About

Cymie R. Payne is a member of the Rutgers University faculty, where she teaches international and environmental law. She serves as Chair of the Ocean Law Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, World Commission on Environmental Law. Professor Payne acts as counsel on behalf of the International Union for Conservation of Nature before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in its current climate change case and in previous advisory opinion cases related to deep seabed mining and fisheries. She was an expert on environmental reparations in the International Court of Justice case Certain Activities (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). Additionally, she participated as counsel for the United Nations Compensation Commission in reparations for environmental damage due to armed conflict and contributed to the creation of an environmental award oversight program to ensure that awards were used to restore environmental harm. Professor Payne has also been a member of the Berkeley Law faculty and served as an attorney with the U.S. Department of the Interior and the law firm of Goodwin, Procter. She holds a MA from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from the University of California, Berkeley. She is a Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers and was a member of the International Law Association Committee on Sustainable Natural Resource Management For Development.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Sociology
• Law
• Business
• Environmental science
• Finance
• Environmental planning
• Ecology
• Geography
• Environmental resource management
• Law and economics
• Engineering

Selected publications

• Kristina M. Gjerde (1957–2025)

  Nature Ecology & Evolution · 2026-03-27

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Fair and Feasible Governance of Marine Geoengineering

  2025-03-26

  preprintOpen accessSenior authorCorresponding

  BackgroundGeoengineering, “a broad set of methods and technologies that aim to deliberately alter the climate system,”[1] has been hailed by some as a solution to the climate crisis. A focus on marine cloud brightening, marine carbon dioxide removal, sea ice enhancement, and other technologies have put the ocean in the center of the discussion. Actors as informal as individuals and small start-ups, and as significant as major corporations and countries, have begun piloting experiments and selling carbon credits. Geoengineering technologies are backed by venture capitalists and governments that have the capacity to invest.The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea recently advised that under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, parties have the obligation to take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution resulting from the use of technologies under their jurisdiction or control and warned that geoengineering techniques that transform one type of pollution into another would be contrary to the Convention.Against this backdrop, a growing number of scientists, decisionmakers, and human rights advocates have been examining the assumptions and actions of this burgeoning industry and have identified the following concerns:pilot studies are being funded and conducted without scientific backing, and with only a superficial understanding of potential impacts or benefits, no proper consultation is being carried out, and there is currently no policy, regulatory or governance framework that consistently and specifically addresses risk and impact assessment of geoengineering proposals for activities taking place beyond, and in many cases within, national jurisdictions. While the Oxford Principles[2] offer an important foundation, it is evident that these activities must be brought within a governance structure that rigorously adheres to scientific credibility and respect for human rights, using the Precautionary Principle as a guide. Relying on both existing instruments and novel investigation, we offer three sets of framing questions and directions for a coherent governance approach that we will develop over the coming year. Filling the Governance Void Scaling Oversight Marine geoengineering technologies conducted within national jurisdictions could impact other States as well as areas beyond national jurisdiction.Can a coherent governance regime be built to address the varying short, medium and long term considerations? How far into the future should we consider impacts, both positive and negative? How do we assign spatial jurisdiction and therefore assign responsibility and accountability? Recognizing Stakeholders The sphere of influence for marine geoengineering is broad.Who has rights under geoengineering and what are those stakeholder rights? How should surveillance be balanced with individual rights? Who should be consulted and informed? Adapting to Change Money and geopolitics can influence policy and governance, and shifts in technology can render regulations obsolete.How can we ensure that the governance of geoengineering is robust to both endogenous and exogenous change? How do we make wise use of existing instruments, (g., the London Protocol)? What justification should be required for geoengineering to be considered? [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2

  PublisherDOI

• The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law: A Solid Legal Foundation for State Obligations on Climate Change

  Ocean Yearbook Online · 2025-06-20

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Abstract for Scopus Indexing: On May 21, 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ( ITLOS ) issued an advisory opinion on States’ specific obligations to address greenhouse gas pollution and protection and preservation of the marine environment in relation to climate change and ocean acidification. The opinion highlights the science of climate change, particularly IPCC reports, the international rules and standards of climate change, and the means and capabilities of States. The Tribunal analyzed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS ), finding that greenhouse gases are pollutants within the scope of UNCLOS and therefore under UNCLOS States Parties have obligations to prevent, reduce, and control greenhouse gases from any source; to protect and preserve the marine environment; to cooperate with other States for this purpose; and to prepare environmental impact assessments taking into account cumulative impacts. ITLOS found that the standard for performing these obligations is one of conduct, and that due to the risk of serious and sometimes irreversible harm, the due diligence requirements are stringent. The opinion relies heavily on external international rules, incorporated as rules of reference under UNCLOS , including the Paris Agreement, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and other relevant treaties.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Part IV: Environmental Impact Assessments

  Oxford University Press eBooks · 2025-11-10 · 1 citations

  book-chapterSenior author

  Abstract This chapter provides the background, key negotiation issues, and analysis of each article of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Part IV, of the Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement. This Part of the Agreement sets out States Parties’ objectives, obligations, and procedures to conduct assessments of planned activities under their jurisdiction and control. These include identifying the thresholds and factors that must be considered when determining whether or not an EIA should be conducted, describing the EIA process itself, public notification and consultation, decision-making as to whether or not an activity may proceed, and subsequent monitoring of the impacts of authorized activities, including reporting and review of the monitoring. The Part includes a list of standards and guidelines to be developed by the Scientific and Technical Body for particular EIA requirements. It also directs the States Parties to consider conducting strategic environmental assessments, providing some additional guidance for that process.

