Search Climate Insights Directory

The Center for International Environmental Law, on behalf of La Mesa, requests amicus curiae status in the Pac Rim v. El Salvador case. They argue that the dispute is a political disagreement over sustainable development and public policy rather than a legal dispute over a specific government measure. The document highlights severe environmental risks associated with the proposed El Dorado mine, including threats to the Rio Lempa basin and local aquifers, and alleges that Pac Rim's activities have contributed to community violence and the murder of environmental defenders. Legally, the amici contend that Pac Rim's last-minute corporate reorganization to gain CAFTA benefits is an abuse of process and that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction under the ICSID Convention and CAFTA.

The document is a request and supporting brief from a coalition of Salvadoran civil society organizations (La Mesa) seeking to intervene in the Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador arbitration. The authors argue that the claim is an abuse of process and that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the conflict is fundamentally a political debate about metal mining and sustainable development, not a legal dispute over a specific government measure. They highlight severe environmental risks associated with the El Dorado mine, including threats to the Lempa River basin and local aquifers, and document a pattern of violence and intimidation against anti-mining activists in El Salvador.

The Water Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the Escarpment Environmental Protection Group and the Langkloof Environmental Committee against a water use licence issued to WERM Mining (Pty) Ltd. The Tribunal ruled that the appellants lacked locus standi because the National Water Act 36 of 1998 limits the right of appeal to specific persons, and no right of appeal arises for objectors if no notice was published in the media as required by section 41(4) of the Act. The Tribunal further determined that the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 did not extend the right to internal appeal in this statutory context.

The Amici (Fundación Pachamama and IISD) argue that the tribunal should dismiss Chevron's arbitration claims because they seek to interfere in a domestic civil case in Ecuador to which the State is not a party. They contend that the tribunal cannot act as a supervisory or appellate court over ongoing domestic proceedings, especially since Chevron previously agreed to the jurisdiction of Ecuadorian courts to avoid U.S. litigation. Furthermore, they argue that granting the requested relief would violate the international human rights of the indigenous plaintiffs in the Lago Agrio case by denying them access to justice and a fair judicial process.

The petition argues that the arbitration between Biwater Gauf Tanzania Limited and Tanzania transcends a private commercial dispute because it concerns the privatization of water services, which is directly linked to basic human rights and the UN Millennium Declaration goal of increasing access to safe drinking water. The author contends that the public nature of the dispute and its potential as a model for poverty alleviation in Africa necessitate a transparent process that permits citizen participation.

The brief supports Brazil's ban on retreaded tyres, arguing that the WTO Panel correctly identified the health and environmental risks of tyre waste, specifically the propagation of diseases like malaria and dengue fever. It contends that the Panel properly applied a life-cycle approach to environmental policy and that the level of protection chosen by a Member state is its own prerogative. The authors argue against the requirement for precise quantification of risk reduction, suggesting that qualitative evidence and the precautionary principle are sufficient for justifying environmental measures under Article XX(b).

The document is a formal cover letter dated April 4, 2007, accompanying an amicus curiae brief submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) by a coalition of organizations including the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS). The brief concerns the legal dispute between the Argentine Republic and water companies Suez and Vivendi Universal, specifically highlighting the public interest involved in the provision of essential drinking water and sanitation services.

The brief contends that Argentina's decision to freeze water tariffs during its 2001 economic crisis was a necessary action to ensure the human right to water, which is protected under various international treaties and the Argentine Constitution. It argues that human rights law should inform the adjudication of the dispute, specifically regarding 'fair and equitable treatment' and 'indirect expropriation' standards in BITs. The authors assert that investors cannot legitimately expect a state to disregard its human rights obligations, and that measures taken to protect public health fall under the 'police powers' of the state, thus precluding them from being classified as compensable expropriations.

The document argues that Argentina's 2001 emergency measures to freeze water tariffs during a severe economic crisis were consistent with its international human rights obligations to ensure access to water. It contends that human rights law should inform the interpretation of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), specifically regarding 'fair and equitable treatment' and 'indirect expropriation'. The brief asserts that the right to water is a prerequisite for the right to life and health, and that state police powers to protect public health justify regulatory changes that may affect investor profits without requiring compensation.

