A matter is that the regulation of international environmental concerns, however categorized, generally entails the applications of international law as a whole. The sometimes difficult question is how to do so in an integrated and coherent manner. Given the great variety of potentially relevant environmental and other treaties and rules and principles of general international law, how do we determine their precise interaction? I considered this question in the context of comparison with WTO agreements. We could reach the interesting conclusion on this issue. In the event of a true conflict between WTO law and certain multilateral environmental agreement (MEA), the latter will prevail by virtue of Article 41 of the Vienna Convention. The necessary assumption, of course, is that the MEA provisions in question are 'integral' agreements for the common benefit of all states, form which of principally bilateral relations, form which derogation inter se will usually be permissible. Conflict and fragmentation are necessary consequences of the interaction of international environmental law with other branches of international law. In practice, international courts and tribunals have found various ways of applying international law as an integrated whole. Rule of interpretation, priority of treaties, or a balancing of competing interests have generally provided an ample range of techniques for promoting coherence in the application of international law.

A matter is that the regulation of international environmental concerns, however categorized, generally entails the applications of international law as a whole. The sometimes difficult question is how to do so in an integrated and coherent manner. Given the great variety of potentially relevant environmental and other treaties and rules and principles of general international law, how do we determine their precise interaction? I considered this question in the context of comparison with WTO agreements. We could reach the interesting conclusion on this issue. In the event of a true conflict between WTO law and certain multilateral environmental agreement (MEA), the latter will prevail by virtue of Article 41 of the Vienna Convention. The necessary assumption, of course, is that the MEA provisions in question are 'integral' agreements for the common benefit of all states, form which of principally bilateral relations, form which derogation inter se will usually be permissible. Conflict and fragmentation are necessary consequences of the interaction of international environmental law with other branches of international law. In practice, international courts and tribunals have found various ways of applying international law as an integrated whole. Rule of interpretation, priority of treaties, or a balancing of competing interests have generally provided an ample range of techniques for promoting coherence in the application of international law.

Multilateral Environmental Agreements: MEAs, WTO Agreements, Integrative Interpretation of treaty, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, lex posteriori rule, lex specialis rule.