 72 - 83

This article discusses the relationship between international climate change law, as embodied in the 2015 Paris Agreement, on the one hand and the EU Energy Union on the other. Following assessments of the regulatory approaches on which the Paris Agreement is based, and of the origins, scope and consequences of the deepening of supranational cooperation on the field of energy policy initiated in the very same year when the Paris Agreement was signed, it concludes that by adopting the first part of the legislative package “Clean Energy for all Europeans”, the EU has taken a major step to demonstrate its willingness to activate its potential as pioneer of climate policy also in relation to its Member States. In particular, the EU has successfully avoided to develop its energy policy in a way that would conflict with the requirements of international climate change law. That said, whether or not the Energy Union will ultimately be considered as an effective mechanism for achieving, on a regional level, the objectives pursued by the Paris Agreement depends on its proper implementation by the Member States.

Monika Böhm, Alexander Proelß

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Volume 17 (2019), Issue 3, Page 287 - 287

Alexander Proelß

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Volume 17 (2019), Issue 4, Page 415 - 415

Alexander Proelß

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Volume 16 (2018), Issue 4, Page 392 - 404

This article revisits the debate whether domestic law of a coastal State is only applicable in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) if that State has expressly or implicitly extended the scope of application of the relevant provisions of domestic law to this maritime zone. Notwithstanding the fact that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) does not seem to provide a clear answer to this question, this paper argues that the view advocating that domestic law would be automatically applicable in the EEZ and that, thus, a declaration extending the scope of application of the relevant rules and principles to this zone would not be necessary, ought to be dismissed. By referring to the example of foreign-flagged liftboats, it furthermore provides an analysis of how to distinguish ships from platforms under the UNCLOS, and attempts to demonstrate that the coastal State is generally not entitled to subject such vessels to its jurisdiction, even though they are operated in the EEZ for the purpose of constructing offshore wind energy platforms (with regard to which the coastal State exercises exclusive jurisdiction under the UNCLOS).

Alexander Proelß

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Volume 13 (2015), Issue 4, Page 314 - 329

Germany is a party to both the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Berne Convention) and has implemented these international agreements by way of ratifying laws in its domestic legal system. It is noteworthy that the wording of the definitions of the term „taking“ codified in these laws deviates from the pertinent definitions contained in the CMS and Berne Convention in so far as it does not refer to subjective criteria such as a „willful“ and „deliberate“ that have (expressly or implicitly) been included in the text of the two international agreements. The question thus arises whether the German legislator has subjected the taking of protected animals in terms of the CMS and the Berne Convention to stricter requirements under domestic law, which would result in a considerable broadening of the prohibition of taking. Following an in-depth analysis of the relevant conceptions codified in the two international agreements as well as the ratifying laws, this article argues that the subjective elements contained in the definitions of „taking“ under the CMS and Berne Convention have indeed consciously been omitted, and that the prohibition of taking of protected animals under German law thus also covers negligent action. That said, in light of international legal requirements in respect of lawful uses of the oceans, this article submits that an harassment of protected animals (which constitutes under the international agreements concerned one of the alternative behaviors that would result in a „taking“) can only be assumed if the course of action exceeds a critical threshold.

Alexander Proelß

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Volume 12 (2014), Issue 3, Page 241 - 245

Anmerkung zu den Schiedssprüchen des Schiedsgerichts vom 18.2.2013 und 20.12.2013 im Fall Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India)