58
Evangelos Raftopoulos
The identification of the context of the renegotiation governance of the con-
ventional environmental regime
has to be carried out by applying mutatis
mutandis the preceded analysis of the corresponding part of the conven-
tion-constitutive governance. The three interrelated regime-relational
criteria (contextual reference, contextual consistency and an added value
approach) are applied with equal force in assessing the required integra-
tion of the observed contextual developments. A holistic approach is even
more intensely followed and the guiding role of science is immensely fa-
cilitated by the very operation of the regime and the development of the
associative cohesion among the participants. Correspondingly, the pre-
scribed determinants of region-specific identity may play a similar role in
the renegotiation governance of the conventional regime.
On the other hand,
the identification of the form of the renegotiation gov-
ernance
focuses upon the issue of effecting
amendment or replacement
of
the Convention or its Protocols. In fact, the issue arises when an extensive
revision is intended, or is under way, by increasing the issue linkages and
introducing more integrative, efficient and specific aspects to the conven-
tional regime.
Amendment then or replacement?
The criteria for this choice
are directly related to the quality of the renegotiation governance of the
conventional regime in the light of its perceived direction in the manage-
ment of the risk. If the amendment of the conventional instrument is ex-
tensive, introducing issue linkages and penetrating into its substantive,
procedural and technical aspects, then a new conventional instrument
may emerge in replacement of the original one, if the Contracting Parties
decide so. Certainly, the criteria for this decision are not positively legal
19
and, even more, not political. They are actually related to the decision
making process in risk management within the framework of the conven-
tional environmental regime. The decision on replacing the renegotiated
19. It is characteristic that
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969
,
leaves the question of amendment or replacement unanswered. It simply pre-
scribes certain ground rules dealing with the procedure and the legal effects of
amendments (Arts. 39-40), thus being faithful to the inadequate contract-view
of treaties it pronounces and methodologically excluding from its purview
the element of decision-making process inherent in its public law conception
(Raftopoulos, 1990).
