Search Climate Insights Directory

This amicus curiae brief, submitted by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and other organizations, argues that the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) should be interpreted under a "restrictive theory" of immunity. The brief contends that international organizations, such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC), should be immune from suits relating to governmental acts but not from those relating to commercial activities, aligning the IOIA with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

This policy brief by the Climate Policy Initiative analyzes the complexity and fragmentation of the National Rural Credit System (SNCR) in Brazil. It argues that the current system, based on a 1960s framework, creates artificial obstacles to credit access and inconsistent loan conditions based on geographic location, farm size, and revenue, rather than agricultural potential.

This submission by Fundación Pachamama and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) argues that the arbitration tribunal in the case of Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. Republic of Ecuador lacks jurisdiction and that the claims are non-justiciable. The Amici contend that Chevron is attempting to use an investor-State tribunal to interfere with and terminate an ongoing domestic civil law case (the Lago Agrio litigation) in Ecuador, which would violate the rights of private plaintiffs, including indigenous peoples, to a fair judicial process.

This case study examines the legal ruling in RICHTERSVELD COMMUNITY v ALEXKOR LTD & ANOTHER [2004], which establishes that the Land Claims Court of South Africa has the competence to order the repair of environmental damage or the payment of compensation for such damage as part of land restitution claims.

This document is a legal judgement from the High Court of South Africa (North Gauteng Local Division) regarding a case brought by the Libradene Residents Association against the Minister of Mineral Resources and others. The residents sought to stop mining activities in the Libradene area, arguing that the mining was unlawful, caused significant environmental and structural damage to their properties, and violated their constitutional rights to a healthy environment and property. The court examined the validity of mining rights granted under the Minerals Act of 1991 and the subsequent Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) of 2002, ultimately focusing on whether the mining operations complied with legal requirements and environmental regulations.