Search Climate Insights Directory

This statement by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance on October 30, 2013, argues that the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could undermine public health and environmental protections, particularly regarding toxic chemicals. CIEL warns that mechanisms like regulatory harmonization, mutual recognition, and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) may lower safety standards to a 'lowest-common denominator' and chill the development of more protective laws in the U.S., EU, and globally.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submitted comments on the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (FTA), arguing that its investment chapter fails to meet the Trade Act of 2002 mandate that foreign investors receive no greater substantive rights than domestic investors. CIEL expresses concern that the investor-state dispute mechanism undermines national regulatory powers, lacks an appellate process, and lacks a general environmental exception, potentially threatening public health and environmental protections.

This briefing by Friends of the Earth International examines how the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations following the 2001 Doha Ministerial Conference may undermine the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The document highlights conflicts between trade liberalization and biodiversity protection, specifically regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural subsidies, and intellectual property rights.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) provides a series of suggested amendments to the Chairman's Paper for the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). CIEL argues that the original paper overemphasizes economic growth and national governance while neglecting environmental protection, human rights, and the necessity of multilateral cooperation.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that the 2001 Bush energy plan violates international law and the UN Climate Convention by significantly increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) limits the regulatory authority of EU Member States by imposing strict standards on domestic licensing processes, potentially allowing Canadian companies to challenge environmental and social protections through international arbitration.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the impact of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on sustainable development, specifically critiquing the draft Chapter on IPRs within the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The author argues that the FTAA proposes "TRIPS-plus" standards that exceed multilateral requirements, potentially hindering public health, food security, and technological development in developing countries by restricting regulatory flexibility and expanding private patent rights.

This research paper by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) chapter of the draft Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement. The author argues that the draft represents a 'TRIPS-plus' approach that increases protection levels beyond the WTO's TRIPS Agreement, thereby reducing the regulatory flexibility of developing countries to address public health, food security, and sustainable development.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms act as a major legal and financial barrier to climate action. It contends that ISDS allows fossil fuel investors to sue governments for implementing climate regulations, creating a "chilling effect" that deters states from phasing out fossil fuels and aligning financial flows with the Paris Agreement.

A letter dated February 28, 2006, from several U.S. state Attorneys General to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce opposing specific provisions of HR 4591. The bill aims to implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Treaty), but the signees argue it contains overly broad preemption language and flawed EPA review procedures that would hinder state and federal environmental protections.

This research paper explores the conceptual evolution of 'international environmental law' toward a framework of 'global environmental law,' arguing that the traditional state-centric approach is insufficient for addressing planetary ecological crises. The author advocates for a shift toward 'global citizenship' and the recognition of the 'global citizen' as a subject of law to ensure the protection of the global commons and the sustainability of the biosphere.

This briefing paper analyzes the prospects and challenges of negotiating a multilateral investment agreement within the World Trade Organization (WTO) following the Doha Ministerial Statement. It critiques existing international investment agreements (IIAs), specifically NAFTA's Chapter 11 and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), for prioritizing investor rights over public welfare and sustainable development. The author argues that the WTO may lack the institutional capacity to deliver a balanced agreement and proposes a new framework that incorporates obligations for investors and home states alongside the rights of host states to regulate in the public interest.

This fact sheet by Natural Justice outlines concerns regarding the proposed reform of the Land Law in Mozambique, specifically focusing on 'Draft 1' of the legislation. The document argues that the proposed law moves toward the privatisation of land, removes access to 'unavailable land', and fails to provide legal guarantees for local communities or protection against forced displacement.

This fact sheet by Natural Justice critiques the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill, arguing that its goal to accelerate petroleum exploitation in South Africa contradicts the country's climate commitments, threatens biodiversity, and lacks sufficient public consultation.