Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that ISDS is an asymmetrical system that often undermines state sovereignty and public interest. It suggests reforms including the multilateral termination of bilateral investment treaties (BITs), allowing state counterclaims, creating 'public interest carve-outs' to protect the right to regulate, implementing 'clean hands' clauses to bar bad-actor investors, requiring the exhaustion of local remedies, and granting third parties full legal standing in proceedings.

The document analyzes the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, detailing the scientific consensus on global warming and the diplomatic tensions between industrialized and developing nations during its creation. It highlights the lack of binding emissions targets and the complexities of the financial mechanism and technology transfer.

The document argues that a small number of fossil fuel and cement producers, termed 'Carbon Majors', are responsible for a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions and the subsequent climate crisis. It details how these entities' activities and disinformation campaigns have led to severe human rights violations, particularly in the Philippines, where climate-induced disasters like Typhoon Haiyan have caused immense loss of life and livelihood. The text leverages international human rights law, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the 'Carbon Majors' study to establish a framework for corporate accountability and legal liability for climate damages.

The report examines 38 cases of international arbitration brought by mining companies against Latin American states, highlighting a pattern where corporate legal protections are used to bypass national courts and penalize governments for implementing public health, environmental, or indigenous rights policies. It identifies Canada as a primary source of mining investment and litigation in the region and argues that the current ISDS framework creates a 'chilling effect' on democratic regulation. The document details specific cases in countries such as El Salvador, Colombia, and Venezuela, and proposes a shift toward a legal framework that prioritizes human rights and environmental protection over investor profits.

The report argues that many high-emitting governments knew about the link between fossil fuel combustion and global warming as early as the 1960s, triggering legal duties to prevent harm long before the 1990s. It uses a timeline of scientific milestones and country-specific evidence to challenge claims by States that awareness only emerged in the late 1980s, linking this knowledge to the 'no-harm' principle of customary international law.

The document examines the negative impacts of ISDS on environmental and climate policy, noting that at least 175 cases are tied to environmental measures. It argues that the threat of arbitration disincentivizes states from enacting climate laws and that current treaty reforms are insufficient, suggesting that treaty termination and a shift toward domestic courts are the most effective solutions.

The report argues that pesticides banned in their country of manufacture are classified as 'hazardous wastes' under the Bamako Convention and the Central American Agreement. Because many importing nations in Africa and Central America have monist legal systems or specific domestic laws incorporating these definitions, the report concludes that exporting such substances from Basel Convention parties (including the EU, UK, and Switzerland) violates the Basel Convention, international customary law, and the extraterritorial human rights obligation to protect the right to health.

The document analyzes different national implementation mechanisms for multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) to provide recommendations for the negotiations of a plastics treaty. It distinguishes between National Action Plans (NAPs), which are typically broad and voluntary strategic documents, and National Implementation Plans (NIPs), which are precise, legally binding road maps for meeting treaty obligations. The authors argue that NAPs often suffer from a "lack of performance" and "insufficient ambition," whereas NIPs are more effective at identifying gaps and mobilizing resources. The brief specifically warns against adopting the NDC model used in the Paris Agreement, stating that unilaterally determined targets are "woefully inadequate" and should not be used for the plastics treaty. Instead, it recommends a hybrid approach combining NIP and NAP characteristics, supported by clear language, effective monitoring, and technical and financial assistance, particularly for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

The document argues that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is a viable forum for indigenous Arctic peoples to seek redress for global warming impacts, such as melting sea ice and thawing permafrost, which threaten their rights to life, health, property, and culture. While the Commission cannot force emissions reductions or compensation, a formal finding of human rights violations would provide a legal basis for accountability and increase global pressure on major emitters like the United States.

