Search Climate Insights Directory

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should apply the full spectrum of international law—including human rights, the law of the sea, and customary law—to determine State obligations regarding climate change. It counters arguments from 'big polluters' who claim that the UN climate regime (UNFCCC and Paris Agreement) is the sole relevant legal framework and that its obligations are merely procedural. The document asserts that States have longstanding duties to prevent transboundary environmental harm and protect human rights, which necessitates a phase-out of fossil fuels and the provision of reparations for climate-related injuries.

This briefing, produced by the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC) and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), compiles the decisions and conclusions of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that reference Indigenous Peoples and traditional knowledge. It serves as a reference tool to remind State Parties of their commitments to respect Indigenous rights and integrate traditional knowledge into climate mitigation and adaptation policies.

This executive summary by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that stricter regulations on hazardous chemicals stimulate innovation and the commercialization of safer alternatives. While noting the risk of 'regrettable substitution,' the document provides six policy recommendations to ensure that chemical innovation leads to a healthier market.

A statement by civil society organizations expressing disappointment with the World Bank Group Board of Directors' October 31, 2018, decision regarding the Inspection Panel's Toolkit, arguing that the approved reforms are insufficient to modernize the accountability mechanism.

This policy brief advocates for the creation of an international fund and a no-fault insurance fund, financed by user fees, to help countries manage invasive alien species. It emphasizes the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development as a critical juncture for transitioning from policy development to implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, citing high economic costs of invasive species in Australia, Africa, and the United States as justification for action.

The Center for International Environmental Law and other organizations argue against launching multilateral investment negotiations at the WTO. They contend that such an agreement would restrict the policy space of developing countries, be driven by the interests of industrialized nations, and utilize an inappropriate dispute settlement mechanism that favors investors over sustainable development and public health.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law examines how modern investment treaties and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms can undermine environmental regulations and public health protections by allowing foreign investors to sue host states for 'indirect expropriation'.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the impact of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on sustainable development, specifically critiquing the draft Chapter on IPRs within the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The author argues that the FTAA proposes "TRIPS-plus" standards that exceed multilateral requirements, potentially hindering public health, food security, and technological development in developing countries by restricting regulatory flexibility and expanding private patent rights.

This research paper by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) chapter of the draft Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement. The author argues that the draft represents a 'TRIPS-plus' approach that increases protection levels beyond the WTO's TRIPS Agreement, thereby reducing the regulatory flexibility of developing countries to address public health, food security, and sustainable development.

This briefing by the IPEN Nanotechnology Working Group highlights the widespread commercial use of nanoparticles despite significant uncertainties regarding their health and environmental toxicity. It notes a critical lack of mandatory labelling, inadequate safety assessments, and a lag in nanosafety research. The document warns that nanotechnology could intensify global socio-economic inequities and calls on governments and industry to adopt the precautionary principle, ensure the 'right to know' for workers and consumers, and establish a transparent global governance framework.

A statement from the Alliance for Responsible Trade (ART) expressing concerns regarding intellectual property rights (IPR) within the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), specifically regarding access to essential medicines and sustainable development.

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy critiques the draft IPR chapter of the FTAA, noting that it fails to prohibit patents on life and includes proposals that tighten TRIPs standards. The statement highlights the removal of language regarding technology transfer and transparency, and notes the US push for UPOV implementation for plant patents.

This policy brief examines the conflict between international intellectual property (IP) rights and the protection of traditional knowledge and biological resources. It argues that the TRIPS Agreement fails to recognize traditional knowledge, contrasting it with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and advocates for the amendment of IP agreements to require disclosure of origin and benefit-sharing.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms act as a major legal and financial barrier to climate action. It contends that ISDS allows fossil fuel investors to sue governments for implementing climate regulations, creating a "chilling effect" that deters states from phasing out fossil fuels and aligning financial flows with the Paris Agreement.

This research paper by the Center for International Environmental Law and the International Rivers Network analyzes the establishment of the World Bank's Inspection Panel on September 21, 1993. The authors evaluate whether this new mechanism for citizens and NGOs to request investigations into Bank-funded projects truly increases accountability, highlighting concerns regarding the panel's independence from Bank leadership and its lack of public transparency.

An office memorandum dated July 24, 2001, from Ian Johnson, Vice President of ESSI, to Pieter Stek, Chairman of the Committee on Development Effectiveness (CODE), requesting endorsement to forward a revised draft of Operational Policy/Bank Procedure (OP/BP) 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement to the Board of Executive Directors.

This research paper critiques a utilitarian (Millsian) approach to the intersection of international trade and environmental protection, arguing instead for a Kantian framework. The author contends that environmental imperatives—such as species preservation—are categorical duties that should not be balanced against economic benefits. The paper proposes a model of "competitive sustainability" to harmonize environmental standards upward through market incentives and trade rule reforms.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law critiques the February 2023 draft Approach to Remedial Action and Responsible Exit Principles released by the IFC and MIGA. The document argues that these drafts fail to guarantee remedy for communities harmed by projects and do not meet international human rights law standards.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the investment provisions of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korea FTA) grant foreign investors substantive rights exceeding those of U.S. investors, thereby violating the Trade Act of 2002. The author contends that new tests for indirect expropriation and the expansion of arbitral jurisdiction over contract rights threaten the ability of governments to regulate for public health, safety, and the environment.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes the European Commission's October 2020 "Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability." It evaluates the strategy's potential to create a "toxic-free environment" and provides recommendations for the EU to lead global chemical management by strengthening international standards and eliminating the "double standard" of exporting hazardous substances banned within the EU.