Law and Science in Environmental Governance

Abstract The source of authority and the precise working of international law are highly contested among scholars of international law and international relations. Many agree, however, that legal argumentation takes a distinct form: signaling authority in global politics and leading to a less open display of power. Yet legal argumentation might not be so unique. In the field of environmental governance and environmental law, a similar debate exists about the quality and effects of scientific argumentation. Moreover, the logics of legal and scientific argumentation are oftentimes intertwined in the institutional structure of environmental regimes. This chapter analyzes the dispute around a moratorium on commercial whaling in the context of the International Whaling Commission. Which type of argumentation did states prefer in this multilateral context to contest the moratorium, and with what kind of effects? The chapter shows that in this highly politicized context, legal and scientific argumentation dominates but normative argumentation is surprisingly widespread. Moreover, different types of arguments are used by challengers for different ends and the institutional settings influence how these arguments can be dealt with.