The report argues that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, creating a legal obligation for States and corporations to provide effective remedy and reparations. It critiques the UNFCCC's voluntary approach to loss and damage, highlighting how it fails to uphold human rights standards and is hampered by debt injustice in the Global South. The document outlines legal pathways through international courts (ICJ, ITLOS, IACtHR) and national litigation to enforce accountability. Finally, it proposes six guiding principles for climate reparations—victim-centric, inclusive, intersectional, adequate, accountable, and trackable—drawing on lessons from other large-scale harm mechanisms.

The document outlines the typology of international legal instruments, distinguishing between treaties, conventions, and agreements, and examines the structures of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). It specifically addresses the need for a new global instrument to tackle the plastics crisis, suggesting a 'start-and-strengthen' approach and highlighting the importance of a clear mandate and flexible institutional structures.

The report argues that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) lacks substantive new environmental obligations and relies on enforcement mechanisms that have historically proven ineffective in other U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs). It highlights the absence of a reference to climate change and the elimination of independent oversight bodies, such as a Secretariat. Furthermore, the document identifies Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) as a significant threat, noting its potential to 'chill' environmental regulation and allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws.

The report examines the ZEDE law in Honduras, which creates autonomous zones with their own judicial and administrative systems. It argues that these zones undermine democratic governance, threaten indigenous land rights, and lack transparency. The author contends that IDB funding for ZEDEs would violate the bank's own operational policies regarding indigenous peoples, environmental governance, and access to information.

The document argues that the LAPSSET project violates Kenyan constitutional and international legal obligations. It highlights failures in meaningful participation and access to information, which infringe upon the right to development. The amici assert that the project risks causing environmental degradation that would violate rights to adequate housing, water, food, and health. Furthermore, it claims the project would lead to unlawful forced evictions and harm the rights of the Lamu people as indigenous/tribal peoples. Finally, it argues that the project threatens the cultural and natural heritage of Lamu Old Town, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

This report details ten landmark climate change cases across different countries, highlighting how courts are holding governments and corporations accountable. Key examples include the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, which established a state's legal duty to increase climate ambition, and the Milieudefensie v. Shell case, which held a private company liable for inadequate emissions reductions. The document explores diverse legal strategies, including human rights obligations, fiduciary duties of corporate boards, and the necessity of climate considerations in environmental impact assessments.

ClientEarth asserts that the European Commission must use its legislative powers to amend or withdraw the current CAP reform proposal, as it conflicts with the climate and biodiversity goals of the European Green Deal. The briefing claims that relying on non-binding recommendations or the goodwill of co-legislators is insufficient and may constitute a breach of EU law principles, specifically those of consistency, good administration, and environmental integration.

ClientEarth's feedback on the EU's Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy emphasizes the need for high environmental standards, public transparency, and regional cooperation. It argues that the strategy must adhere to the 'do no harm' principle and the precautionary principle, ensuring that the deployment of offshore wind and other ocean energies does not compromise biodiversity or ignore the rights of public participation under the Aarhus Convention. The document suggests a regional approach to grid development and targeted financial support for technologies that have not yet reached grid parity, such as wave energy.

ClientEarth supports a combination of regulatory and non-regulatory measures to revise the Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) to align with the European Green Deal. The organization advocates for a 2030 emissions reduction target of at least 65%, the exclusion of non-renewable hydrogen from support, and the removal of biomass from the category of renewable energy sources due to its impact on climate, health, and biodiversity.

The document outlines the critical role of cocoa in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, where together they produce over 60% of the cocoa for the USD$130 billion global chocolate industry. It argues that the sector is hindered by poverty, child labor, and deforestation, and proposes a series of research papers to analyze national legal frameworks, identify governance loopholes, and assess the impact of EU and UK regulations on sustainability.

The document synthesises a Commission Report and an external study on the EU's implementation of the Aarhus Convention. It identifies significant barriers for environmental NGOs seeking to challenge EU acts, particularly the restriction of internal reviews to acts of 'individual scope'. The analysis concludes that non-legislative guidance is insufficient and that only legislative options—specifically amending the Aarhus Regulation and introducing an Access to Justice Directive—can effectively remedy these shortcomings and ensure compliance with the Convention.