Search Climate Insights Directory

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.

The research paper argues that the effectiveness of international fisheries management depends on the support and input of non-governmental stakeholders. It analyzes the 'three pillars' of public participation—access to information, access to decision-making, and access to justice—as established by the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, and the Aarhus Convention. The author compares the participatory practices of Rio-era conventions (Climate Change, Biological Diversity, and Desertification) with those of various RFMOs, such as the WCPOFC, NAFO, and ICCAT. The document concludes that broad NGO participation enhances decision-making quality and legitimacy, and recommends that RFMOs adopt open-access policies for meetings and documents to ensure sustainable resource management.

The document outlines seven ways the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could negatively impact chemical regulation, specifically warning that it may lead to 'harmonization “downward,”' slowing the implementation of protective EU laws, and eroding the regulatory authority of EU Member States. It highlights risks such as reduced transparency regarding hazardous chemicals, the potential for foreign investors to sue governments over public health laws via secretive arbitration panels, and the possible increase in fracking due to the undermining of precautionary moratoria. Finally, it asserts that TTIP could slow global progress on managing international chemical risks, particularly in relation to Asian trading partners.

The document outlines seven reasons why the Transatlantic Investment and Partnership Agreement (TTIP/TAFTA) could undermine EU chemical safety regulations, potentially leading to a 'race to the bottom' in environmental and health standards. It warns that the agreement could hinder the adoption of stricter national laws, limit access to information on hazardous substances, and allow foreign investors to sue governments over public health regulations through secret arbitration panels, similar to mechanisms used in NAFTA.

The document outlines seven ways the TTIP (or TAFTA) could negatively impact the regulation of toxic chemicals, specifically warning that the drive for regulatory harmonization may lead to a 'race to the bottom' that favors industry over public health. It highlights risks such as the erosion of EU member states' authority, the potential for secret arbitration panels to penalize environmental laws, and the possible promotion of fracking through investor-state dispute mechanisms similar to those in NAFTA.

The document argues that ISDS is an asymmetrical system that often undermines state sovereignty and public interest. It suggests reforms including the multilateral termination of bilateral investment treaties (BITs), allowing state counterclaims, creating 'public interest carve-outs' to protect the right to regulate, implementing 'clean hands' clauses to bar bad-actor investors, requiring the exhaustion of local remedies, and granting third parties full legal standing in proceedings.

The document provides a detailed breakdown of how WTO documents are restricted or derestricted, categorizing them into automatic, scheduled, and unscheduled processes. It argues that the current system allows members to keep politically sensitive documents secret indefinitely and ensures that information is only released after policy decisions are finalized. The authors recommend a shift toward a presumption of immediate public availability, except for proprietary or national security information, and propose a formal agreement to grant NGOs and individuals the right to participate in WTO meetings and dispute settlement procedures.

The document examines the negative impacts of ISDS on environmental and climate policy, noting that at least 175 cases are tied to environmental measures. It argues that the threat of arbitration disincentivizes states from enacting climate laws and that current treaty reforms are insufficient, suggesting that treaty termination and a shift toward domestic courts are the most effective solutions.

The document analyzes different national implementation mechanisms for multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) to provide recommendations for the negotiations of a plastics treaty. It distinguishes between National Action Plans (NAPs), which are typically broad and voluntary strategic documents, and National Implementation Plans (NIPs), which are precise, legally binding road maps for meeting treaty obligations. The authors argue that NAPs often suffer from a "lack of performance" and "insufficient ambition," whereas NIPs are more effective at identifying gaps and mobilizing resources. The brief specifically warns against adopting the NDC model used in the Paris Agreement, stating that unilaterally determined targets are "woefully inadequate" and should not be used for the plastics treaty. Instead, it recommends a hybrid approach combining NIP and NAP characteristics, supported by clear language, effective monitoring, and technical and financial assistance, particularly for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

The report argues that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) lacks substantive new environmental obligations and relies on enforcement mechanisms that have historically proven ineffective in other U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs). It highlights the absence of a reference to climate change and the elimination of independent oversight bodies, such as a Secretariat. Furthermore, the document identifies Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) as a significant threat, noting its potential to 'chill' environmental regulation and allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws.

