including oil and gas, requires establishing rules for the promotion of the use of natural resources in order to improve public welfare, as well as to strengthen public institutions such as the judiciary and public authorities in order to enforce these rules. In most cases, it also requires political will, so that possession of resources located in the subsoil will bring tangible benefits to the citizens. Attention is also paid to the importance of sustainable development in the governance of the oil and gas sector, understood as a concept aimed at unifying a number of seemingly competitive goals, such as providing better living conditions and greater opportunities for people, especially those living in poverty, and adapting production and consumption to the framework that can be tolerated by ecosystems in the long term. The institutional architecture of global governance in the oil and gas sector is also discussed and specific legal challenges are identified.
The analysis of the content of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and the rights and obligations resulting from it, as well as the nature and character of global governance in the oil and gas sector, finding a normative source in this principle, has identified a complex of sectoral regulatory regimes governing oil and gas resources. The conclusions formulated in the first three chapters are developed in the fourth chapter, which includes the presentation of a complex of heterarchic regimes for global governance in oil and gas resources. It consists in particular of: trade; investment protection; resources in maritime areas; transparency and accountability of the oil and gas sector; and protection of local communities. Each of these regimes presents further, more detailed differentiations. However, it is clearly indicated that the boundaries of these regimes are not definite, and their differentiation cannot be determined categorically.
The summary of the work has been used to verify the research hypothesis and present the results obtained and the conclusions drawn.
2 BP Energy Outlook 2017, https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/energy-outlook-2017/bp-energy-outlook-2017.pdf (2018-06-11).
3 Compare: J. Colgan, R. Keohane, T. Van de Graaf, Punctuated equilibrium in the energy regime complex. The Review of International Organizations 2012, vol. 7, No. 2, p. 117–143; L. Baccini, V. Lenzi, P. Thurner, Global energy governance: Trade, infrastructure, and the diffusion of international organizations. International Interactions 2013, vol. 39, No. 2, p. 192–216; comprehensively: T. Van de Graaf, The Politics and Institutions of Global Energy Governance, Basingstoke 2013.
4 Notion defined by K. Raustiala, D. Victor, The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization 2004, t. 58, No. 2, p. 277–309.
5 Notion defined by F. Biermann, P. Pattberg, H. van Asselt, F. Zelli, The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis, Global Environmental Politics 2009, vol. 9, No. 4, p. 14–40.
6 Compare: M. Amstutz, V. Karavas, Weltrecht: Ein Derridasches Monster, (in): G.-P. Calliess, A. Fischer-Lescano, D. Wielsch, P. Zumbansen (ed.), Soziologische Jurisprudenz, Festschrift für Gunther Teubner zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2009, p. 645–672.
7 Compare: A. Hasenclever, P. Mayer, V. Rittberger, Theories of international regimes. Cambridge studies in international relations, vol. 55, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997, p. 162 et. seq.
8 A. Fischer-Lescano, G. Teubner, Fragmentierung des Weltrechts. Vernetzung globaler Regimes statt etatistischer Rechtseinheit, (in:) M. Albert, R. Stichweh (ed.), Weltstaat – Weltstaatlichkeit: Politische Strukturbildung nach der Globalisierung, Wiesbaden 2005, p. 10.
9 N. Luhmann, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt 1997, p. 595. See also: N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford 1995; N. Luhmann, Law as a Social System, Oxford 2004. See also: J. Osiejewicz, Harmonizacja prawa państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej, Warsaw 2016, p. 7–9; J. Osiejewicz, La frammentazione del diritto mondiale come determinante della sua armonizzazione, Rivista Diritto e Processo/derecho y proceso – right & remedies 2016, p. 374–387; J. Osiejewicz, Antropocentryczna lingwistyka języków specjalistycznych, (in:) S. Grucza, M. Olpińska-Szkiełko, M. Płużyczka, I. Banasiak, M. Łączek (ed.), F. Grucza, Dzieła zebrane. Tom 1. O nauce prof. Franciszka Gruczy. Wydanie jubileuszowe z okazji 80. rocznicy urodzin, Warsaw 2017, p. 181–194.
10 See.: G. Teubner, A. Fischer-Lescano, Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law, Michigan Journal of International Law 2004, vol. 25, p. 999–1046; G. Teubner, The King’s Many Bodies: The Self-Deconstruction of Law’s Hierarchy, Law & Society Review 1997, vol. 31, p. 763–788; G. Teubner, Contracting Worlds: The Many Autonomies of Private Law, Social & Legal Studies 2000, vol. 9, p. 339–417.
2. The principle of permanent sovereignty over wealth and natural resources
Sovereignty over natural resources is a derivative of two principles of international law: the self-determination of nations and the sovereignty of states. In the ruling in the case of Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda,11 the International Court of Justice stated that, having exceeded the framework of a non-binding concept, this principle became the rule of international customary law. Its formulation in Resolution No. 1803 of 14 December 1962, emphasizing its economic aspects, preceded further stages of its evolution, taking into account also the perspective of protection and rational use of natural resources. New trends, emerging in an increasingly interdependent world, bring about the creation of further duties and rights that require legislative efforts, including in the field of regulation of foreign investments, environmental protection, and sustainable development.
2.1 The historical context and evolution
The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources has basically two sources: on the one hand, the issue of economic development, especially in the so-called developing countries, and, on the other hand, the international principle of the right to self-determination and pacta sunt servanda, as well as the duty to cooperate for development.12 Undoubtedly, it is also anchored in the principle of sovereign equality.13 The basis for the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources has already been established by the United Nations Charter.14 Article 2, paragraph 7, introduces the concept of territorial jurisdiction of states, and recital 2 confirms the belief in the equality of nations large and small. Recital 4 calls for promoting social progress and improving living conditions in larger freedom. Article 1, paragraph 2, lists the principles of equality and self-determination of nations. In addition, Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations introduces the principle of sovereign equality of states. Article 55 establishes the need to promote economic and social progress and development, as well as the development and respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The post-war period abounded in universal undertakings whose aim was