The submission by several legal and environmental organizations argues that Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited failed in its duties as an investor during the privatization of water services in Dar es Salaam. The Amici contend that the investor's failure to conduct proper due diligence and its poor operational performance led to the investment's failure, rather than government action. They further suggest the investor may have used a 'renegotiation strategy'—bidding low to win the contract with the intent to force more favorable terms later. The document asserts that because water is a basic human right and essential for sustainable development, investors in this sector must be held to the highest standards of responsibility, and that the Tanzanian government was justified in terminating the contract to protect these rights.

The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the former directors of Stilfontein Gold Mining Company (SGM) could not be held in contempt of court because the directives issued by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry were too vague to be implemented. The court found the directives lacked clarity on the apportionment of costs, payment recipients, and deadlines. The commentary criticizes this judgment for ignoring the environmental risks of SGM's failure to pump and treat underground water, which creates conditions for acid mine drainage, and for failing to hold directors accountable despite their mass resignation prior to contempt proceedings.

The petition argues that the arbitration between Aguas Argentinas S.A. and the Republic of Argentina involves essential public services and fundamental human rights, necessitating a transparent process. The applicants contend that neither the ICSID Convention nor the Argentina-France BIT prohibits public access and that Argentine law and international trends support the participation of non-disputing parties.

In a joint submission to the tribunal in the Methanex v. United States arbitration, several amici argue that legitimate environmental regulations, similar to public health measures, fall under the 'police powers' rule and are therefore non-expropriatory. They contend that international law has evolved to recognize environmental protection as a legitimate state function that does not require compensation for resulting economic losses, provided the measures are non-discriminatory.

The briefing argues that the draft documents for the Doha Ministerial Conference miss the opportunity to harmonize WTO rules with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It specifically criticizes the draft's failure to establish new mandates for negotiating amendments to the TRIPS Agreement, the dilution of the review of Article 27.3b, and the limited advisory authority granted to the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE). The authors contend that the current texts prioritize neutral language to avoid new negotiations, thereby undermining the interests of developing countries regarding sovereign rights over genetic resources, benefit sharing, and the protection of traditional knowledge.

The document provides a legal and scientific defense of U.S. Section 609 measures, which prohibit shrimp imports from nations that do not require the use of turtle excluder devices (TEDs). It asserts that TEDs are the only effective means of preventing the extinction of endangered sea turtles caused by mechanized shrimp trawling. The brief argues that these measures are justified under GATT Article XX(g) as they relate to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources and are consistent with international obligations under CITES, UNCLOS, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. It further contends that the measures do not constitute arbitrary discrimination or disguised restrictions on trade, and advocates for the acceptance of amicus briefs in WTO disputes to ensure public participation in sustainable development.

The document analyzes the case of Lascon Properties (Pty) Ltd v Wadeville Investment Co (Pty) Ltd & Another, where the court determined that the duty to render water containing harmful matter innocuous under Regulation 5.9.2 of the Mines and Works Act 27 of 1956 involves strict liability. The court ruled that a breach of this statutory duty allows for a claim for compensation independently of the Aquilian action, meaning the plaintiff did not need to prove fault (negligence or intention) to recover damages for property affected by acidic mine water.

The document contends that the EPA lacks the legal authority under sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act to implement nationwide emission trading for hazardous air pollutants. It argues that these sections mandate uniform, source-specific performance standards rather than a tradeable allowance system. The author further claims that the EPA's approach is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to adequately address the risk of localized mercury 'hotspots' and includes flawed program elements, such as a 'safety valve' provision and exemptions for small emitters, which could delay the installation of pollution controls and maintain high emission levels.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) provides detailed comments on the proposed National Water Amendment Bill, focusing on the protection of water source areas, the integration of climate change resilience, and the strengthening of public participation and enforcement mechanisms in water licensing.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) provides comments on the draft Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining (ASM) Policy 2021, arguing that ASM operators should be held to the same environmental, water, and health and safety standards as large-scale miners to prevent poverty and inequality caused by environmental degradation.

The document details the case of State v Venter & Others, marking the first time criminal provisions of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), the National Water Act (NWA), and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) have been invoked against a mining company. The prosecution involves allegations of improper borehole drilling near the Usutu River and wetlands, failure to rehabilitate sites, and fraud regarding misrepresentations made in an environmental management plan (EMP).