This paper rigorously examines the complexities and challenges posed by legal fragmentation within the current treaty-based civil liability regimes, especially as they relate to dispute resolution in cross-border environmental cases. Analyzing the inherent limitations of existing systems, the paper probes into the underlying reasons for governments' hesitation to partake in and ratify civil liability treaties, pinpointing issues such as conflicting national interests, contentious treaty content, and prohibitive transaction costs. Moving beyond mere identification of challenges, the study offers a thorough investigation into multifaceted solutions designed to enhance international collaboration and commitment. Strategies explored include the judicious implementation of liability caps to protect domestic interests, the creation of compensation funds to provide assurance for victims, the innovative concept of 'issue linkage' to bridge disparate interests, and comprehensive legal methodologies that transcend traditional approaches. Together, these interwoven solutions aim to forge a more resilient, responsive, and effective international legal framework, contributing positively to both environmental protection and legal coherence.

Zehua Tian. Legal Fragmentation in Cross-Border Environmental Disputes: A Treaty-Based Regime. The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology (2023) Vol. 5, Issue 13: 7-14. https://doi.org/10.25236/FSST.2023.051302.

[1] Cogan J K, The Idea of Fragmentation [J]. American Society of International Law Proceedings, 2011, 123.

[2] Cohen H G, From Fragmentation to Constitutionalization [J]. Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal, 2012, 385.

[3] Holmes P, The Rhetoric of Legal Fragmentation and Its Discontents - Evolutionary Dilemmas in the Constitutional Semantics of Global Law [J]. Utrecht Law Review, 2011, 113-140.

[4] Fischer-Lescano A, Teubner G, Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law [J]. Michigan Journal of International Law, 2004, 1003.

[5] Dean J M, Lovely M E, Wang H, Are foreign investors attracted to weak environmental regulations? Evaluating the evidence from China [J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2009, 1-13.

[6] Jagers N, The Legal Status of the Multinational Corporation under International Law. In Addo M (ed.), Human Rights Standards and the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations [M]. 1999, 262.

[7] Pantazopoulos S-E, Towards a Coherent Framework of Transnational Corporations’ Responsibility in International Environmental Law [J]. Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 2014, 144.

[8] Criddle E J, Proportionality in Counterinsurgency: A Relational Theory [J]. Notre Dame Law Review, 2012.

[9] Mankiw N G, Principles of microeconomics (8th ed.) [M]. CENGAGE Learning Custom Publishing, 2016.

[10] Sachs N, Beyond the Liability Wall: Strengthening Tort Remedies in International Environmental Law [J]. UCLA Law Review, 2008, 854-857.

[11] Part information is collected at ECOLEX [OB], https://www.ecolex.org/, accessed on 09/08/2023.