Search Climate Insights Directory

The document provides a preliminary legal mapping of the procedural and substantive requirements for a delictual claim against Carbon Majors in South Africa. It examines jurisdictional hurdles, such as the need to attach assets for foreign defendants, and the potential for state immunity defenses for state-owned companies. Substantively, it analyzes the elements of delictual liability—wrongfulness, fault, and causation—suggesting that South African courts' flexible approach to factual causation and the use of attribution science could support such claims. It also discusses parent company liability and the possibility of holding a select group of joint wrongdoers severally liable for the full extent of damages.

The document assesses the legal validity of Uniper's claims of 'de facto expropriation' and violations of 'fair and equitable treatment' resulting from the Dutch coal phase-out law. It concludes that the law is a legitimate exercise of state regulatory powers to meet climate goals and that Uniper had no legitimate expectation of regulatory stability for coal investments.

The document argues that Belgium and the Netherlands are in breach of international law by exporting high sulfur fuels to West African states, specifically those party to the Bamako Convention. It concludes that these fuels qualify as hazardous wastes under the Bamako Convention and, by extension, under the Basel Convention for countries with monist legal systems. The report asserts that such exports violate the Basel Convention's prohibition on exporting hazardous wastes to parties that have banned their import, breach customary international law by frustrating the treaty's purpose, and violate extraterritorial human rights obligations regarding the right to health.

The document argues that WTO rules permit governments to use non-product related Process and Production Method (npr PPM) standards, such as social and environmental criteria, in government procurement. It clarifies that the TBT Agreement does not apply to government procurement, which is instead governed by the GPA for signatory countries. Under the GPA, technical specifications should be based on international standards where appropriate, and the term 'most advantageous' tender allows for the inclusion of non-economic advantages. The document also discusses the lack of a definitive WTO list of 'recognized bodies' for international standards, suggesting that recognition is established de facto through factors like ISO inclusion, government funding, and openness to participation by WTO members.

This legal opinion, authored by Paul Kennedy SC on 16 May 2012, addresses the legal implications of the Water Tribunal operating without a duly appointed chairperson following the resignation of the previous chairperson on 31 December 2011.

The document argues that because the OECD failed to reach a consensus on the Basel Convention's Plastic Waste Amendments, plastic wastes classified as "other wastes" (Annex II) fall outside the scope of the OECD Decision. Consequently, OECD members that are Parties to the Basel Convention must apply the Convention's control and prohibition mechanisms to these wastes. The analysis further concludes that separate agreements, specifically between the US and Canada and among EU member states, are invalid under Article 11 of the Basel Convention because they do not provide equivalent levels of environmental protection and control.

The document argues that the export of pesticides prohibited or not approved in Europe (EU, Switzerland, and the UK) to parties of the Bamako Convention in Africa and the Central American Agreement constitutes a violation of international law. It asserts that these substances are classified as hazardous waste under the national laws of importing countries and the terms of these regional agreements, thereby breaching the Basel Convention. Furthermore, the text claims that these exports violate international human rights obligations regarding the right to health. The analysis extends to other exporting nations like Canada, China, and Russia, concluding that all Basel Convention parties must immediately prohibit the export of such hazardous chemicals.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that end-of-life ships are hazardous waste and that the EU's Ship Recycling Regulation (SRR) illegally exempts EU-flagged vessels from the Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR). CIEL argues that listing ship recycling facilities in developing countries on the 'European List' or entering into Article 11 agreements to facilitate such exports violates the Basel Ban Amendment, which prohibits hazardous waste exports from Annex VII countries (including the EU) to non-Annex VII countries.