Search Climate Insights Directory

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues for the inclusion of trade-related measures as core obligations in a proposed international treaty to end plastic pollution. It highlights the scale of global plastics trade, examines how previous Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) have used trade provisions to achieve environmental goals, and proposes specific trade mechanisms—such as bans, permits, and reporting requirements—to ensure the efficacy of the plastics treaty.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law examines how the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) could allow Canadian mining companies to challenge Greek mining regulations. It argues that CETA's 'domestic regulatory disciplines'—which require licensing processes to be objective, transparent, and simple—conflict with the discretionary and evolving nature of Greek environmental and technical mining laws.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada undermines the ability of EU Member States to regulate pesticides. It contends that CETA's focus on regulatory harmonization, its requirement for scientific evidence over the precautionary principle, and its dispute resolution mechanisms create financial and procedural barriers that discourage Member States from enacting protective health and environmental measures.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law examines how the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) may undermine the ability of EU Member States to regulate industrial pollution, specifically within the chemical manufacturing sector, by allowing companies to challenge subjective or evolving licensing requirements before international arbitration tribunals.

This fact sheet by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes key arguments presented by States during the first week (December 2-6) of climate justice hearings at the International Court of Justice. It contrasts the positions of major polluting States against those of climate-vulnerable nations regarding the applicability of international law, human rights, transboundary harm, and reparations in the context of the climate crisis.

This research paper by the Center for International Environmental Law provides a comparative analysis of timber legality frameworks in five major importing markets: the United States, the European Union, Australia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. It examines the scope, actor obligations, definitions of illegal timber, and enforcement mechanisms of these laws to identify effective legislative options for combating illegal logging and deforestation.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes the design of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, drawing on a case study of Joint Implementation (JI) forest projects in Costa Rica. It evaluates the technical challenges of quantifying carbon sequestration—such as baselines, leakage, and durability—and argues that the CDM must integrate strict legal and institutional safeguards to ensure that forest projects provide genuine climate benefits without undermining biodiversity or the rights of local and indigenous communities.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law provides recommendations for the compliance system of the Kyoto Protocol, focusing on the distinct roles of the facilitative and enforcement branches, the necessity of public transparency, and the application of consequences for non-compliance.

This research paper, authored by David Hunter, Julia Sommer, and Scott Vaughan, provides an introduction to the basic concepts and principles of international environmental law. It aims to assist policymakers in reconciling environmental protection with trade liberalization by detailing the legal frameworks surrounding sustainable development, the duty to cooperate, the duty to avoid environmental harm, and the duty to compensate for such harm.

This guide by the Center for International Environmental Law provides negotiators and allies with a framework for leveraging a July 23, 2025, International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion (AO) during COP30. The document outlines the ICJ's findings that climate action is a legal duty and provides specific strategies for applying these legal obligations to COP30 agenda items, including finance, mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage.

This report provides recommendations for integrating human rights, social, and environmental principles into the implementation modalities of the Paris Agreement. It argues that climate action must be combined with existing international obligations to ensure a just transition, protect vulnerable populations, and maintain ecosystem integrity.

This briefing note, produced by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) in collaboration with the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) and Inclusiva, examines the intersection of disability rights and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It provides a reference guide for governments and stakeholders, compiling relevant international legal frameworks and specific UNFCCC decisions to ensure that persons with disabilities are included in climate mitigation, adaptation, and disaster risk reduction efforts.

This briefing analyzes the legal arguments and international law frameworks relevant to the WTO dispute 'EC – Biotech', specifically focusing on the definition of risk assessments (RA) under the SPS Agreement and the potential influence of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

This research paper, prepared by Matthew Stilwell for the Center for International Environmental Law and published by the World Wide Fund for Nature in October 1999, proposes the use of the Expert Panel on Trade and Sustainable Development (EPTSD) Framework to reconcile conflicts between international trade, environment, and development policies. Using the WTO Shrimp-Turtle dispute and the potential US-EU GMO labelling conflict as case studies, the paper argues that formal WTO dispute settlement is often too adversarial to resolve underlying environmental and development issues. It advocates for a staged process of dispute prevention—moving from international cooperation and consultation to third-party assisted mediation before resorting to binding arbitration—to promote policy coherence and sustainable development.

This report, prepared by Greenpeace and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) as part of the ETO Consortium, examines the application of the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations (ETOs) to ecological destruction and climate change. It argues that states must be held accountable for human rights violations occurring outside their borders resulting from their own actions, omissions, or failure to regulate non-state actors, such as transnational corporations.

This open letter, published by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), is addressed to the participants of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia. It features a collection of statements from legal experts, academics, and policy advisors who argue that phasing out fossil fuels is a binding legal obligation under international law, rather than a matter of political discretion. The document emphasizes that current approvals for new fossil fuel projects and the continued use of subsidies violate international legal duties to prevent climate harm and protect human rights.

An open letter signed by 252 legal experts, academics, and professionals addressed to the participants of the First Conference for the Transition Beyond Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia. The document asserts that states have binding international legal obligations to phase out fossil fuels to prevent significant climate damage and protect human rights.

This amicus curiae brief, submitted by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), supports petitioners Miguel Ignacio Fredes González and Andrea Tuczek Fries in their claim against Chile. The document argues that the Chilean government violated the right to access information by providing incomplete data regarding the location and nature of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) released into the environment. CIEL provides technical details on the scientific uncertainty and risks associated with GMOs and analyzes international legal frameworks—including the Cartagena Protocol and the Aarhus Convention—to assert that transparency and public participation are essential for managing biosafety risks.

This research paper analyzes the legal and policy frictions between international trade agreements, primarily the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and environmental protections. It examines how GATT principles—such as Most-Favored-Nation and National Treatment—often conflict with environmental measures, including those found in multilateral agreements like the Montreal Protocol and CITES. The authors discuss the implications of the Uruguay Round negotiations and propose options for reconciling trade and environmental goals under the framework of sustainable development.

This research paper analyzes a 1991 General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) dispute resolution panel decision regarding a U.S. embargo on Mexican tuna. The panel found that the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) violated GATT by imposing quantitative restrictions on imports. The authors examine the legal conflict between international trade rules and environmental protections, arguing that the decision limits the ability of nations to enforce environmental standards on imported products unless those standards affect the physical makeup of the product or its sale.