The UNEP Compendium documents the intersection of human rights and environmental law through a curated selection of global and regional instruments and judicial decisions. It analyzes how substantive rights (such as the rights to life, health, and property) and procedural rights (access to information, public participation, and access to justice) are used to address environmental degradation. The document highlights the 'greening' of human rights law, where tribunals increasingly interpret existing rights to encompass environmental protections, particularly for indigenous peoples and marginalized groups. It also details state obligations regarding industrial pollution and natural resource extraction, emphasizing duties of prevention, regulation, and the requirement for free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for indigenous communities.

The document synthesises a Commission Report and an external study on the EU's implementation of the Aarhus Convention. It identifies significant barriers for environmental NGOs seeking to challenge EU acts, particularly the restriction of internal reviews to acts of 'individual scope'. The analysis concludes that non-legislative guidance is insufficient and that only legislative options—specifically amending the Aarhus Regulation and introducing an Access to Justice Directive—can effectively remedy these shortcomings and ensure compliance with the Convention.

The analysis finds that the NAPCP provides a more robust legal framework for meeting emission reduction commitments than the EIP, offering higher transparency, stricter review mechanisms, and mandatory public consultation.

The document argues that clause 37(8) of the Environment Bill would severely undermine the efficacy of the environmental review process by imposing a mandatory restriction on the High Court's ability to grant remedies, even in cases of serious environmental law breaches.

The document discusses a legal challenge by ClientEarth and the Marine Conservation Society regarding the 2019 EU Exit Regulations. It highlights a High Court ruling that new powers to 'adapt' the national site network and requirements for 'proportionate' conservation status must not be used to undermine the Habitats Directive or water down environmental protections. It also addresses new wording regarding 'distinct' areas for aquatic species, asserting it should not be used to delay site designations.

ClientEarth is an environmental charity that employs legal expertise to enforce environmental laws and shape new policies. Its five-year strategy focuses on accelerating the transition to a net zero carbon economy by pressuring governments and companies to uphold the Paris Agreement, eliminating coal power in Europe by 2030, and reducing illegal air pollution. The organization also targets the protection of oceans, forests, and wildlife, specifically focusing on sustainable fishing quotas in the EU by 2020 and securing community forest rights in Central and West Africa. Additionally, ClientEarth works to expand access to justice and modernize environmental governance in China.

The LIFE-A2J-EARL project focused on reducing the 'implementation deficit' of EU environmental law, which is estimated to cost approximately €50 billion annually. To address this, the project provided training, legal toolkits, and a comprehensive guide on access to justice to judiciary members, public authorities, and NGOs across nine EU countries. Key outputs included the development of national toolkits for eight countries and a 'Guide on Access to Justice in European Union Law'. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the project exceeded its training targets, reaching 2,090 participants through workshops, training sessions, and webinars, and attracting 285 attendees to a virtual international conference. The project's digital outreach included 163 website articles and a newsletter with over 700 subscribers. Socio-economic impacts identified include increased knowledge of the Aarhus Convention, enhanced cooperation between stakeholders, and the empowerment of NGOs to challenge decisions breaching environmental legislation.

ClientEarth calls for a systemic legal shift in the EU to prioritize planetary boundaries, proposing the appointment of a Vice-President for People and the Environment and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. The document advocates for binding sustainability requirements in trade, a transition to 'energy sufficiency', and the adoption of a Sustainable Food System legislative framework to address gaps in the European Green Deal.

The paper examines the history and current state of EU environmental governance, detailing the roles of the Commission, Parliament, Council, and Court of Justice. It highlights a systemic failure in the enforcement of environmental law by Member States and the Commission, noting that economic interests frequently override environmental concerns. The author argues that the EU's 'good governance' principles of openness and participation are poorly implemented, leaving environmental NGOs with limited influence and citizens with minimal access to justice. While the EU has a comprehensive body of legislation, the author concludes that the lack of political will makes much of it a 'paper tiger'.

ClientEarth calls for the European Union to strengthen the rule of law and governance to address climate, biodiversity, and pollution crises. The organization advocates for the creation of a European Commission Vice-President for People and the Environment to oversee the European Green Deal's implementation and urges the EU to end public financial support for harmful activities, specifically fossil fuels and energy-intensive industries. The manifesto emphasizes the need for increased enforcement capacity at both EU and national levels and the strengthening of environmental democracy to ensure public participation and access to justice.