  PublisherDOI

• A Multitude, in Celebration of David D Caron

  2024-01-18

  book-chapter

  Abstract This chapter introduces the volume by placing the chapters in the volume into conversation with the work of David Caron. The introduction highlights international dispute resolution, environmental law, and the law of the sea as key fields upon which Caron’s work focused, and considers the values which animated that work. Beginning with lessons from the history of dispute settlement, the introduction explores how Caron’s work—and the chapters in this volume—use the history of international dispute settlement in order to identify cross-cutting themes and lessons for its future. It then canvasses Caron’s work on the institutions and actors relevant to international dispute settlement to explore the role of politics and of various assorted stakeholders—including international courts and tribunals, adjudicators, their secretariats and research assistances, states, the UN General Assembly and Security Council, and the public—in the development and practice of law in this field. The introduction next turns to key issues of procedural and substantive law that animated the work of Caron, including highlighting the connections between legal procedures and substantive rules and principles with the legitimacy and effectiveness of international courts and tribunals and their capacity to achieve their stated goals and functions. The introduction concludes by looking to the future, considering possible future trajectories for international dispute settlement, and highlighting the insights that Caron’s work—and the work of contributors to this volume—may offer to ensure that international law and its institutions remain appropriated adapted to respond flexibly, effectively, and legitimately to as-yet uncontemplated future developments.

  PublisherDOI

• Taking climate-smart governance to the high seas

  Science · 2024 · 14 citations

  • Political Science
  • Business
  • Political Science

  Comprehensive spatial planning in international waters is key to achieving ocean sustainability.

  PublisherDOI

• The high seas are supposed to belong to everyone – a new UN treaty aims to make it law

  2023-03-07

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• State responsibility for deep seabed mining obligations

  2023-12-14

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  This chapter addresses State responsibility and liability for failure to comply with the obligations established in respect of deep-seabed mining under UNCLOS. According to the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility, for particular conduct to be characterized as an internationally wrongful act, it must first be attributable to the State. However, the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has issued an advisory opinion interpreting State responsibility and liability of States sponsoring deep seabed mining in the Area that is, in the seabed of areas beyond national jurisdiction, under UNCLOS. If the ISA, through action or inaction in its administration of the deep seabed mining regime, causes serious harm to the marine environment it is difficult to argue that it does not bear responsibility to the international community that is at least equivalent to that borne by States.

  PublisherDOI

• Getting beyond yes: fast-tracking implementation of the United Nations agreement for marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction

  npj Ocean Sustainability · 2022 · 41 citations

  • Political Science
  • Political Science
  • Environmental planning

  With a new international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) on the horizon, now is the time to start laying the foundation for successful implementation. This paper provides some initial reflections for supporting rapid, effective, and equitable implementation of the BBNJ Agreement in three priority areas: (1) bringing the Agreement into force; (2) establishing the institutional framework, including financial mechanisms; and (3) developing capacity, science, and technology. With reference to selected examples from other international processes, the paper makes suggestions for encouraging wide ratification of the BBNJ Agreement, establishing a Preparatory Commission (PrepCom), mobilizing resources, and building partnerships to advance science and capacity. The growing impacts of climate change and human activities on the global ocean necessitate urgent action, so we must begin to work on the implementation of the BBNJ Agreement as soon as possible to secure ocean health for the benefit of present and future generations.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Responsibility to the international community for marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction

  Cambridge International Law Journal · 2022-01-01 · 5 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  International law still struggles with an understanding of an ‘international community’ that has legally cognisable interests distinguishable from those of individual sovereign States. This international community is imagined variously as the collectivity of sovereign States, an abstract concept of all human beings, an international body, or a non-governmental organisation tasked with representing humanity (or even the planet). The further these concepts move from traditional State sovereignty, the more fanciful they may seem to international relations realists, yet the participation of corporations, communities, public interest organisations and individuals in treaty-making, international litigation, and other fora of international law tells a different story: international law is not always a ‘States only’ activity. The international community is conceived as having interests, possibly as having rights, and perhaps as having duties. For such rights and duties to be realised, there must be State or non-State entities that can act on behalf of the international community (let us call these ‘avatars’). Here, roles that the international community’s avatar might assume in a treaty regime for conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) are examined, which allows us to move from academic speculation to concrete scenario analysis. The starting premise is that BBNJ obligations will be owed to the international community as a whole: erga omnes obligations. They will not be bilateral, nor will they solely address narrow national interests.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Don Anton

  5 shared

• Robert Makgill

  4 shared

• Kristina M. Gjerde

  Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey

  3 shared

• José C. Xavier

  University of Coimbra

  3 shared

• Ćhiara Giorgetti

  2 shared

• Lydia Slobodian

  Georgetown University

  2 shared

• Larry B. Crowder

  Stanford University

  2 shared

• Tundi Agardy

  University of Worcester

  2 shared

Education

• Juris Doctor

  University of California Berkeley School of Law

  1997

• Master of Arts, International Environmental Law and Policy

  Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy

  1993

Awards & honors

• Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers